![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2004 08:08 amTalk about revisionist history. So what? That doesn't change the two years in between, idiots.
Jun. 23rd, 2004
Yes! It's a good day for democracy.
Jun. 23rd, 2004 09:05 amSenate Votes to Repeal Media Rules
The Senate voted on Tuesday to repeal rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission that make it easier for the nation's largest media conglomerates to expand and enter new markets.
The rules, approved last June by a divided F.C.C., largely removed previous ownership restrictions on media companies. They struck down the rule that in most markets had prevented one company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. In the largest markets, the new rules also enabled a company to own as many as three television stations, eight radio stations and a cable operator. And they allowed the largest television networks to buy more affiliated stations, although Congress later rolled back that provision.
The new rules have already been blocked temporarily by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, which is considering a challenge.
[...] "The president and the speaker of the House are determined to protect these rules," Mr. [Byron] Dorgan [D-North Dakota] said. "I am simply pounding away at this and trying at every opportunity I can to roll the rules back."
"Last June, the F.C.C. performed one of the most complete cave-ins to corporate interests against the public interest in the history of the country," he added. "When the number of people and corporations who control what 293 million Americans see and hear in the media shrinks to just a relative handful, democracy suffers."
The Senate voted on Tuesday to repeal rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission that make it easier for the nation's largest media conglomerates to expand and enter new markets.
The rules, approved last June by a divided F.C.C., largely removed previous ownership restrictions on media companies. They struck down the rule that in most markets had prevented one company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. In the largest markets, the new rules also enabled a company to own as many as three television stations, eight radio stations and a cable operator. And they allowed the largest television networks to buy more affiliated stations, although Congress later rolled back that provision.
The new rules have already been blocked temporarily by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, which is considering a challenge.
[...] "The president and the speaker of the House are determined to protect these rules," Mr. [Byron] Dorgan [D-North Dakota] said. "I am simply pounding away at this and trying at every opportunity I can to roll the rules back."
"Last June, the F.C.C. performed one of the most complete cave-ins to corporate interests against the public interest in the history of the country," he added. "When the number of people and corporations who control what 293 million Americans see and hear in the media shrinks to just a relative handful, democracy suffers."
(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2004 09:38 amDammit! I signed up and everything, but then I realized the time of the event conflicts with a standing appointment. *grr*
Tens of thousands of MoveOn members are gathering in living rooms and meeting halls on Monday. We'll join a live, online, interactive audio conference with Michael Moore, we'll discuss the movie, and we'll plan local actions to help win back the White House. And, of course, there'll be snacks.
( Read more... )
Tens of thousands of MoveOn members are gathering in living rooms and meeting halls on Monday. We'll join a live, online, interactive audio conference with Michael Moore, we'll discuss the movie, and we'll plan local actions to help win back the White House. And, of course, there'll be snacks.
( Read more... )
(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2004 09:58 amYou guys know who Jeri Ryan is, right?
Have you heard about her husband?
Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown into Prurient Turmoil
Have you heard about her husband?
Ms. Ryan, who appeared in "Star Trek: Voyager" and is a star of the television series "Boston Public," said in a declaration dated June 9, 2000, that when she and her husband were in New York, she refused to enter one club with him because "it had mattresses and cubicles," and that he then took her to "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."
"Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching," she said, referring to her husband. "I refused. Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him, and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. We left the club and respondent apologized, said that I was right and he would never insist that I go to a club again. He promised it was out of his system."
"Then during a trip to Paris," the document said, "he took me to a sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going. I told him I thought it was out of his system. I told him he had promised me we would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and told me it was not a 'turn-on' for me to cry. I could not get over the incident, and my loss of any attraction to him as a result."
At his news conference on Monday, Mr. Ryan released a statement from his ex-wife in which she called him "a good man, a loving father" and said she had "no doubt that he will make an excellent senator."
Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown into Prurient Turmoil
(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2004 01:26 pmAshcroft Sued Over FBI Whistleblower Case
A watchdog group sued Attorney General John Ashcroft on Wednesday for classifying previously public documents pertaining to a whistleblower's claims of security lapses in the FBI's translator program.
Citing national security, Ashcroft recently classified documents related to the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former linguist at the FBI. The lawsuit charged that reclassifying materials that had previously been in the public domain is illegal and unconstitutional.
The suit was filed in federal court by the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that has been following the case.
( Read more... )
A watchdog group sued Attorney General John Ashcroft on Wednesday for classifying previously public documents pertaining to a whistleblower's claims of security lapses in the FBI's translator program.
Citing national security, Ashcroft recently classified documents related to the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former linguist at the FBI. The lawsuit charged that reclassifying materials that had previously been in the public domain is illegal and unconstitutional.
The suit was filed in federal court by the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that has been following the case.
( Read more... )
(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2004 10:00 pmI love those entry-level positions that require experience.
Anyway, I've applied to a ridiculous amount of jobs today. More than 40. I figure, cast the net wide and eventually something will snag, right?
We'll see.
Anyway, I've applied to a ridiculous amount of jobs today. More than 40. I figure, cast the net wide and eventually something will snag, right?
We'll see.