WDEL ALERT: I-495 bridge fully open



WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Open Friday / Weekend Forum

So what's on your mind this weekend?

The U.S. Government moves forward with the prosecution of the remaining members of the family of deceased shooter Thomas Matusiewicz for conspiracy and cyberstalking resulting in death. A Federal grand jury returned indictments against Lenore Matusiewicz, the widow of Thomas Matusiewicz; Amy Gonzalez, the daughter of Thomas Matusiewicz; and David Matuziewicz, the son of Thomas and Lenore Matusiewicz, on charges of conspiracy and cyberstalking. Of course, all this stems from the February 11th shootings at the New Castle County Courthouse in downtown Wilmington, where Thomas Matusiewicz fatally shot David Matusiewicz's ex-wife, Christine Belford and Laura 'Beth' Mulford before he committed suicide.


New Justice Department data of the most corrupt states: Public corruption convictions per 100,000 population are the yardstick. Louisiana ranks as the most corrupt state in the Union. (What a surprise! Not!) But Delaware ranks as the 12th most corrupt state. Sometimes our small size can distort Delaware's rank in such state-by-state comparisons, but I find it shocking that Illinois ranks as less corrupt than Delaware!

Here were the top 20: 1. Louisiana 2. North Dakota 3. South Dakota 4. Kentucky 5. Alaska 6. Montana 7. Mississippi 8. Alabama 9. New Jersey 10. Virginia 11. Maryland 12. Delaware 13. Ohio 14. Pennsylvania 15. Oklahoma 16. Illinois 17. Tennessee 18. West Virginia 19. Florida 20. Arkansas

The 5 LEAST corrupt states: Minnesota, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, and least of the least, South Carolina. South Carolina: Really?


From POLITICO: "If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose -- and lose big.

That's the private assessment of House Reublicans and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week -- which is no sure thing -- the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it..."


Senator John McCain (R-AZ), probably the most interventionist senator of all, confronted a boisterous crowd in Phoenix Thursday. Most opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria. (Well, at least McCain held a town hall meeting!)

McCain continued to insist any Syrian intervention would not feature U.S. ground forces. (McCain conveniently ignored that U.S. Special Ops forces are ALREADY training Syrian rebels - the ones who are supposed to be on OUR side - at a secret base in Jordan. And who's to say that some Special Ops have not already been inserted into Syria, clandestinely of course, just to scout for potential targets?)

Pertinent questions for McCain and even Delaware's Congressional delegation: The Senate resolution bars the use of U.S. forces in Syria "for the purposes of combat operations". But isn't this a slippery slope? "Combat" can be defined in several different ways. The former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, retired Lt. General David Barno, quoted in The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: "It might appear to a casual reader to be some significant prohibitions -- preventing 'combat' forces. We define 'combat' in lots of different ways. Furthermore, the language would apparently allow U.S. troops to come in for 'non-combat' purposes: Search and rescue; peacekeeping; to secure chemical weapons plants, etc.

Anyway, McCain insisted: "I want to begin by saying to you that I am unalterably opposed to having a single American boot on the ground in Syria. The American people wouldn't stand for it..." (Getting sick of the phrase, "Boots on the Ground"? I don't recall that phrase being used as often as now, but apparently the expression goes back to General William Westmoreland and the sharp escalation of U.S. ground forces in Vietnam, 1965--1968, and two decades before that, the strategist for the British counter-insurgency against the Malayan National Liberation Army's insurrection against British colonial rule, 1948--1960. Over the last few years, the phrase received perhaps more currency with the publication of the book, BOOTS on the GROUND: A MONTH with the 82nd AIRBORNE in the BATTLE for IRAQ.)


From the U.S. version of the U.K.'s DAILY MAIL On Line:

"Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83% more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show..."

But, of the ten 'yes' votes on that committee, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) got the LEAST ($19,500); in fact Coons received less defense-contractor campaign money than three of the senators voting 'no'. One of the 'no' votes was Marco Rubio (R-FL), who received $62,790. Chief intervention cheerleader John McCain (R-AZ) outpaced all the other senators, receiving $176,300.


Meanwhile, President Obama has reportedly ordered the Pentagon to formulate an expanded list of potential Syrian targets. That, following intelligence findings that the Assad government is moving around troops and equipment that carry chemical weapons.


The WASHINGTON POST reported the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in support of U.S. military intervention in Syria. These groups draw parallels between the use of chemical weapons and the Holocaust. But stunning: Do these groups really want the Islamists to come to power? As columnist Pat Buchanan writes: "...Is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?"

More Buchanan: "If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration. And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?..."

Meanwhile, the avidly pro-Israel, G.O.P. billionaire who spent some seventy million dollars to defeat President Obama last year - Sheldon Adelson - is bankrolling the Republican Jewish Coalition in efforts promoting U.S. military intervention in Syria.

Again, given the Islamist roots of many of the rebels, utterly illogical and inexplicable. Unless Adelson and some others see a Syrian intervention as a prelude to the bigger war -- against Iran. In WWII terms, Syria represents the Spanish civil war in the build-up to World War II -- Iran.


But wait! Kind of a counterargument, at least with respect to President Obama seeking Congressional approval for U.S. military intervention against the Assad regime: Has President Obama not put himself - or a future President - in a box? If he can't win Congress on Syria, could he ever win over Congress on waging war with Iran, seen as a far greater threat to Israel and Western interests? Or if the Iranians quickly advanced to nukes, wouldn't a U.S. President want the element of surprise for any U.S intervention -- and not a sustained debate on Capitol Hill? (Of course, this presumes the United States should attack a nuclearized Iran AT ALL.)


Iranian intrigue... From The WASHINGTON POST:

"A series of tweets by Iranian leaders over the past couple of days has students of diplomatic semantics -- a sometimes exact science -- wondering whether a mere greeting is an opening to the country's adversaries.

Both Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, and the new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, sent Rosh Hashanah greetings via Twitter to Jews celebrating the new year..."

While some Middle-East specialists welcomed the Tweets as a welcome break from the rhetoric of ex-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, others were much more skeptical, noting the Islamic Republic of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameinei, ultimately calls the shots over Iran's nuclear program.

But the Rosh Hashanah greetings from Zarif led to a revealing exchange of messages with California author & political activist, Christine Pelosi, daughter of the House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Christine Pelosi: "Thanks. The New Year would be even sweeter if you would end Iran's Holocaust denial, sir." Zarif (or whoever handles Zarif's account): "Iran never denied it. The man who was perceived to be denying it is now gone. Happy New Year." Of course, a pointed reference to ex-President Ahmadinejad.


N.S.A. intrigue... From The NEW YORK TIMES:

"The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.

The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the globe, the documents show..."


In Florida, the Zimmermans are splitting. George Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, has slapped her husband with divorce papers, calling their marriage "irretrievably broken". She had told ABC's "Good Morning America" earlier that she was having doubts about staying married. She declared George Zimmerman had "beaten down" her self-esteem, and the trial had strained their marriage. Shellie Zimmerman visibly supported her husband during his trial for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, but George Zimmerman failed to join his wife last week when she pleaded guilty to perjury for lying under oath about the couple's finances. TMZ reported Shellie Zimmerman is collecting a $4,300 stipend to cover her "living expenses" despite the couple's separation.





Posted at 8:36am on September 6, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

kavips
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 9:45am
As far as corruption, once again the underlying principles of mathematics give Delaware another undeserved black eye.... If one looks at the data sheet.....

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin/docs/arpt-2011.pdf

One finds the criteria were convictions per 100,000 people. Which means one conviction in Delaware ranks just as much as 380 in California. So based on this criteria, if Delaware unfortunately has one conviction.... and California has 379... Delaware is ranked as "more corrupt".

No one in his/her right mind would think one conviction in Delaware would make it more corrupt than 379 convictions in California..

This is brought out further by the fact that number 2 and number 3, the Dakota's, states both sparse in population, rank far higher than say New Jersey, or New York.

The reason this system is a flawed measurer, is because governments at their core, all tend have the same number of people. Every state has a governor, a head of finance, a head of voting, a head of education, a head of each legislative house, etc. Normal people upon hearing that one person out of that structure in Delaware got convicted, and the equivalent of 379 Californians in that equivalent structure got convicted, all would assume that California is the more corrupt....

It is interesting to note (the data end at 2011) that Delaware would have fared far better if three years could have been taken out. 2002, 2006, 2008. In those years we must have had a couple of conspiracy charges because in each, 7 people were convicted. Comparatively, only 4 convictions occurred over the last 3 years of the data.

I have found with such surveys that only the top and bottom usually hold true to popular perception... For example, Maine, I would think, is very honest... It is. Louisiana, I would think, is very corrup... It is.

As far as the actual number of convictions went..... the rankings (followed by their decade number of convictions) went like this starting with the 12th highest:

Delaware (40)
Kansas(39)
Maine(36)
Nevada (36)
Utah (36)
Virgin Islands(32)
Rhode Island(29)
Nebraska(28)
Idaho (22)
Wyoming (16)
New Hampshire(16)
Vermont (13)

A couple of notes. Vermont with the very least of any state, did not even make the top 5 least corrupt list. Secondly, if you have a corrupt justice system that covers-up corrupt officials, you will have corruption but not, convicted corruption. Which may explain South Carolina's only having 5 more convictions than Delaware, which with its population would put it high on the list of good states.

Mike might be interested to know that Delaware still ranked less corrupt than Guam, which came in with 62, (playing with numbers the headline should read: Guam 55% More Corrupt Than Delaware!) and Allan should rest assured that his home state with 493 Convictions compared to Delaware's 40, .... well it's no wonder we think Illinois is so corrupt...








Allan Loudell
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 9:50am
I agree, kavips (as I noted above) that Delaware's small population can create a common sense and statistical distortion.

Allan Loudell

billsmith
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 11:54am
Maybe Illinois is counted as less corrupt than Delaware because they count convictions. In Illinois, maybe corrupt officials get away with it more.

Still, there is some basis for all those cynical cracks about "the Delaware way."

Meanwhile, it turns out Freud was right. If you're gay, it's your mother's fault.

Men are more likely to be gay if they have older brothers, say scientists

* Canadian scientists found each older brother raises odds of homosexuality by a third
* Carrying a male foetus causes an immune reaction in a women's body
* It causes antibodies to attack part of the developing male brain linked to sexuality

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411922/Men-likely-gay-older-brothers.html#ixzz2e81z3Hd8


Mike from Delaware
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 3:06pm
Interesting article, Billsmith.

Apparently in their research Step Brothers didn't have any effect, but Blood Brothers, whether they lived together or lived in separate places did; which implies not how one was raised, but a biological cause [via the mother's body caring the baby), etc.

Interestingly, Sisters - step or blood - didn't cause lesbianism in girls, also the mother's body didn't fight off the female fetus as her body does with the male fetus.

Interesting how the Brits spell fetus [Foetus].

kavips
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 11:03am
Change the topic, but did anyone else see the rocket pass by to the south which dominated the night skies for about 5 minutes around 11:30pm September 6th?

It was far more awesome to witness than I expected.


kavips
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 11:11am
If you missed it here ia s decent representation from a hundred miles to our north... Waiting for people to wake up and start posting their cell phone footage, but this gives you something of what it was like... (photo)

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/a3L3o7Rv0cTSc6zv_FEANg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDI7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/Wow!_NASA's_Late-Night_Moon_Launch-2c307358bf896a75b2d3dadcd7c3ce31

We were closer so it dominated more of our sky, (Here is the full article..)

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/photos/wow-nasas-night-moon-launch-wows-stargazers-jaw-photo-095654905.html


Mike from Delaware
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 11:56am
This is the first I've heard about this launch. Would have liked to known about before. WDEL hasn't said anything about it that I've seen or heard [radio or website] until today [maybe I just missed it any time it was mentioned].

A different Topic:

Speaking of Radio, Allan, will WDEL be carrying President Obama's speech Tuesday night? I assume CBS Radio will offer coverage. Would WDEL preempt the Phillies to carry this? What time is the Prez due to speak?

I would like to hear his evidence. So far not convinced of any of this that supports his plan to bomb Syria. Even so, I find it interesting that those 10 nations, that were at the G-20 meeting in St. Petersberg Russia, that support America taking action.

So let me see if I understand their position. It's OK for the US to spend ITS money, get ITS people killed, as long as THEY don't have to do either.

Well I believe the cost of this operation Obama proposes should be shared evenly by all 10 supporting nations. That way we're paying 1/11th of the price tag as those 10 other nations pay their 1/11th. We get the money up front BEFORE anything will begin [no checks or credit, hard cold cash].

Since there are no boots on the ground, as of this proposal. They won't need to contribute men/women. But if that needs to happen, then they would supply 1/11th of the fighting men/women needed [the boots on the ground] BEFORE such an operation would happen.

THEN let's see how much agreement we get from these 10 other nations. If an idiot like me can figure out something like this in a way of negotiating a better deal or situation of the US, why can't these so called best and brightest we have in DC in either party ever seem able to do this?

billsmith
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 1:14pm
I wish the TV networks would have the cajones to refuse to carry these speeches and press conferences. Why does it have to be on all four networks at the same time? Are they trying to force people to watch? They all take the same pool feed. There's no difference in what is on any of them. And the vast majority of the audience goes to other channels or cable any way. Let the cable news networks carry it, but spare the rest of us.

Here's what will happen: Obama will lie. Just like Bush. He's already said he's going to do what he wants however Congress votes. If he does, they should impeach him, Biden and Kerry. The Senate probably won't remove them, but the House can get a bill of impeachment through.
In the meantime, the House can shut down the government like they did when Newt was around. Obama and anyone who comes later need to be taught a lesson.

MikeFromDelaware: I guess WDEL and the mainstream media once again said nothing because they knew nothing. If it doesn't get handed to them, there's no story. No news release or staged event = no news. They only tell you what the corporate class wants you to hear.

kavips
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 2:02pm
Bill's bias is showing. When the President speaks. it is news. Particularly this president. There is a national debate over going to war. We are a democracy. The leader of that democracy needs to make his case to the American People. Any network who doesn't cover this president speaking should face an IRS audit, or have all their employees listened in on by the NSA, or should suffer an audit by the SEC for any irregularities over the past 12 years. The need to be punished harshly as possible.

Bill's bias is showing. he can turn off his TV since he has made up his mind. The rest of America wants to watch. Needs to watch...

Mike asked a great question. What happens to coverage of the Phillies game? Is there a clause in the contract for breaking away for news of national emergencies, or would that naturally be done by the owners at anytime, which would be Delmarva Broadcasting, contract or no contract?

kavips
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 2:10pm
Mike, and all. After this launch it probably will be covered from now on. It was a huge event downstate, which has only a narrow band of Maryland separating it from the launch site.

It sneaked up on most people. What is happening is that as NASA gets cut, private enterprises are stepping in to commercially fill the gaps NASA is creating. I forgot the name, but it can easily be searched of the company that is planning on building a huge spaceport on Wallops Island to make money piggybacking payloads into space. Hence what used to be small surface to air missiles for occasional scientific research, have now morphed into 5 stage rockets headed to the Moon.

I still can't get over it. It was one of the top ten greatest things I have ever seen. I think the wonder is compounded because i saw it from my front yard.. making it even more of an experienced surprise!

billsmith
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:11pm
"When the President speaks. it is news. Particularly this president."

Talk about bias showing. Much of the time these speeches are nothing new, nothing that hasn't been said before. No news. On top of that, Obama will lie. Like Bush. Like Clinton. ....

But that still ignores the basic question: Why do the media lemmings feel obliged to put a nothing event on every channel? And on radio? When an advertiser does this it's called roadblocking.

In the past, speeches do not bump sports events. The teams and leagues put that in the contract. In any case, who listens to this BS on radio any more? And the game is on CSN, which only carries sports. Who listens to ballgames on the radio any more either?





billsmith
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:13pm
PS: Here's how they could get me to watch. Hook Obama up to a lie detector, and to electrodes. Whenever he lies, the computer gives him an electric shock. With each lie, the voltage increases.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:20pm
Billsmith: As you know, the networks market their news as being comprehensive and there for you, you can depend on us, etc, etc, so if CBS chose to not air any President's speech [not just Obama, he isn't any more important or special than any other Prez, but he is our Prez and yes he should have access to the public airwaves in times like this] during a major issue such at this Syria thing, most folks who depended on CBS News might switch and instead find ABC, NBC, or even PBS news.

Not everyone has cable/satellite with the entire line up of cable news stations [ I don't buy that more expensive package so no Fox, CNN, MSNBC]. Others rely only on an antenna. Some folks may only get one network [depending on how remote their location], so that might also affect how the networks look at covering this.

I agree with Kavips, this is an important issue and the public needs to be as informed as possible. The shows airing Tuesday night are still in reruns, so no big loss. But even if I had to miss a new episode of NCIS, oh well, this issue is way more important than watching Gibbs solve another crime.

I do agree with you Billsmith, that IF the Congress does not give the Prez permission to do his plan and he does it anyhow, then yes the Congress should take action and if that means start Impeachment proceedings then yep. He's not God nor king. As he said, America's national security is not directly being affected, and that makes the difference of him being able to go forth on his own or not.

Kavips: that must have been awesome to see the space launch from your front yard. Maybe next time there will be more publicity about it.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:32pm
Billsmith: Apparently there are folks who do listen to the radio for news coverage AND sporting events, not just here, but all over the nation, or those radio stations would not be carrying their local teams games. They make money by doing it. WDEL wouldn't air the Phillies or Eagles if they didn't make money from their local avails. CBS Radio, CNN Radio, Fox News Radio, and even NPR all would fold up if no one listened to news/informational spoken word programming on the radio.

Also some folks may be out in their car or at work and can catch the game on the radio, same with the Prez. Can't sit around watching TV at work, or while driving. Radio still has its place, maybe not as great as it was in radio's hey days, but still a solid place where good money can be made by radio station owners, radio networks, and syndicators. Advertisers still spend millions of dollars on radio.

billsmith
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 7:32pm
No need to pay attention to news or to politicians. There is absolutely nothing new:

"They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
The Whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like Anybody very much.

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lucky day
Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away

They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow Man"

-- Sheldon Harnick @1958

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:54pm
That's a pretty bleak poem. I could see how a poem like that could really depress someone, especially those without the hope of redemption, love, grace, forgiveness, and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ.

But as you said above, & as it also said in the Bible, there's nothing new under the sun. So the news shouldn't surprise us, it's just more of the same thing.

There are those times though when what our leaders are saying are important & should be heard. So even though the day to day news is pretty much the same misery over & over, we do need to hear our leaders, because they can affect our lives. Obama's reckless plan is one such example. I plan on listening to his speech either on radio (either WDEL/ CBS Radio or NPR), or CBS-TV, or PBS (channel 12) Depending on what I'm doing when the speech comes on.

kavips
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 11:48pm
Tying the launch and the poem together, after seeing what one missile looks like, this afternoon I was finally able to imagine what it would have looked like to see 15 to 20 such sights all simultaneously heading north, fully knowing some were on their way headed to you...

We kinda laugh at it now, but we survived some tough times. Nothing what anyone younger than 50 can even imagine.

kavips
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 11:56pm
I forgot to change the subject, so here it is... Remember how we found out during the Kinder Morgan crises that Germany and Europe all compete against us pro-union?

Well, in a funny story with a twist, Republicans in the South have all been wooing foreign car manufactures to come in.. Tennessee included... touting their No-Union work force...

It appears that one of their hauls, Volkswagen, wont come into Chattanooga unless it can be union, because under German law, the Union has half the seats on the board... This has Tennessee GOP very uneasy because, they are right now, trying to bust up the Teachers Union and make it non bind-able. ..

Here is the ABC News link...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/gop-dreads-prospect-uaw-foothold-south-20156295


VW is putting them in a awkward position.

kavips
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 2:11am
More news... According to this Reuters Poll, the critical level has been reached where more Americans disapprove of intervening in Syria, than those making up the two groups who approve and who don't know. Meaning even if those who don't know all decided we should intervene, interventionists would still be in the minority.

This has just happened.. for last week the pro-interventionists coupled with the do-not-knows, had a six point edge over the dis-entangelists, so it was still theoretically possible that a majority could be persuaded to go into Syria.

Not any more...

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-20130908

billsmith
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 3:49am
MikeFromDelaware: I'm surprised you don't remember it. It wasn't a poem. It's lyrics for a song that was pretty popular at the time. The Kingston Trio had the best known version but several other artists covered it, as well.

These speeches are usually at 9pm. Any earlier and it's before most people get home on the West Coast. Any later and people start nodding off on the East Coast. But why watch? It sounds as though you've already made up your mind. And it's not like watching is going to change anything. If Morning Edition has a fact check the next morning, I'll listen to that. The most recent Star Trek movie is out on DVD Tuesday, so I'll watch that. Kirk can get away with violating the Prime Directive but Obama could never pull it off.


Mike from Delaware
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 9:03am
Billsmith: I agree that my mind is pretty made up. Even if Obama can show actual proof I still think Russia should handle it.

I also want to check out ME on NPR to catch their fact checker segment(assuming they offer it) to hear where the Prez "stretched" the truth" & where he got it correct.

I still like hearing his own words to see how I interpret what he says. I also do agree that Capt. Kirk can get away with violating the Prime Directive & Prez Obama couldn't. I believe that's a good thing.

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 9:11am
9pm, that makes sense. I'm sure the networks must love this breaking up their prime time lineup. CBS though, might not mind as much since 9 pm is just after their #1 show (NCIS) goes off & the follow up show does'nt do nearly as we\'ll in the ratings. I've kidded my wife on other Tuesdays when the Prez was going to speak by saying no one not even Obama preempts Gibbs.

billsmith
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 9:19am
MikeFromDelaware: The kind of circular reasoning you used in discussing radio is the same as that is used by preachers. But since this time we are not discussing religion, I assume I am permitted to fall back on facts and logic. Stations carry sports because advertisers like sports. Advertisers buy sports with or without listeners. Pro, college and even high school. It's as much about supporting the team and getting out a sales message. If this were about what people want to listen to, 1290 would still play music (so would 950).

You also assume that if stations keep doing it, they must make money at it. But you also tell us you once worked for a station that consistently lost money for decades.

By the way, CNN has gotten out of radio. They did fold. NBC and ABC have sold off their radio properties. CBS did a corporate reorganization which moved radio to another operating unit (where TV balance sheets won't be affected). All three plus Fox have somebody else operate their radio "networks" for them. They just have a few people in a corner who pull TV audio and write and read radio newscasts. NPR is non-commercial and does long-form news programming, with unique content. That is entirely different from just carrying audio of a speech, press conference or staged event.

In any case, you did not address my basic question: Why do multiple stations and networks have the knee-jerk need to carry these things? This is not about what the audience wants. Ratings plummet for the entire evening when they do this. It's not about making money. Ads can get cancelled (or have to be made up later). Newsies are lemmings. They arrogantly don't pay any attention to their audiences; they only pay attention to what they competitors do. Newsie see, newsie do. This has gone on a long time. At one time NBC had a policy during special events coverage to stay with it 30 minutes longer than CBS. Doesn't matter if it's over and the chattering class has run out of stuff stay. Doesn't matter if audiences are bailing out. All that matters is what the "other network" is doing. It's an inane business filled with inane people. But you believe in The Holy Church of the Media.

billsmith
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 12:56pm
I see Assad is going to be on Charlie Rose Monday night. That should be more worth watching than Obama because (1) Charlie will ask questions and (2) We have no idea what Assad will say.

It looks more likely "the greatest president in our lifetime" will go ahead and start a war. Kerry is trotting out Munich, which is a sure sign a politician can't keep out of something. Where is Hillary when we need her? Kerry has just rolled over and sold out.

kavips
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 3:21pm
Disagree... War is not likely, only 44 house members say they will vote for it. 213 out of 218 have already committed to no way. Bizarrely, Delaware's John Carney is listed as being one of those 44 who want to kill, kill, kiil. to paraphrase Arlo Guthrie in "Alices Restaurant."

billsmith
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 3:47pm
Kavips: Now I see "the greatest president in our lifetimes" has refused to turn over his "evidence" to the AP. All he's released is some gory photos. What's he afraid of... unless he lies, lies, lies.

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 5:44pm
Billsmith said: "You also assume that if stations keep doing it, they must make money at it. But you also tell us you once worked for a station that consistently lost money for decades."

You and I both know that was a "hobby" station that was family owned. Those folks had money and saw that station as serving the public interest in the programming they aired; and apparently were willing to lose money running it. It was their money, they could do with it as they chose. They chose to have a station that provided news/information/commentary/public affairs programming sort of what WDEL has become now.

But, unlike those owners, WDEL's owners are business folks who do want to make money running their chain of radio stations. So it appears that WDEL's owners might be better business folks than were the owners of that other station across town. Same market [Wilmington], same format, very similar programming, both had large news departments, lots of live and local programming, etc, etc. One lost money and was sold off to Clear Channel and today is a computer in a closet taking programming from the satellite. While the other [WDEL] is apparently at least NOT losing money and appears to be actually supporting itself, and possibly making money.

I don't believe businesses are spending millions of dollars on Sports, because of their loyalty to a team [that's just doesn't make good business sense unless there's some major tax write off for them, but I'm not a tax expert any more than I'm a radio business expert - maybe you know that answer].

Just as companies don't sponsor NASCAR drivers for such loyalty. Both sponsor Sports and NASCAR drivers to keep their name out in the public eye as advertising, both on local radio for high school/college/minor league/major league sports, and yes even NASCAR because someone is listening on the radio. If they didn't believe it would help their business they'd spend that money for advertising in some other way.

Changing subjects:

I wonder if NPR will offer highlights of Charlie Rose's interview on ME or ATC on NPR? It might be interesting to hear what he says, but I'm sure Assad is NOT going to say, Yep we bombed those folks with mustard gas. The guy isn't an idiot. I'm not sure what proof he can offer to the world that his folks didn't use Chemical weapons, UNLESS he CAN prove who did. Now that would make that interview the interview of the year to be sure.

What's sad is Delaware's "Three Stooges" in Congress are blindly going along with whatever the Prez wants, even though poll after poll show something like 80% of America is against doing anything in Syria.


billsmith
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 6:30pm
"You and I both know..."

MikeFromDelaware: Speak for yourself. I do not know the motives of station owners or anyone else. Just because the phrase "hobby station" gets repeated on message boards, does not make it true. Conventional wisdom - what everybody "knows to be true" - is usually wrong. Repetition is not expertise. Except, of course, for the clergy.

My reference to "team loyalty" applies to local businesses who agree to sponsor local high school and college sports on local radio stations, whether or not anyone actually listens to the games. This so-called "loyalty" cuts both ways. Support the team and having one's name associated with the team.

"Millions of dollars on sports?" Super Bowl. Major sports TV contracts. Sure. Not local ads in station breaks on small market radio stations carrying a ballgame.

There are two ways local radio stations can sell time nobody wants (evenings and weekends). (1) Sports to local merchants who want to be associated with "the game." (2) Preachers who pay premium rate for the ego trip of having their sermons on the radio on Sunday mornings, even if nobody listens at that time, either. Gullible ad buyers help pay the bills.

Curious: You want to watch Obama's actual speech, pardon me, you want to listen to it on the radio. But excerpts the next day are good enough for Assad.

billsmith
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 8:11pm
Excerpts of Charlie Rose's interview with Assad will be shown on CBS This Morning and the Evening News tomorrow (Monday). The entire interview will be shown on CBS at 9pm and on Charlie's PBS program, which runs locally on channel 12 at midnight.


Mike from Delaware
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 9:51pm
Thanks for the info on Charlie Rose's interview.

kavips
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 11:04pm
BillS... The way I see it, the same standard of proof must be applied to the current chief executive as they wanted applied to the previous one. He refused, and now they refuse.

The evidence was faulty in Iraq... It most likely is faulty today... It is, after all, the same exact people in Langley making the determinations... both times.

kavips
Sun, Sep 8, 2013 11:09pm
Allan...

See if you can talk to your acquaintance Pepe and get clarification on this...

Exhibit A: Saudis have put ''on the table'' their offer to pay for the entire US assault on Syria. Exhibit B: in case of an attack on Syria, the price of oil is slated to go from $109 to $125 per barrel (base case scenario), with an upside scenario of $150 per barrel. Saudi Arabia will produce 9.8 million barrels of oil a day. Which means if the spike is only the base case scenario, Saudi will gross a super-profit of $156.8 million per day. If it is the upside scenario, then the Saudi super-profits will be $401.8 million per day. Not a bad arbitrage game from Mr Bandar and his gang of Saudi "democrats"....

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-05-060913.html

He appears to be the only source for the Saudi picking up the cost... Perhaps you can fluff out where that came from...?


Mike from Delaware
Mon, Sep 9, 2013 8:01am
Billsmith: Granted, millions of dollars get spent for the national TV Sports events. But there are thousands of radio stations around the nation airing high school/College/minor league/and major league sports/ and yes national RADIO Sportcasts from Westwood One, CBS Radio, etc, so YES millions of dollars are being spent for radio advertising for this type of programming. Maybe not as much as for national TV Sports, but nothing to sneeze at either. Someone is making a decent living that way.

billsmith
Mon, Sep 9, 2013 12:14pm
MikeFromDelaware: What's your point? People buy sports on the radio. Doesn't mean anybody's listening. Advertisers are gullible for sports. Preachers buy time, too. Doesn't mean anybody's listening, either. Preachers are also gullible. Jesus didn't know squat about buying media.

Once upon a time, most games were not on TV and people had to listen on the radio. Now, everything's on TV. Maybe a few people are stuck in a car and listen to a bit of the game on the way home. Me, I Tivo the game and make a point not to listen to the radio until I can start watching.

You remind me a bit of Charlie Chaplin. He refused to admit that the public wanted talking pictures and it took him some 20 years before he finally broke down and made a talkie. Well, for some 60 years radio has had pictures. People have eyes and ears and prefer to use both.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Sep 9, 2013 2:39pm
To use an old phrase from Stan Freeberg, Radio stretches the imagination, the other guy says, but doesn't television, Stan replies, yes up to 21 inches [maybe today he's have said 71 inches].

You have to sit there and watch TV, with radio you can do other things while listening, be it drama, music, news, commentary, audio books, preaching, etc.

There's nothing wrong with TV; I enjoy watching dramas on TV, just like going to the movies, they're good too. But I also enjoy the radio. To each his/her own.

My point was, as your point implied that no one listens to the radio, my point is more than you think or the advertisers wouldn't waste their money plugging their products on the radio. They are idiots, but business folks.

Yep I prefer talkies too. But I've gotten some great laughs and enjoyed seeing some silent films too. It's a different experience, same with radio. No Silent films won't ever replace the talkies, just as radio will never replace TV, but yet both radio and silent films offer a unique experience in story telling. Just like riding a train is a very different experience than driving or flying. Train travel will never replace the car or the airplane as a way to travel, but for those who try it, find a unique experience. Same with radio.

billsmith
Mon, Sep 9, 2013 5:36pm
MikeFromDelaware: Stan Freberg, among other things, created and produced commercials. Yes, he had a summer replacement radio show in the mid 50s, and sold some comedy records. He made his living in advertising. The line quote is from an ad he did for the Radio Advertising Bureau to promote radio advertising. This was in the 60s when people did listen to radio.

And no, you don't have to sit there and watch TV. You are showing your age. One reason radio is dying is because its audience is old and advertisers aren't interested in paying to reach you. People who came along after the baby boom don't just sit and watch TV. If something happens, they may look. But they keep on doing whatever else they are doing. Increasingly, they don't even watch live TV (except sports). Ever heard of Tivo?

Car travel and air travel mostly did replace train travel in this country. Maybe you haven't noticed but the railroads got out of the passenger business in 1971 and all that is left is a bare-bones, under-utilized, and government subsidized train service. If you want to compare the current state of radio to Amtrak (or SEPTA), you may have a point.

The basic point is radio advertising has declined steadily over the last three decades. Think back to the major radio advertisers you remember. None of them are on radio any more. None of the major consumer products companies. None of the major retailers. And right-wing talk radio is mostly bottom-feeders selling cheap insurance, ways to get out of debt, how to "talk good," how to keep the IRS from taking your house and sue some drug company. You can tell who is listening (and who is not) by the ads.

A lot of business folks are idiots. Surprised you don't know that. Ego trumps brains.

I know you want to believe. Christmas is a few months away and I'll make sure to tell you about Santa.

kavips
Wed, Sep 11, 2013 9:49am
Couple of facts dumped by the IRS today..

The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012. But until last year, the top 1 percent's share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 percent it reached in 1927. We are now in record territory.

Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose 19.6 percent, compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent...

Since the "recovery" began and the recession "ended," 95% of income gains reported to the I.R.S. have gone to the 1%. Compare that to the 45% of income gains that went to that population segment during the economic expansion of the 1990's.

In 1932, the top 10% earned 46.3% of income; in 2012 they "captured" 48.2% of income.

To qualify for the top 1% of income earners in 2012, you had to make more than $394,000 last year; to make it into the top 10% your income had to be above $114,000.

The link:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/10/top-1-percent-takehomerecordshareof2012usincome.html





Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach