DISQUS

Agreed. Very good points.

But, the main reason that I used Boxee/Hulu was that it was FREE. If you start requiring fees to use the "premium TV service" you are again paying for another service sorta like cable who you dumped for Boxee/Hulu.

It is very easy to see why this has happened. Hulu was enjoying the people who would watch the shows from their computer (read: limited numbers) and the revenue that came from them. Scenario = Win/Win.

When people started chucking out their cable TV service for Boxee/Hulu/AppleTV, the establishment said NO WAY! The infrastructure for cable TV are already in place. The associated costs/fees that came with said service are a cash cow for the (insert your provider's name here). I'm more interested in seeing the whole story ie how the cable/satellite service providers interests are being effected as well as Apple's since their media store, iTunes, is being not used.

Up until this announcement, I was accessing Boxee and Hulu through an AppleTV. Bummer.

Funny, but I thought this was a "BS-Free Zone". Nowhere in the headline or the full text of the ACLU release does it say that "abstinence is harmful" as you claim. You took their headline, dismantled an adjective ("Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage"), eliminated the subject ("Curriculum"), then made a component of the adjective ("Abstinence") the new subject. That's a major no-no, and I'm calling BS on this one.

Next, please remember that we liberals really, really like science, and we fully understand reproductive health. We don't need to be reminded that abstinence is the best method for avoiding unwanted pregnancies and STDs. That's not the issue here. The issue is that teaching ONLY abstinence is dangerous in that it doesn't teach teens that there are methods to safely engage in sex. Asking teens not to have sex is like asking kittens not to be cute. Not gonna happen. And contrary to what you claim, having sex is not akin to shoplifting. Now do I believe that teaching abstinence should be part of sex education? Of course! And I bet the ACLU does, too. However, it should be part of a comprehensive curriculum that covers the many aspects of sex.

Whoa. What does homosexuality have to do with this? Please explain.

Your numbers re: hormonal birth control are off. According to the FDA, hormonal birth control has a failure rate of 1-2%, not 8%. In practice, this number goes up to 5% as a result of missed does, etc., but this is hardly the drug's fault. Additionally, the FDA says that, administered correctly, the pill can be up to 99.9% effective. Please visit www.fda.gov if you'd like to read more about this.

None of us liberals ever said that condoms or the pill are perfectly infallible. But they're a hell of a lot more effective if used properly, so doesn't it make sense to teach teens how to properly use them? (Remember the kitten analogy before you respond.)

Next order of business: abortion safety. Abortion as performed by a licensed physician is among the safest surgical procedures there is. According to the CDC, only 1% of abortions result in infection (common to all surgeries), and 0.6 deaths occur per 100,000 abortions, which happens to be lower than the maternal fatality rate associated with live birth (9.8 per 100,000). As for the abortion-breast cancer link, the National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov), issued a report by a band of breast cancer experts that says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Post-abortion depression, yeah, I'll buy that, but what doesn't cause depression these days (Read: PPD)?

And a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a fetus, and it doesn't enjoy Constitutional protection - this according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a little more authority than you.

In sum, you misread the entire ACLU statement, and my facts come from the FDA, the CDC, the NCI, and the Supreme Court? Where did you get yours?

Jim, I think you read too far into my comments. First, I fail to see how my comments constitute liberal ranting, since all I'm doing is dismissing ALL cable news networks regardless of their political leanings.

Next, I didn't call you or anyone else a "poor cracker," nor did I suggest that I am smarter or more informed that you. What I did was allude to a couple of studies that demonstrated that NPR listeners and "Daily Show" viewers have fewer misperceptions regarding matters of politics and government than viewers of cable news. Personally, I don't listen to NPR any more than I watch FOX News. I said I like newspapers. While we're on the subject of NPR, you might find it interesting to know that last December, their ombudsman had to defend NPR against accusations that the network had a conservative bias. But in the same piece, he cited statistics that NPR actually draws more of its guests from conservative think tanks (61%) than liberal think tanks (38%)!

It really is interesting that the working class overwhelmingly supports the GOP these days considering the economic policies of the two major parties. There's a wonderful book by Thomas Frank called "What's the Matter with Kansas" that discusses the topic in great depth.

Yes, FOX is the most egregious. Yes, I have watched the other hosts you mentioned, though I'm by no means a regular viewer, and I could care less about their ratings. Of course Matthews, Olbermann, et al. engage in this crap, too, but, considering the networks themselves, I'd say it happens much more on FOX. But the real point is that ALL cable news networks are pretty much worthless when it comes to political discourse. (Remember when Jon Stewart (I'll borrow your word here) schooled Paul and Tucker on "Crossfire"?. That pretty much sums it up.) Is it any wonder that the most educated and informed gravitate to NPR and "The Daily Show"?

While I'm here, let me thank you for labeling and then dismissing me as "a VERY typical liberal" in one fell swoop. It'll save us both a lot of time as we engage in our debate if we just pigeonhole each other as "typical conservative" and "typical liberal".

But I'm curious as to why you assume that I rely on people to form my opinions. If by that you mean that I rely on people (ya know, journalists) to provide me with information which I may then use to formulate opinions, then color me guilty. I personally like newspapers, even though they lack the flashy "War on Terror" logos, American flag graphics, and terror alert level tickers. I'm by no means offended by cable news networks. If anything they sadden me.

Now, see, what you've done here is demonstrate exactly why I loathe the cable news networks so much. The issue at hand on these "debate" shows is never of much importance; it's all about oneupsmanship and outpissing one's opponent. The fact that you use such language as "schooled" and "smackdown" only reinforces my point. And FOX News is definitely the most egregious offender, especially considering their poster boy invented/popularized such programming. Sure, as entertainment these shows are great, but those who rely on them for their news and opinions are being robbed of their time and dignity.