FTC Wants to Tax Computers To Support Failed Newspapers

Is this another bailout? Is the Obama Administration legislating again? Somebody stop this!

A 47-page document that outlines a major government push to rescue the country's flailing media platforms -- specifically newspapers, which have seen advertising revenues drop roughly 45 percent since 2000.

Among the numerous proposals mentioned in the document are:

-- the creation of a "journalism" division of AmeriCorps, the federal program that places 75,000 people with local and national nonprofit groups annually;

-- tax credits to news organizations for every journalist employed;


-- establishing citizenship news vouchers, which "would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization" of their choice;

-- increased funding for public radio and television;

-- providing grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism;

-- increased postal subsidies for newspapers and periodicals;

-- a 5 percent tax on consumer electronics, which would generate roughly $4 billion annually, to pay for increased public funding.

But some critics are voicing concerns about the draft document, saying that if the government has any influence over the Fourth Estate, it could lead to a dizzying web of conflicting interests and the eradication of independent journalism.

More here.

Internet=favorite source of news, Zogby says

...by a WIDE margin.

A majority of adults nationwide - 56% - said that if they had to choose just one source for their news information, they would choose the Internet, the poll shows. In a distant second place was television, as 21% said they would prefer that medium over online sources.

Says Zogby International. Note that 10% choose paper newspapers.

Democrats were more likely to favor traditional sources of news than were Republicans. Among Republicans, 56% would prefer the Internet as their lone information source, while 50% of Democrats agreed. But when it came to newspapers, the difference was notable - 17% of Democrats would prefer newspapers as their only news source, while just 5% of Republicans agreed.

This makes sense. More Democrats prefer the liberal state-run media than Republicans.
The poll goes on to say that in 1998, the preference for internet news was at 38%, and television news was at 17%. Paper newspapers were at 16%, much higher than today. Gosh, what could have happened to cause Americans to become disillusioned with the nation's newspapers????!
Here is the part of the story that I disagree with.

By contrast, the political blogosphere was seen as much less important to most adults across the country. Just 28% said blogs that shared their political point of view were important, and 14% said they felt blogs from the opposite position on the political spectrum were important.

Where was the comparison to 1998 blog preferences? I bet it is MUCH higher now than then. So where does Zogby get the notion that the blogosphere was "much less important to most adults"? Compared to what? Less than other internet sources? That is the only thing I can think of. Because even if you take the average of 28% and 14%, which is 21%, this is still EQUAL to the number of people who prefer television news. THIS IS HUGE. Who would have ever dreamed that citizen journalists, Bloggers, would attain this type of stature so quickly. I see that the influence of the internet, and bloggers, is on the upswing. Look at the Tea Party movement. How did all those people get their information to show up at events? The internet. How are the Iranian protesters getting their information? The internet. Blogs. Twitter. We are growing in number and influence, folks. No doubt about it.
Face it. WE ROCK!

Edited to add an enthusiastic HELLO to the lovely ladies of Ann's Virtual Girl's Night Out.



Have I been told I look like a celebrity? Meredith Baxter Birney, on occasion.

"What would we do, baby, without us? What would we do baby, without us? Well there ain't no nothin' we can't love each other through. What would we do, baby, without us. Sha na na na."

blood sugar; blogging

I have had low blood sugar episodes in the past, and they seem to come on very quickly during late pregnancy. No surprise there, with another little being sharing my blood glucose. I was at home yesterday when I felt the symptoms starting, so I went into the bathroom and used the blood glucose monitor, curious what blood sugar level trigger the symptoms of dizziness, sweating and shakiness. My blood sugar was exactly 60. An online search showed that was hypoglycemic, but not dangerously low. I ate a meal, as I was hungry, along with some candy to bring the numbers up. I still didn't feel very good afterwards, and 45 minutes later my blood sugar was up to 137. Anything under 140 after a meal is OK. This morning I checked my fasting level upon awakening and it was 82, which is perfect. I think my problem is that I am insulin resistant. It showed up on my 3-hour glucose-insulin test. I recall the second hour of the test showed elevated insulin levels, and the blood sugar was resisting coming down. The first and 3rd hour numbers were more normal. If someone is insulin resistant, or somewhat insulin resistant, their body can secrete too much insulin, and the blood sugar can dip too low after meals. Yesterday I had eaten a bowl of cereal at 6am, and by 9:15am I was hypoglycemic. I used to be able to wait until 10 or 10:30am before needing my mid-morning snack, but I guess little bub needs more food than that. And I need to remember to keep snacks in the car and my purse so I don't have any "episodes" while I am out. The good news is that I am not diabetic. And while I have relatives, my mother in particular, who have problems handling sugar like I do, nobody in our known family tree ever had diabetes. I won't rest on those laurels, though. I'd hate to be the first one.

I read an opinion article this morning about posting on sites like facebook and blogging. About how we show a whitewashed/airbrushed version of ourselves, hiding our flaws. I was thinking about that recently. Yes, this blog is whitewashed. Of course it is. It is a publicly accessible record of my thoughts and family pictures. It is sort of a diary, but even with "private" written diaries, they don't tend to remain private. I want a blog that can be read by my family members someday. They don't all know about it right now, but if something were to ever happen to me, I would hope that they would find it and find comfort in being able to read more about me. So if I leave out certain lesser incidents and thoughts that happen in my life, I think that is OK. Some things are nobody's business. And personal details of the interactions between myself and my husband, for instance, should and do remain between us. So from time to time I may post about things from my past. This will be an effort to document some of the more memorable moments of my life. I may have forgotten to mention them to my kids. Or it may be that it feels more comfortable to write about them than to talk about them. I don't want all the fun/scary stories to be lost. I hope to live to at least 90, of course, but I am not going to count on it. So in that regard, those of you who know how to contact my family, if something happens to me, please do, and feel free to tell them about the blog. Thanks.