Rebane's Ruminations

About

November 2026
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

ARCHIVES

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

  • Discussing Norway and Breivik

    George Rebane

    “Norway's murders shouldn't be an excuse to shut down debate over multiculturalism and the failure of many Muslims to assimilate to Europe's cultural norms. British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have broken taboos by speaking sensibly on the subject. Democracies need to address their anxieties openly, rather than push the political debate underground where the likes of an Anders Breivik can let them stew into a rationale for violence.”  26jul11 WSJ

    The recent terror in Norway is an event that again has altered our times.  But it is not yet clear that its dissection in the aftermath will serve to illuminate these times.  This is made amply clear in the various media venues that serve commentary and discussion.  The event most certainly has highlighted the radically different views held by various ideologically defined cohorts, and in the US it is another timber thrown into the fire that continues to consume the bonds holding the country together.

    This is no more visible than on these very pages as documented in the comment stream for ‘Norway Terror’.  For the more attentive reader, it is obvious that much of the generated heat comes from the discussants not taking the time (or being able?) to understand that they are semantically imprecise and all over the map when presenting their views.  Semantically orthogonal aspects of the case are co-joined willy nilly and the discussion wanders in random circles, resolving nothing, including where people stand on the related ideas and issues.

    In the hope that more commenters here are people of good will, people who want to use this venue to clarify, dispute, or confront each other’s ideas instead of continuing to play ad hominem ‘gotcha’, I offer the following (no doubt incomplete) list of semantically orthogonal notions about the Norway tragedy, and invite others to add to it their own discoveries as they meditate on the greater dimensions of this tragedy.

    Then in no particular order, some semantically orthogonal (or independent) areas that come under the larger umbrella of ideas and notions arising from Norway’s terror are –

    1. The right of a culture to endure and thrive in its homeland,
    2. The right of a culture to spread trans-nationally through (assimilating, insular) settlements,
    3. The historical impact of multi-culturalism (cultural mixing) on individual cultures,
    4. The status and objectives of the current multi-nationally based Islamic jihad,
    5. The status and objectives of non-Islamic needs for energy from Islamic lands,
    6. The social impact of EU immigration policy,
    7. Major themes in today’s European acceptance/confrontation with Muslim immigrants,
    8. Norway’s immigration policy,
    9. The behavior of Muslims in Norway,
    10. The formal political structure of Norway (major, minor political parties and recognized nationalistic and trans-nationalistic movements),
    11.  Norway’s sub-rosa political structure (secret organizations, terror cells, etc),
    12.  The recent sentiments of ethnic Norwegians toward immigration in general,
    13.  The recent sentiments of ethnic Norwegians toward its Muslim population,
    14.  Legitimate and illegitimate means of opposing cultural dilution,
    15.  The ideas in Breivik’s manifesto/compendium,
    16.  Assessment of Breivik’s stated objectives,
    17.  Assessment of Breivik’s means (the terror killings),
    18.  Assessment of Breivik’s sanity and/or mental state,
    19.  Impact of extra-national political movements and policies on Norway,
    20.  The political future of Europe,
    21.  The ethnic future of Europe,
    22.  The future of western culture in Europe,
    23.  What the Breivik massacre reveals about American politics,
    24.  New and beneficial policies for Norway,
    25.  New and beneficial policies for America.

    If a discussant is unwilling to recognize how these notions stand on their own, then it should be his job to establish, identify, and defend any co-joinings in his arguments.  If a discussant doesn’t understand any of this, then it is better for all if he continues to study the matter and remains a passive reader of the debate until the ‘Aha!’ occurs.

    Posted at

    in

    , , ,
    139 comments on Discussing Norway and Breivik

  • Then Why Not $30 Trillion??

    George Rebane

    Sen Reid and Speaker Boehner have come up with competing plans to up the US debt limit.  Boehner’s plan will get us by the ‘sky is falling’ default scare and give time for a serious debate on tax reform and meaningful spending cuts that should last for years.  Among other provisions, it calls for an intermediate rise of $1T in the debt limit and a 10-year span of $3T in spending cuts.  The plan also calls for a further debt limit rise next year pursuant to progress on tax reform and meaningful spending cuts in entitlements.

    This has a chance of trying to bring the US in for a soft fiscal landing without opting for the inevitable monetary (hyperinflation) catastrophe.  However, it’s a poison pill for Obama’s re-election hopes since it will bring up all of the President’s fiscal mismanagement during a most inconvenient time.  Next year, he’ll have enough trouble two-stepping it through the economy while still trying to lay everything at Bush2’s feet – hell, it’s worked before.

    Reid’s plan is a farce that advertises $2.7T in spending cuts over the next decade, but contains no real spending cuts at all.  He proposes to take almost all of it from the military with a sop of $30B (chump change) to be derived from some mysterious “reforms” of Fannie and Freddie.  The military cuts are both ill-advised and cynical, and remind us of Chamberlain waving his 1938 ‘Peace in Our Time’ agreement as he returned from a meeting with Herr Hitler – WW2 started less than a year later.

    (more…)

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    3 comments on Then Why Not $30 Trillion??

  • The Jobs Leak Continues

    George Rebane

    While we’re all tangled up in our fiscal underwear, few noticed that even GE (aka Government Electric) is not doing much to artificially keep jobs here in America.  They are expanding their X-ray business to China “to be closer to our customers.”  Since China’s healthcare industry will be booming in the coming years, that makes a lot of sense.  But then, I thought ours would also be booming as our population gets older.  Well, whatever.

    The real reason, it turns out, is that GE plans to do its technology development and grow its future manufacturing capacity also in China.  Again, that makes sense since China has technical workers coming out of its ying-yang (that’s Chinese for an unmentionable orifice), and here we graduate people who in the large ‘don’t do numbers’.  Most of our college majors pump out people for jobs where you say ‘would you be having fries with that?’ a lot.

    And, of course, China is now rapidly moving into manufacturing high-end products at an unbeatable cost, while here our National Labor Relations Board is trying to beat crap out of Boeing for expanding its new operations into South Carolina, a right-to-work state.  I bet Boeing is also dreaming of moving its aircraft manufacturing business to some other shore – care to guess where?

    GE ropa-dopes the light thinkers with its promise not to decrease its existing 120 worker labor force in its existing X-ray manufacturing plant in Waukesha, Wisconsin, a forced union state  (more here).  That, dear reader, is known as a sop to Team Obama and the Democrats with whom GE has forged an incestuous relationship.

    But the reality remains, our captains of industry are gaming the system to the max.  GE knows that if it doesn’t compete in the China market, there are a handful of other international companies that will expand into that market in a heartbeat.  And then the result is that GE will continue making overpriced and uncompetitive X-ray units that can only be sold in the US, and then only if the government sticks a gun to the buyer’s head.

    So that’s the update from our job creation front as our governments at all levels busy themselves with writing more burdensome and confusing regulations, increasing fees and taxes, and generally creating investment risks out of thin air.

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    8 comments on The Jobs Leak Continues

  • Norway Terror (updated)

    George Rebane

    Oslo110722 So now Norway has Anders Behring Breivik, its own equivalent of America’s Timothy McVey.  We read that the 32 year old farmer has killed almost one hundred people, personally murdering eighty some by shooting each of them at close range.  He also posted a YouTube video (now removed) of himself declaring his terror rampage before first setting off a bomb in the center of Oslo, and then going out to a nearby island, disguised as a policeman, to shoot the youth gathered there.

    We read that Breivik was a declared Christian “extreme right winger with anti-Muslim sentiments.”  He was disturbed by what he saw as the permissive multiculturalism that has given rise to the Islamic enclaves throughout Europe including his native Norway.  Apparently this attack was in planning for almost two years, and was to serve as a dramatic call for European “martyrs” to begin some sort of violent pushback of Islam and Marxism that he has described in a long “compendium/book” he titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence.  I have not read it, but it can be downloaded from google docs here.

    What we do know is that he ordered six tons of fertilizer from which he presumably made at least one bomb, and that the island massacre lasted 90 minutes before the Norwegian SWAT team finally arrived after 40 minutes, and then took another 50 minutes to stop the killing.  Apparently there was not a single law-abiding gun on the island that could have saved lives during that interminably long killing spree.

    It is hard for me to conclude that this was the act of a sane individual.  Perhaps he offers an explanation in his compendium as to how he thought that his terror would start some kind of spontaneous attack on people of non-European cultures.  But to a sane person, no matter his politics or sentiments about Islam and western culture, this act did nothing to achieve his declared end.  In fact, I think, like Timothy McVey, this was the most horrifically inappropriate and misguided use of violence that Breivik could have conceived – an assessment I cannot lay at the feet of Islamic terrorists who have so far used worldwide terror effectively to advance their ends.

    Now we await for the investigation to reveal the complete and, perhaps, a different story about Breivik.  I am saddened that so many people had to die at the hand of a twisted individual, especially one who claims to be a defender of western culture.

    Your thoughts?

    [update]  One question that occurs during events like these is ‘to what extent is this a canary in the mine?’  It is usually at the edges that society first shows that something with it is awry.  The mentally or economically frail begin to visibly protest existing conditions, and then start to act like outlaws.  Wealthy and advanced societies usually react positively if not always in a timely manner to such signs.

    If shopkeepers begin reporting that bread is being stolen from their shops, and this becomes more widespread, then an enlightened collective would be better served by finding the cause of the problem instead of just hiring more police.  If ill-schooled students graduate in greater numbers when more money is put into education, then an enlightened collective would conclude that there might be other factors at work than lack of funds.

    But here we come into a conundrum – ascribing cause.  Upon reflection philosophers and scientists have come to understand that cause is ascriber-specific.  People with different belief systems, knowledge, intelligence, experience, and data can look at an event and ascribe markedly (wildly?) different precursors that were its actual cause.  To the extent that a culture and/or ideology are shared by a society, they will tend to interpret things in a more like manner and come to similar conclusions as to cause.  And the opposite is also true as we witness every day (and also on these pages).

    So, in Norway was this madman a harbinger, a fraying edge that declares existence of a deeper problem in Norway’s European population?  What caused him to go on his murderous rampage, and what should the Norwegians do to minimize the likelihood of such future occurrences?

    (In a future post I am planning to do a piece on causality that may help in the discussion of events like this and broader aspects of assessing public policy.  The effort always is to promote complete, clear, and concise communication on these pages.  Hard duty.)

    Posted at

    in

    , , ,
    153 comments on Norway Terror (updated)

  • Climbing Mount DebtandTaxes

    George Rebane

    [This is the transcript of my bi-weekly KVMR commentary broadcast on 22 July 2011.]

    Let’s talk a little bit about debt and taxes.  Listening to leaders from both parties, you get the opinion that if we don’t raise the debt limit – by August 2 or whenever – that the world’s economy is going to collapse.  More sober minds, honed by the logic practiced around a kitchen table, will tell you that this is not true.

    Please consider – major lenders to the US government have been quietly reducing their loans to us, they’re scared that eventually we won’t be able to repay them.  And everyone in Washington knows that today we have more than enough federal revenues coming in to pay the interest on our existing debt.  We just have to tighten belts and prioritize our other domestic spending.

    So how do our creditors and rating agencies look at this?  Today we are telling the world that we will default on our interest payments if we can’t borrow more money from our creditors, so that we can then give some of it back to them in interest payments.  And everyone knows that Washington has no plan to stop increasing our national debt – we just promise to borrow more and forever.

    Now I don’t know about you, but if I were China I’d say this relationship has become insane, and is most certainly not sustainable.  The name Ponzi must be starting to echo in the halls of Beijing.  But the credit rating agencies – the gang that couldn’t figure out the mortgage market trainwreck back in 2007 – are again putting out more Wrong Way Corrigan pronouncements.  They tell us that if we do change our ways, and start spending within our means, and limit our debt to the current $14.3T, then they will consider the United States to be a bigger credit risk and downgrade our rating.  Go figger.

    However, if we keep spending like drunkards on payday, and keep borrowing what we don’t have to spend, then they will maintain our pristine AAA credit rating, and things will somehow again be hunky dory.  Isn’t this exactly 180 degrees out of sync with reality?  America’s creditors seem to think so. But according to our politicians, we taxpayers are too dense to figure this out.

    Speaking of paying taxes, our progressive friends are convinced that the country can do with much higher tax rates.  They point back to the Eisenhower 1950s when top marginal rates touched 94% which effectively had the government take almost all of what you earned after a certain amount.  Since the country was booming in the 50s, little minds inside the Beltway are saying, ‘Let’s do it again.’

    Running nimble fingers over their calculators, they can see enough dollars flowing in to put a real dent into our projected deficits, without cutting too much into the spending that buys votes.  What these same politicians don’t know, or are not telling us, is that in the 1950s no one actually paid 94 cents of every dollar they earned after a certain amount.  Why?  Because at that time the threshold was so high that almost no one earned those dollars as straight income.  And those who could, had lots of opportunities to shelter their earnings so that it never reached the 94% trigger levels.

    Today it’s completely different when we consider the tax rates we already pay, and the ones being proposed by big government mavens in Washington.  Dr Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford, has run some numbers which tell us that in California we already pay a 44.1% marginal tax rate when we combine federal, state, and all the payroll deductions levied against our wages.  When the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013, that marginal rate will jump up to 58.4% for those earning $200K and couples earning $250K a year.

    But we’re not done yet.  Using the President’s numbers, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that to cover the projected $841B deficit in 2016, will require all (yes, all) income taxes to increase by almost another third.  This will bring the “total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%.”  In short, government will then take more than two of every three dollars that you earn above whatever limit they decide to impose.

    According to the progressive mindset, such tax hikes aren’t supposed affect how hard we work, or how much we risk and earn.  To them, we are just little mindless squirrels on a treadmill, and we’ll run just as hard as ever, never mind how much we get to keep.  Now, is that the way it works in your world?

    My name is Rebane, and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    60 comments on Climbing Mount DebtandTaxes

  • Listen up you idiots, … (updated 23jul2011)

    George Rebane

    [For a translation of the following transcript that’s more suited for polite company, please see the article in the 20jul11 Union.]

    …, er, I mean all you good citizens and taxpayers of Nevada County.  Since the case is now settled, I’m gonna explain to you how this lawsuit went down, and I’m not gonna say it again, so you better pay attention.  Like the Big Man said, he’s “really pleased that this is over with.”

    First of all, we never did nothin’ wrong.  We said that at the start, and no one has proved otherwise.  So we’re saying it again.

    Second, we told you at the beginning that we had different views than the plaintiff, that’s the other guy, about what happened, and guess what?  Now that it’s over, we still have different views.  How ‘bout that?

    Third, all parties “agree that there has not been any finding of liability for or against any party.”  Mainly because we caved before letting the judge deliver his summary judgment which would have cost us a bundle because then our insurance company probably would have walked.  Pretty smart, eh?  And that “… against any party” bit?  We threw that in to make it look as if some of you would believe that AtPac was also guilty of something here.  Oh yeah, and we don’t consider the judge fining us $22K for scrubbing evidence off of our server as a ‘liability’, that was just what we call strategic chump change in the scheme of things – you know what I mean?

    Fourth, like I told the Supes, “The parties acknowledge that the matter is being settled solely to avoid further litigation and other costs of going to trial.”  And well, maybe also those who might get to read the depositions if it all came out in court.  For you people unfamiliar with lawsuits and legal stuff, other ‘matters’ like this are usually settled on the basis of the weather on the trial date, or in what color cars the parties arrived at the court house – you know, things like that.

    Now that it’s over, and no one’s guilty of nothin’, and we ducked the big enchilada, and the records are sealed up tighter than a …, never mind; I hope that it's all cleared up in everyone’s head, and that we won’t have to put up with any of this Freedom of Information crap when we tell you to go pound sand.  Capiche?

    Dismissed!

    [22jul2011 update]  It appears that The Union has now filed its FOIA for the information pertinent to the case and is off and running on demanding an explanation of who did what when (more here).  Note that county counsel is continuing the lamer-than-ever cover-up with the statement that they don't have the Greg Diaz deposition, it's down in the Sacramento offices of their law firm.  Well, how about someone getting their butt in the car, driving down there and getting it?

    You'd think that at least a copy of such a seminal, important, and revealing peace of testimony would be ensconced and studied in the Rood Center.  Nah, that would only happen if they were planning on doing some remediation so that in the future more millions don't go pouring out the door.  The beat goes on.

    [23jul2011 update]  Stan Meckler, president of the NC Tea Party Patriots (of which I am a member), writes a related article in today's Union.  And Barry Pruett on Inside Nevada County Politics adds more first person contacts with the Nevada County principals in this case.

    Posted at

    in

    , , ,
    35 comments on Listen up you idiots, … (updated 23jul2011)

  • Summit Sillies

    George Rebane

    Things have been getting a little too serious around here – and may again.

    Nick&Angela  

    “No you didn’t Nick, I beat you fair and square!  Next time we do it for real; pack your stuff.”

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    1 comment on Summit Sillies

  • Trickle Down – the definitive view

    George Rebane

    Nevada County’s cartoonist RL ‘Bob’ Crabb published another one of his blockbuster social commentaries in the 19jul11 Union.  It graphically illustrates what a good portion of the country has been taught about our nation’s economic ladder and their place on it.  And there’s more to say about that.

    RLCrabb110719 

    (more…)

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    40 comments on Trickle Down – the definitive view

  • County Dodges AtPac Bullet, but … (updated 20jul2011)

    George Rebane

    After many months of legal wrangling, internal investigations, external investigation, lawsuit, and God knows what else went on behind closed doors, it appears the AtPac lawsuit (background here) has been settled in favor of AtPac.  This was reported to the Board of Supervisors by County CEO Rick Haffey (here).

    The bottom line of the out-of-court settlement indicates that the county screwed up badly in the process, but was able to duck the heavy financial hit because its insurance company did step in to pay the $2.75M total bill while getting its $100K deductible, the only out-of-pocket cost to our local government (and us taxpayers).  RR readers will recall that early on I predicted the cost to be way north of $2M while the Maidu Mavens were still dismissing this as a nuisance suit.

    I received notification of this from a correspondent whose analysis of the settlement is, in my opinion, on the mark – it is reproduced below.

    It appears that the County settled with AtPac in the amount of $1.9 million on the eve of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.  The insurance for the County will be paying AtPac the settlement amount.  The insurance will be reimbursing the county for its attorney fees in the amount of $845,000.  The County pays a $100,000 deductible.
     
    Insurance companies are the stingiest companies on the planet.  They do not pay out unless there is significant risk…especially with an attorney fees clause.  If the County was successful at trial, AtPac would have had to pay the County's attorney fees and the insurance company would have been off the hook.  For the insurance to pay $1.9 million in settlement means that the County was exposed to far greater damages than $1.9 million and AtPac's attorney fees.
     
    This settlement is a win for the County in only $100,000 of exposure (except for increased rates) and the case goes away.  The settlment amount alone shows that the County screwed up and the case was by no means frivolous.  AtPac was willing to settle for a million.  While the County avoids a determination of liability by the court, it is clear by the amount alone that they had a ton of liability.

    But no one should walk away from this with the feeling that the county has been vindicated – far from it.  The only thing that has occurred is that a $15,000 expense turned into a year-plus saga that cost the county $100K out-of-pocket and untold staff hours responding to litigation requirements, finding out what happened, and keeping a lid on the whole thing.   And what really transpired subsequent to the mismanagement of this software vendor changeover, we now will never know.

    [19jul2011 update]  ‘Be there or be square’, that was the message from our Supes about when they were going make their AtPac settlement announcement at today’s special meeting.  They told The Union that it would be at the end of their meeting which usually goes into the afternoon.  Not today, the announcement was made in the morning before the special meeting ended, and the chambers were dark this afternoon.  Well OK, next time check the agenda schedule.

    The announcement itself was delivered by soon-to-retire County Counsel Michael Jamison and is transcribed on The Union’s website here.

    Bottom line – for what are now obvious reasons, the county did not want the judge to render a verdict on the summary judgment sought by plaintiff AtPac.  Instead, after due consideration of the strength of the county’s defense and who actually knew what when, it was decided to capitulate and give AtPac what it sought from the start – $1M damages and its legal fees paid, totaling $1.9M.  The insurance company would pay that plus the county’s legal fees for a total distribution of $2,745,000.

    In return the county got AtPac to agree to the settlement wording “The Parties acknowledge and agree that there has not been any finding of liability for or against any party.”  (For the lexicographically curious, given that the case didn't go to trial, this is known as a tautology.)

    Nevertheless, this little piece of literary legerdemain is supposed to mollify the mindless on what really went down in the back rooms of the Rood Center.  Commenters Chuck Whitten, Barry Pruett, and Russ Steele have some observations (see below) that make me think this thing has a lot more settling to do before Nevada County voters can go to bed without having nightmares of loose million dollar cannons rolling around on Maidu.

    [20jul2011 update]  After posting my somewhat cautionary assessment (see 938AM comment below) on what The Union may or not do next, I received an email from publisher Jeff Ackerman who stated that the newspaper will file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the county to get it to release the records on this case.  I'm sure that other FOIAs would also contribute to pulling back the shades.  We recall that the law says only that the county 'may' but not 'must' keep certain records confidential whose release it considers may harm the county.  Now that the suit is settled in favor of AtPac, the only harm that could possibly come out of making the records public is not to the county, but to the electeds and staff who managed to make a mountain out of a very small molehill.

    [Coverage of this embarrassing saga continues on RR in 'Listen up you idiots …' .]

    Posted at

    in

    , ,
    38 comments on County Dodges AtPac Bullet, but … (updated 20jul2011)

  • The ‘Foxification of News’

    George Rebane

    Well, it appears that they have all been doing it, and now are beginning to admit it.  “Foxification” is the term the 9-15jul11 Economist used in its extended report on the future of news to describe news that is delivered with a known slant, commentary, or viewpoint.  (more here)

    FlyingFox This is nothing new, it was ever thus, and only the charlatans and morons in the journalism industry have claimed otherwise.   The Economist itself makes no bones about it, and as “the world’s oldest newspaper” (1843) liberally sprinkles its own opinions into every news story it prints.

    Journalists have forever been modifying, manufacturing, and mangling the news.  The scandal with Murdoch’s News International operation in Great Britain is only the tip of a recent iceberg that reveals the overzealous extremes reporters have gone to in order to give a leg up to whatever medium employs them.  Readers familiar with the history of journalism will recall how in 1932 reporters broke into the mortuary housing the casket bearing Lindbergh’s kidnapped and murdered son.  As Lindbergh described in his wartime journals, they tore the lid off the casket to take photographs of the baby’s mangled body.

    The Economist’s survey of news reporting today concludes that with the entry of the internet, we are going back to the ‘coffee house’ format of disseminating news.  News today comes from so many sources – verified, vetted, prioritized, etc, or not – that it most resembles the way people got the news before mass produced newspapers became its prime purveyors.  In short, people then went to public houses, read pamphlets, corresponded with associates and family members, and shared what they had received – and all of it came with a slant of the writer or speaker.

    Fox News has adopted a format in which it delivers a heavy dose of right leaning commentary and opinion programs that offset its delivery of “fair and balanced” news programming.  Its ratings have soared, leaving in the dust liberal outlets like MSNBC and CNN who have continued to deny that they are anything other than the moronic model of objective journalism.  Well, those days appear to be over.

    Given the blatantly biased programming of outlets like the satirical Daily Show, leftwing Huffington Post, rightwing Rush Limbaugh, and countless blogs (RR included),  we now have MSNBC’s Phil Griffin admitting what everyone has known for decades about news outlets – “we definitely have a progressive sensibility, a sensibility to the left.”  MSNBC will henceforth openly reflect this ideological perspective instead of continuing to push the bullcrap that it somehow avoided any ideological bias in its reporting.   Look for the other members of the lamestream to soon follow this trend.

    I believe that such openness will be a benefit, and as the Economist foresees, we will accept transparency as the substitute for objectivity.  Spin it as you will, but your message will be more powerful and accepted, the more you can source/cite any factual claims that are made.  At this point, dear reader, don’t come to confuse commentary (as is this) with those who claim to be sources of news.

    Finally, the world’s oldest newspaper believes that the internet is making journalism better, and cites its own surveys that claim broad agreement with that belief (see online debate). The bottom line of it all is that “News is becoming a social medium again, as it was until the early 19th century – only more so.”

    Posted at

    in

    , , , ,
    11 comments on The ‘Foxification of News’

RR FUNDAMENTALS

About the Bastiat Triangle

Glossary & Semantics

A Conservetarian Credo

Commenting Rules

RECENT POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

CATEGORIES

139 comments on Discussing Norway and Breivik