Conference back40::soapbox

 >   Can the media be trusted to disseminate the truth?

  Eventually ...

    The media has only one truth...being number one in their medium.

    You can get more dirt on Clinton in foreign papers than here in the US!
    
    -Jack

  No they don't tell the truth but contrary to the opinions of the far right
they do not slant the news toward liberals. 

  What does happen, however, is that they oversimplify stories and they make
things seem more dramatic and controversal than they really are. 

  When I was at UMASS in the late '60s there would often be demonstrations by
the SDS and other left wing organizations in front of the Student union around
lunch time. About 200 demonstrators would carry signs and chant slogans while
another 10,000 students would try to get past them to get a burger. 

  I'd get home at night (I was commuting from my parents house about 10 miles
away) and they ask about the demonstration with thousands of protesters. Seems
the press would film the 10,000 kids trying to get past the SDS to get a burger
then report that 10,000 people held a demonstration. 

  That was my 1st exposure to hyping up the news. I've seen it many times since.

  Another good example happened to the Red Sox a few years back. The team was
having a really bad season and got mathematically eliminated with weeks to go.
Everyone was really glum and the press decided to stir things up.

  During the game Detroit infielder Travis Fryman had hit a shot down the 3rd
base line out of the reach of Wade Boggs. It was clearly a hit but the official
scorer gave Boggs an error. After the game the scorer approached Boggs and asked
him if he thought he could have gotten to the ball. Boggs said no it was out of
his reach but did not ask for it to be changed to a hit.

  The press overheard the conversation and went to the pitcher, Roger Clemens,
who was in an ERA race that could mean the Cy Young award. They told him that
Boggs had searched out the official scorer and demanded that the error be
changed to a hit which would work against Clemens.

  Clemens basically said "well it's no big deal but I did throw hard at Paul
Moloitor last year when he was in a batting race with Boggs, again, it's no
big deal".

  The press then went back to Boggs and told him that Clemens was really angry
over Boggs saying the error should have been a hit. Boggs went ballistic.

  The press then reported that Boggs and Clemens were having a major fight over
the incident.

  It happens. They are under pressure to sell papers and the truth is often
far too boring so they jazz things up.

  George

    
    No, they can't be trusted.  I'm not going to go into my
    "liberal bias" mantra, either.  You just can't trust what you
    hear or see or read on any media news, wherever on the political
    spectrum.  To test this, watch ACTUAL events, on CSPAN, then see
    how they are reported in the WSJ,Glob,Sun,WBZ radio, NPR, PBS,
    CNN, channel 4, etc.  You will be amazed at how much everybody
    doctors what actually happens.  I think this is subconscious,
    and all of us do this even if we try not to.  Seeing a reporting
    of an event can never be trusted as much as seeing the event itself.
    
      bb

    A friend of mine (a Digit, BTW), is a major electronics head.
    He has an unreal "home theater", complete with a satellite
    receiver. He often watches the news feeds... no, not the
    news, the news feeds... the raw material they use to produce
    the news.

    Occasionally, he also watches the news... just so he can
    see how far apart the news feeds and the news as read to
    the "little people" are. And they are often fabulously,
    monstrously, overwhelmingly out of phase. He's showed me
    some videotape which proves his point.

    It is why I choose to believe that all news people, but
    particularly the TV types, are pathological liars and not
    only are not to be trusted, but should actually be avoided
    so as to not fall prey to their brainwashing technique.

    It is why, despite the cartoon character of the entire
    affair, I absolutely refuse to watch any OJ-related
    coverage.

    I have a definition of a good TV journalist... but I'll
    spare you.

    -b

    
    Not a chance - and it's not an accident.
    Several years ago I worked at a newspaper and had an opportunity 
    to monitor the wire service jobs coming in.  It seemd to me that
    AP and UPI sent out the same story (same topic at least) phrased
    in different ways so as to match up with the editorial policy
    of the paper.  If the paper was conservative, they could select a 
    version of that story that read more on the conservative side, if
    the paper was liberal they used the more liberal version of the 
    story.  
                   

Why is it that:
- lots of people accuse the media of having liberal bias?
- lots of people deny that the media have liberal bias?
- far fewer people (if any) rail about any media conservative bias?

Smells like smoke to me.

    Braucher, I know what you mean.  I watch both C-SPAN channels;
    it's fascinating (also frightening) to see how a session or hearing
    that I've watched in its entirety gets "interpreted" when it hits
    the network news!!
    
    Where's Joe Friday when you need him?
    

>Why is it that:
>- lots of people accuse the media of having liberal bias?
>- far fewer people (if any) rail about any media conservative bias?

There are liberal and conservative media organizations out there. There are 
several times more the number of liberal orgs than there are conservative orgs.
There are very few non-bias, just the facts organizations.

The media is liberal because the bulk of the media available is liberal.

>- lots of people deny that the media have liberal bias?

because they aren't paying attention ...

>Smells like smoke to me.

Where there's smoke ...

Doug

   I love the folks who have just found C-SPAN in recent times.
   
   What they have clearly *NOT* learned yet is they are not watching
   just the facts Joe Friday on the floor.
   
   No, they are watching a bunch of Make-up-a-fact Fridays on the floor.
   
   
   
   Check the facts.  When a rep says this is what this bill does, do you
   *ever* bother to read the bill?  Of course not.
   
   Check the facts.  When a rep tells a moving annecdote such as Girl
   Scouts have to sell thousands of boxes of girl scout cookies to pay
   for legal costs, and then another and another and another and another
   rep gets up and says the exact same thing, do you ever bother to check
   if they all got it right?  Of course not.
   
   								-mr. bill

    ...Truth!
    
    
    	Now there's a story best not left to the media.  I honestly think
    that the Media believe that what they are saying is the truth...
    
    ...something along the lines of- The truth is:
    
    	...if I embelish the story somewhat, then my ratings soar!
    	...if I skirt the details so that no lawsuits can come of it then
    	   alright!
    	...if I don't fiddle the story, then they will get someone else who
    	   will!
    	...it's only the NEWS!  What did you expect, Reality?
    
    
    	The fact is the Media is in the marketing business (bottom line, 
    market share etc.).  If it sells, then the attitude is, why change?  
    The Simpson fiasco is proof.  Anyone you talk to, denies having watched 
    the trial, yet the ratings tell a different story!  On the other hand 
    the ratings are fed to us by the Media! (Scary Huh!).  So is it that we 
    watch what we want, or is it that the Media uses propaganda techniques 
    to get us to watch what they want (improve market share).
    
    I once heard a really clever anecdote once...I'm sorry, this was some
    time ago, so I do not remember who used it...
    
    	The difference between the Communist News Agency and the Free World
    News Agencies, is that:
    
    In Russia the News is 95% propaganda and 5% truth... and the Russian 
    people no this!
    In America the News is 5% truth and 95% propaganda... and the American
    people do not no this!
    
    Again, my appologies for not remembering the details (were talking 20
    years or more here).  I think the only thing different today is the
    fall of Communism in Russia has probably brought alignment of the
    Peoples views with that of the American Counterparts..
    
    P.S.  Not picking on Americans here.  The fact is Look up the word
    Canadian in the Dic., and you'll see gullible as our singularly distinctive
    nationalistic trait.
    
    
    Rod
    (gotta run and catch the NEWS)

    
>   Check the facts.  When a rep says this is what this bill does, do you
>   *ever* bother to read the bill?  Of course not.
    
    	Mr. Bill, your chest thumping is tiring. Some of us DO read the
    bills and ARE informed, so take that chip off your shoulder for a
    while.
    
    
    jim

   
   Yeah, I know.  Any legislation that is posted to your beloved gun BB's
   are poured over semi-colon by semi-colon.
   
   								-mr. bill

    
    
    	re: .15
    
    	And that is why I am informed on the subjects I debate.
    
    
    jim

    
    Ahhhhhh!!! Quit your whining jim!!!!
    

    
    
    	bog off Andy. :*)
    
    
    

    Mr Bill,
    
    Most of us watching C-SPAN can tell the difference between some
    congresscritter playing to an empty stadium and a group of congress-
    critters addressing the media or actual footage from the floor.
    

Not everything in print is true.

and

No facts. It's only interpretations.

_Tak

re <<< Note 359.21 by TKTVFS::NEMOTO "no facts, only interpretations" >>>


>Not everything in print is true.

What, not even the SPDs??


Chele

    Naa they're a load of bollox. A customer pointed that out to me the 
    other day.

You had to have _someone else_ tell you?
You've a pure soul Martin.


Chele

    I'm just a nice guy !

>>Not everything in print is true.
>
>What, not even the SPDs??

No one can be perfect. 8-)

_Tak

    I can kick butt playing backgammon, I used to do it for a second
    income.  It's all numbers, always bet the odds.  This has colored some
    of my philosophy.
    
    I always assume that what I hear or read on the news is intended to
    deceive.  I am almost always proven correct.  It's just the way the
    dice roll.
    
    On the other hand, once you know they are intentionally lying, you can
    generally look around and find out what they are trying to hide from
    you.
    
    Example, headline "Random Violence on the Increase!".  The story then
    went on to report that violent crime had uniformly DECREASED across the
    country.  This makes it more *likely* that IF you are killed it more
    likely be a random act than it once was.  The story reported the facts,
    but I bet not one person in one hundred got the impression that violent
    crime was down from the last report.

    The Intelligence Web Report had an interesting interview with James
    Harff, director of Ruder & Finn Global Public Affairs in February of '94.
    This firm currently represents the Bosnian and Croatian governments.

Harff: For 18 months [Oct 93] we have been working for the republics of Croatia
and Bosnia Herzegovina, as well as for the [Muslim] opposition in Kosovo
[part of Serbia].  Throughout this period we had many successes.

Q: What are your methods of operation?

Harff: the essential tools in our work are a card file, a computer, and a fax.
The card file contains a few hundred names of journalists, politicians,
academicians, and representatives of humanitarian organizations.  The computer
goes through the card files according to correlated subjects, coming up with
very effective targets.  The computer is tied into a fax.  In this way, we can
disseminate information in a few minutes to those we think will react
[positively].  Our job is to assure that the arguments for our side will be
the first to be expressed.  Speed is vital, because items favourable to us must
be settled in public opinion.  The first statement counts.  The retractions
have no effect.

Q: How often do you intervene?

Harff: Quantity is not important.  You have to intervene at the right time
with the right person.  From June to September, we organized 30 meetings with
the main press agencies, as well as meetings between Bosnian officials and
[U.S. Vice President] Al Gore, Lawrence Eagleburger, and 10 influential
senators, among them George Mitchell and Robert Dole.  We also sent out 13
exclusive news items, 37 last minute faxes, 17 official letters, and 8
official reports.  We placed 20 telephone calls to White House staff, 20 to
senators, and close to 100 journalists, editors, newscasters, and other
influential people in the media.

Q: What achievement were you most proud of?

Harff: To have managed to put Jewish opinion on our side.  The Croatian and
Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel antisemitism.  Tens of thousands of
Jews perished in Croatian camps.  There was every reason for intellectuals and
Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians.  Our
challenge was to reverse this attitude.  And we have succeeded masterfully.

At the beginning of August 1992, the New York "Newsday" came out with the affair
of [Serb] concentration camps.  We jumped at the opportunity immediately.  We
outwitted three big Jewish organizations - The B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation
League, the American Jewish committee, and the American Jewish Congress.  We
suggested to them to publish an advertisement in the "New York Times" and to
organize demonstrations outside the United Nations.

This was a tremendous coup.  When the Jewish organizations entered the game on
the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians, we could promptly equate the Serbs with the
Nazis in the public mind.

Nobody understood what was happening in Yugoslavia.  But by a single move we
were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would
hereafter play itself.

Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with the
use of words with high emotional content, such as "ethnic cleansing,"
"concentration camps," etc. which evoked images of Nazi Germany and the gas
chambers of Auschwitz.  The emotional charge was so powerful that nobody could
go against it.

Q: But when you did all this you had no proof that what you said was true.  You
only had the article in "Newsday"!

Harff: Our work is not to verify information.  We are not equipped for that.
Our work is to accelerate the circulation of information favourable to us, to
aim at judiciously chosen targets.  We did not confirm the existence of death
camps in Bosnia, we just made it known that "Newsday" affirmed it.

Q: Are you aware that you took on a grave responsibility?

Harff: We are professionals.  We had a job to do and we did it.  We are not paid
to be moral.

    
    
    There has been a lot of discussion going on as to whether the media is
    biased.  It turns out that Clinton was grieving with Mort Zuckermann,
    owner of a few media outlets including The New York Post.  They were
    grieving by playing cards on AF1 while Newt wanted to discuss the
    budget.  It is also interesting that the New York Post is the paper
    that had Newt in the diaper and whining about being snubbed on the
    front page, the paper that Schumer used in his little pontification in
    congress the other day.  
    
    Mike

    Playing cards while Newt wanted to discuss the budget?
    
    Is there no depth to which this man will not stoop?
    
    -Stephen

    
     and he prolly cheated at patience, too
    
      bb

    
    
    Thing is, he lied again trying to make himself seem noble while really
    he was relaxing.  No problem with that, but don't say you are busy
    grieving when you are playing cards.
    
    
    Mike

    
    Why anyone would believe a thing Bill Clinton says is beyond me.
    His trail of lies far exceeds that of any politician I have ever seen
    or heard. That is no small achievement.

    
    We all grieve in our own way.  Playing cards would be an easy thing to
    do while your mind was occupied with the reason you were on the plane
    in the first place; discussing the budget would take much more
    brainpower and as such isn't something I'd want to do when returning
    from a funeral.
    
    

    Deb,
    
    Brainpower and Clinton shouldn't be mentioned in the same note :-)
    

    
    You just did!
    

    
    
    
    Deb,
    
    
    Being President can be difficult sometimes, and sometimes you probably
    have to do things when you don't feel like it.
    
    
    Mike

If it happened once, I might give the pres the benefit of the doubt ....

Doug.

    >discussing the budget would take much more
    >brainpower and as such isn't something I'd want to do when returning
    >from a funeral.
                        
     Ok, so what's the excuse for demanding the congressional leaders use
    the back exit, like they are hosequeens being snuck out of a fraternity
    house?

    
    Hey, I'm not his official apologist 8^).
    
    

    .39
    
    I dunno. Maybe cuz they are hosequeens.
    
    ;^)

    i wouldn't wanna be seen with them either!

    Anyone who believes that the media and the Clinton Gang aren't
    in bed together should listen to the animated corpse Warren
    Christopher, who directly states that the primary motivation
    for the American people when rallying around the Clinton Military
    Mission in Bosnia should be the parade of pathetic images that
    have been spoon-fed to us for months over television news.  He
    goes on to describe the images in detail in case we've forgotten,
    but I won't bother to repeat it here.
    
    Chris

    Animated corpse :-)
    
    Thanks Chris, I've said all along Christopher looks like someone
    who's had a bad embalming job ;-}
    
    

    
    
    Great PN, Karen. :')
    
    
    Mike

>>     Ok, so what's the excuse for demanding the congressional leaders use
>>    the back exit, 


	Because he can????    And because they did???

	Works for me!

Pat

    
    
    You love them dominating type of men, don't you.........

>>    You love them dominating type of men, don't you.........

	You would know wouldn't you......  especially those with M16's

    
    
    All I have is a little ole .45  Not as long as, but a lot more girth
    than the .223......
    
    
    hth,
    
    Mike

    Speaking of "animated corpse"...
    
    There's a reading program in my kid's school called the Reading Corps,
    in which the kids rise in "rank" for every chunk of hours of reading,
    as signed off by the parent, and so on.
    
    One of the teachers refers to the program as the "Reading Corpse".
    The problem is, she really thinks that "corps" is pronounced "corpse".
    
    Chris

    ;>

    > One of the teachers refers to the program as the "Reading Corpse".
    
    Digital has it's own version.  It's the engineering design group
    in England.

    Hey, I have friends in that dead body...

    > Hey, I have friends in that dead body...
    
    I think they're called maggots.

    Oooh, they *have* pissed you off haven't they?

    
    Read a letter to the editor in todays Globe.
    
    If the writer is accurate, it seems that George Wills wife
    is working for the Dole campaign as communications director.
    
    

 I believe that is correct (in fact I believe Buchanan brought this up
 when he appeared on whatever show Will is on).




 Jim

    
    Remember the Contract-with-America??
    
    Good. Did you know that when asked how they covered it, only
    3 percent of the Washington press corp said they treated it as
    "a serious reform proposal"?

    So they got it right for a change.  Who knew?

    really Colin, u usually are a much more perceptive noter than this...

	Ron, besides a lot of hot air and a win at the elections for the
repubs, just what did the contract with america accomplish?

    Well, it got Cobb County GA (Newt's home turf) to be the biggest
    recipient of 1993/4 Federal pork dollars in the whole country.  Whoa.
    Sorry - the CwA was supposed to *cut* federal pork wasn't it?

	Cobb County.... isn't that where Ben Matlock practices his lawyerness?

    >Well, it got Cobb County GA (Newt's home turf) to be the biggest
    >recipient of 1993/4 Federal pork dollars in the whole country.
    
     That's astounding. How did Newt manage to bring home the bacon (as it
    were) during a period when democrats controlled both houses of congress
    as well as the whitehouse?
    
    >Sorry - the CwA was supposed to *cut* federal pork wasn't it?
    
     You didn't indicate that wasn't the case, did you? In fact, you didn't
    address the aggregate level of pork at all.

    It's funny how the liberal media has downplayed the Washington Post
    poll in May regarding how only 4% of the media voted republican.  Here,
    the leader of liberal media in the USA, the POST, own poll shows how
    biased all forms of the media are, and even they downplay the poll. 
    What a stretch.  I supported them in the '70's with Watergate and
    Nixon, but it's obvious that since the departure of Woodward and
    Bernstein, only two possible choices remain in this plethoria of
    scandal with the current administration:
    
       Either no one was hired to replace W&B and do the investigative
    reporting they did 20+ years ago, or
       
       Since it is a liberal democratic administration, the editors of the
    POST won't let their hacks investigate the shennigans going on in DC.
    
    They don't even cover how Marion Barry is destroying the city's
    infrastructure, school system and tax base.
    
    Sheeeeeesh!

    .64
    
    I'm sorry.  I had no idea that the money was forced on him against his
    will.   

    Come on, Colin. Fess up. Either you screwed up the dates, or it really
    did happen before Newt had any power (in which case the democrats get
    the credit/blame). Now which is it? Or is addressing substantive issues
    not your cuppa T?

    The third possibility is that I very much misunderstand how
    Federal monies are distributed.  My understanding of Goals 2000 is
    that the offical stance of New Hampshire is to refuse to apply for
    certain federal monies.  I can't help but applaud the Governor for
    showing a bit of political backbone on this.  Even though the State
    has now allowed individual school districts to apply personally,
    Merrill has clearly defined his position on the issue. As I understand
    it, even if appropriated by ctte, a representative has to spend a lot
    of time lobbying to get the funds or they'll end up in other districts.
    
    Whether or not Newt was "in power", he was the representative and he
    could have appealed to his electorate for a similar stand.  You seem to
    be saying that Newt had no power to take a political stance on this and
    set an example.  By not doing it, he gets lambasted in the media for
    double standards - but that's hardly an example of media bias.

    >You seem to be saying that Newt had no power to take a political 
    >stance on this and set an example.  
    
     I am saying nothing of the kind.
    
     Assuming you got your dates correct, the money was awarded to
    Gingrich's district during a period of democratic control of all
    appplicable seats of power. To impugn Gingrich based on this appears,
    for all intents and purposes, to be a smear of Gingrich based on the
    fact that he was relatively uninvolved in the actual legislation
    compared to the democrats who held power during this period. One must
    question whether the "pork" as you so blithely call it was in fact
    merited given the fact that Gingrich has never been a darling of the
    democrats- and with the scarce facts here in attendance that proves a
    daunting task indeed.
    
     Let's be perfectly clear about what I'm saying (and what I'm not
    saying). Attacking Newt Gingrich based on democratically controlled
    congressional spending seems a bit disingenuous. Now if you were to
    show that federal spending in his district skyrocketed AFTER he was
    made speaker, that would certainly merit a bit of incredulity given his
    smaller government leanings. But to simply look at numbers before he
    was in a position to influence them much and use that as the basis for
    attacking him seems to be little more than partisan sniping using the
    nearest available rocks. 
    
     Note that I am not saying that Gingrich is completely innocent here;
    for all we know there could have been a quid pro quo between him and
    congressional democrats for one thing or another. But based on the
    facts as presented here, there is insufficient evidence to make any
    legitimate and objective charges aginst the speaker. If you want to
    attack him, you need some substance, not just dark innuendo.

    
    The original report that initiated the press reports was a large
    publication from the fiscally conservative Gov't watchdog group
    "Common Cause".   I went back to the gov't online accounts
    "Consolidated Federal Funds Report 1985-1994" to check the data.
    
    The Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR), from the Census Bureau,
    is a presentation of Federal Government expenditures or obligations for
    all states, counties and subcounty areas of the U.S.
    
    The content of the gov't accounting mirrors the Common Cause report,
    right down to the bizarre $19,500 for coast guard expenditure. (Cobb
    county is landlocked).  Interestingly, the lowest amount of federal
    expenditure is for welfare benefits.  Probably because Cobb county is
    very affluent.
    
    This affluence did not prevent them from attracting an average
    $5,500 PER CAPITA of federal dollars for the ten years that Newtie has
    been their rep.  In contrast, Hillsborough County NH attracted a mere
    $3,300 per capita even though the community is far less wealthy.
    In many other factors, Hillsborough is demographically similar to Cobb.
    One major difference is that during this time, Hillsborough was
    represented by a Democrat for some time, during which time
    appropriations remained flat at just over $3000 per capita.  This
    jumped 25% to $4000 per capita in 1992.
    
    As a matter of interest I looked at a couple of Mass counties and
    found the figures to be much higher than NH - around 4,500 PC, but
    generally lower than Cobb.  But then, Democrats are known to be in the
    pork trade whereas Newt claims to be totally against it.
    
    

    >This affluence did not prevent them from attracting an average
    >$5,500 PER CAPITA of federal dollars for the ten years that Newtie has
    >been their rep.  
    
     This is not necessarily illustrative. For example, if you were to
    examine the per-capita federal dollars spent in the county in which the
    Hoover Dam resides (during the years it was built) you'd find that
    per-capita spending was astronomical compared to the rest of the
    country. That doesn't in and of itself prove that the residents of that
    county got undue favors.
    
     What was the money spent on? I know it's difficult to tell just from
    looking at financial figures, but it matters. Take the $19.5K
    Coast Guard expenditure. On its face, it seems absurd, given the fact
    that Georgia isn't on the ocean. But until we find out what the money
    was spent on it's difficult to know whether the money was spent
    improperly or whether there's a good explanation for it. Just looking
    at a bottom line doesn't provide adequate information to truly assess
    the situation.
    
    re: NH's poor attraction of federal monies
    
     That's no news to me. I've lived in Hillsborough county my whole life.
    We've always gotten the short end. Why do you think we're more
    interested in keeping our money in the first place? When you send ti to
    Washington they keep some for themselves and send the rest to someone
    else. 
    
     How do counties served by prominent democratic representatives fare?
    I'd bet a damn sight better than most.

    
    Come off it.  You said it was innuendo, now you have the sources and
    data.  I gave you comparisons based on MA counties represented by Dems.
    I chose demographically representative examples from the source data,
    not the report.  $200,000 of the money funded a pleasure boating lake
    fer pete's sake.
    
    I also live and in Hillsborough county.  Even if you can't bring yourself
    to admit that Newt talks out of the side of his mouth, aren't you in the
    lease ticked off that your dollars have been magnanimously funding
    his electorate for over a decade? 
    
    
    
    
    

> given the fact that Georgia isn't on the ocean

Who's going to tell all the people from Savannah to Brunswick?

    Er, Cobb County GA is not.  But I'm redfaced anyway.

    
      My neighbor's son just got back from naval basic training.
    
      In Michigan.
    
      No, they weren't on the lake.  Water is not a prerequisite for
     doing endless pushups, saluting a fire hydrant all day, etc.
    
      bb

    So your point is that they didn't really need to spend the $200,000
    on the boating lake?

	If you check Colorado, you'll likely find some money allocated
	to the Navy. While this may sound absurd, it makes a lot more
	sense when you understand that there are Naval personnel assigned
	to the Cheyenne Mountain complex.

Jim

There is a small Naval facility near where I used to live in upstate NY, about
170 miles from the nearest ocean.  It does/did work on Naval nuclear reactor
design.

... and there's a Naval facility on the Kanawha River in West By Gawd
Virginee

    Strange as it may seem, I am not in the least surprised that
    there are Navy people located in every nook and cranny of the
    country.  I am more surprised that the champions of fiscal
    conservatism are not prepared to question the need for such
    spending.  Since the whole issue obviously hinges on this measly
    $19,000 out of the millions, I'll try and find out for you.
    
    

Ballston Spa New York?

Also, a friend who is a Navy Commander (SS) is stationed near Omaha,
Nebraska. Not many submarines there...

Art

Most of the "champions of fiscal conservatism" appear to favor spending
huge sums of money on national defense.

Wasting billions on the military seems to be one of their planks...

    
      Well, we lie awake nights worrying about naval attack through
     Boise, Idaho...
    
      bb

re .81:

>Ballston Spa New York?

Yes, that's the nearest place of any size to it.  Always struck me as funny
that the Navy would play with their nukkular sub toys so far from the ocean
but I guess it makes sense for secret work to be done in scattered oddball
places.

    
      In the last America's Cup, the boats were mostly constructed far
     from the water - one American entry was single-molded in Utah under a
     large anti-spying canopy with a 1-time furnace, then rolled under
     camoflage to San Diego in the dead of night.  The desert would be an
     ideal location to hide the design of a secret naval weapon.
    
      bb

    loose lips sink ships.

I think the Navy also has a nukyear facility in Idaho.

gotta start those lip exercises!

    
    You've been exercising them in here for.... how many years??
    

	Never have I typed with my lips! No way!!!!

    
>Also, a friend who is a Navy Commander (SS) is stationed near Omaha,
>Nebraska. Not many submarines there...

    Not many, but there is one (And a ship as well).
    
    Doug

 Hey, there's a Grand Island, Nebraska!  If there's an island, there must
 be lotsa water!



 Jim

    
    I stayed in a motel in Grand Island, Nebraska during the summer of
    1991.
    

 I drove through there enroute from Colorado Springs to Norfolk, NE (birth-
 place of Johnny Carson) and back one weekend in 1980 in a nasty snowstorm.


 Jim

    >Come off it.  You said it was innuendo, now you have the sources and
    >data.
    
     Get real. You have presented bits and pieces of data that tend to
    support your claims, but that clearly tell only the part of the story
    you want to be told. I presented a case in which your statistics would
    prove to be an entirely misleading bit of information, and surprise!
    you utterly ignored it. But you're still willing to hang your hat on
    those statistics (and a whopping 19.5K CG expenditure) as proof positive
    that Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite. Keep trying, Colin. The burden of
    proof is on you, and you are way short of the mark.
    
    >aren't you in the lease ticked off 
    
     Nah, I broke the lease.
    
    >that your dollars have been magnanimously funding his electorate for 
    >over a decade? 
    
     You make it sound like my tax dollars haven't been funding the Dan
    Rostenkowskis and Howard Metzenbaums and Charles Shumers of the
    congress. All things considered, I'm annoyed that my tax dollars are
    funding any of these guys, but the big difference between them and Newt
    is that they want more from me and Newt wants less. Now maybe it
    doesn't make a difference to you whether $10k of your tax dollars go to
    someone else or $5K of your tax dollars go to someone else, but it
    does to me. At least Rosty's no longer in a position to adversely
    affect my life, but there are years of damage to undo. /hthbibid

    
    > Nah, I broke the lease  :-)
    
    Newt wants less?  
    
    I fear you're going to have a long wait then, but at least you'll be
    getting more of your own cash back on your doorstep.
    
    

The Navy's 2nd largest base (actually it's a station) is located 
22 miles SW of Bloomington, Indiana.  The Naval Surface Warfare 
Center, Crane Division, Crane, IN is 110 sq.mi., the world's 
largest private railway system, and 430 miles of active broadband 
cable (well, hopefully a lot less now since we have a large 
effort there to replace that with something modern).  

The only water it has is a marvelous lake (fishing and hunting 
are wonderful there).  Other than that, it's in the middle of 
nowhere.

    
    Why don't u tell the good folks living in Bloomington Indiana is in the
    "middle of nowhere".  No just complain about others people's pork
    project but keep sending your congresscritter back to DC for your
    bacon...
    
    don't u know when u point your finger at another with blame 3 others
    are pointing back at u?

 The media..can they be snarfed?

I didn't say that Bloomington is in the middle of nowhere, I said 
Crane was.  And most of the people I talk to down there agree.

BTW, a lot of people in Bloomington feel like they're in the middle of 
nowhere.  Mainly because the only way to get there is SR37.  They have 
been trying to get the state govt. and the Feds. to build E/W access 
and possibly something to Cincy.