Last Stand: Newspapers, Paywalls and George Orwell

Last year saw many in the beleaguered newspaper industry finally committing to restrict general online access to both their current editions to their archives behind so-called paywalls. 
 Even after years of declining revenues, there were plenty of concerns about the whole idea. From now on, if anybody wishes to read news content of these newspapers will have to become a subscriber. That includes not merely current news but the archives as well.

But can paywalls really save the print media or will it just squeeze the last drop of advertising dollar from another dying industry? Although the jury is still out on that, a more critical question might be: How will the paywall business model change journalism, or the freedom of information? What are the long term consequences for democracy when essential information is available only to people who can afford to view it?

Iraq Invasion: What it Feels like to be Ahead of Your Time

This is what it feels like to be a decade ahead of your time. 

Look at that crowd; all those smug looks, smirking at the loudmouth fat guy. Listen to all that booing. Wasn't Hollywood supposed to the bastion of bleeding heart liberals?

The real question is: how many of us could have stood there on that stage and said the same things at that time? Keep in mind, Michael Moore was receiving death threats for voicing his opinions on the war. Wouldn't it have been easier and safer to remain silent?

Ironic Warnings from Pat Robertson and Donald Trump

by Nomad

To have a sense of irony it requires the ability to reflect, to understand that not everything is as it seems or as we expected them to be. It also requires us to see things from another's person's eyes. In that respect, I suppose irony is one of the more intellectual forms of humor. (As opposed to, say, a cream pie in the face or seltzer water sprayed down your pants.)

One of the most remarkable things about the conservatives of the Republican party is their stunning lack of ironic sense. It's like they can't actually hear what they are saying. It doesn't register. 
For instance, when Speaker of the House, John Boehner said days after the president's reelection that Obama needed to stop this "nonsense" of acting like he won the election, the irony was completely lost on him. 

When Sarah Palin said:

“Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words.”

It was clear that the ironic humor of her remark went right over her head. (But then what doesn't?)

Perhaps the problem of this lack of ironic sense lies in the fact that so many of these people are only half as smart as they think they are. They think that whatever they say will never be critically considered or questioned. It is also clear that they do not think that most people cannot remember what was said before last week, (That's why they hate the Internet, I assume. It keeps records.) Knowing the reality is, of course, what makes things ironic.

Sadly too often, these politicians have been proven correct in thinking people will accept whatever they say without muttering to themselves. "Say what?" It often seems as though, if something is said with enough conviction, in a serious setting, with a lot of familiar faces nodding and applauding, these conservative voters will believe just about anything, no matter how ironic, or hypocritical or stupid it may be.  

(However, Romney, very early on in one of his less scripted moments came face to face with a snorting guffawing crowd in Iowa when he tried to tell them that corporation were people.)

Whatever the reason for it, irony abounds when it comes to the conservatives. Here are some two examples of what I am referring to, one comes from Pat Robertson and the other from none other than Donald Trump.  

Failed GOP Solutions: Is Marriage Really the Answer to Poverty in Oklahoma? 2/2

by Nomad

In PART ONE of this two-part series, we investigated a bit of curious legislation in Oklahoma. The House Speaker there decided to that that federal funds which were supposed to be used to find employment for needy families, should instead be used for statewide public service announcements promoting marriage as a solution to poverty. The idea, highly supported by organizations like The Heritage Foundation and the Christian Right, has been used in many other Red States.

The Heritage Foundation promotes marriage
as a solution to poverty in ads like these. 

The Practicalities of Marriage

When it comes to the Marriage Initiative as a way of reducing poverty, what so wrong about it? 
First of all, it hasn’t worked.

Despite the more than a decade of the Marriage Initiative efforts in Oklahoma, the single-parent problem is not going away. 

According to the latest US Census Bureau, about 28 percent of Oklahoma's families are led by a single parent, with that figure increasing to more than 40 percent in some rural counties. In some counties, the number has climbed to around 45.5 percent of all  households. 

Unlike many states where poverty is a feature of urban life, in many states like Oklahoma, poverty is a way of life in the more rural zones. (That's just like any third world country, as a matter of fact.)

So what can account for the rise of single parent households in the state? 

For one thing, divorce is much more of a problem than unwed mothers. As NBCNews reported in 2011,

Oklahoma has extraordinarily high rates of divorce among both men and women compared to the rest of the country. According to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, 32 percent of Oklahoma adults who have ever been married have been divorced. The association lists financial troubles as one of the leading causes of divorce in the state.

The sponsors of the Marriage Initiative don't like to talk about divorce. for very obvious reasons. The truth about divorce and its causes refuses to fit into framework of their marriage agenda.

In any case, let's ignore the divorce rate and just concentrate on marriage as a solution to poverty. Even then, their logic doesn't hold up against reality.

Failed GOP Solutions: Is Marriage Really the Right Answer to Poverty in Oklahoma? 1/2

by Nomad

In another example of failed Republican logic, one Oklahoma congressman thinks he might have solved the problem of poverty. Draft legislation, HB1908, authored by House Speaker T.W. Shannon, will set aside funding from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program for statewide public service announcements. 

The message?

Marriage is the best tool to fight poverty. Get married, stayed marriage and you won’t be poor.

The government program, TANF, (from which funding the public service ads would be drawn), is a federal-assistance program aimed at reforming past welfare programs. This Clinton era legislation was supposed to replace welfare payments with creating of employment opportunities. 

Importantly TANF allowed states greater discretion on how the federal dollars were to be spent. And the faith-based idea of encouraging people to marry is one major way Oklahoma decided to use the funding. In fact, Oklahoma is one of only two states that uses less than 10 percent of their grant for basic cash assistance. (In any case, the average TANF benefit is a mere $205 a month, hardly a sustainable income even considering Oklahoma’s relatively low cost of living.) 

Instead, the focus has been more on reducing out-of-wedlock births and increasing the rates and stability of marriages. That direction undoubtedly pleased the highly-active, highly-vocal Christian Right which plays an important role in local politics in the state. For example, in the past, members of one Christian Right group took the last Speaker of the House to task on such issues as not offering more support on banning Islamic law, immigration restrictions, for any discussion of gun control and for possible implementation of Affordable Health Care.