John, you opened with this:
>Do you want one billionaire --perhaps Fox News' Rupert Murdoch -- dictating what you read in Creative Loafing?
But a close reading of your article does not explain how this would be possible, even if all the proposed FCC rule changes pass. So how exactly might Murdoch control what is published in Creative Loafing? And remember to type slow because I can't read too fast.
Let's at least try to keep in mind that the "consensus" to which so many people point doesn't truly exist. I would urge anyone who thinks I'm fabricating to go read the article linked below, which was published on the Daily Tech website.
The first 3 paragraphs speak volumes:
"In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment... The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." "
I wonder: with no actual scientific consensus, why shouldn't Georgia's plans be up in the air?
If providing govt. paid healthcare for all is really such a slamdunk proposition, shouldn't that have been accomplished during the 130+ years the Ga. state govt. was ruled by Democrats?
Here's something I don't understand. In story #3, Mr. Fox says, "We have two cars. Before the gas prices went up we paid $30 to $40 a week for gas. Then it went up to $200 a week."
That seems impossible. Gas prices went up, but by no stretch of the imagination did they increase by a factor of FIVE. He mentions no increase in actual driving, merely that the cost of gas increased from $40 a week for gas to $200. A little fact checking by the author might have been a good idea.
Maybe it's because I have no desire to be there. Regardless, you're the one who said he was "still unraveling exactly what the double unicorn provides." Here are some more good examples of your cringe-inducing prose: "Some celebrate with pinot, others penis." "This one rare night riding rear gunner, I didn't neglect the journey for the destination and saw through the smog before returning to a self-induced haze." "All it took was a healthy curiosity and a hearty bladder -- just like my summer playing watersports."
"You never know what style of sweet sickness is going on between those skater types, brosef..." Brosef? What kind of desperate cry for attention is that?
This is lame and unfocused and not helped at all by the pointless inside "joke" references. Don't you have an editor?
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation