text:
- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
In fact, Alterman argues, the bias is hard to find. The Times was hardly soft on the Clinton administration, chasing after Whitewater for years, and The Washington Post has been slouching rightward for some time. Talk radio is Death Valley for the left, and the world of television punditry is not much better. Throughout the book, the idea of a liberal reporter seems a faint anachronism -- like the typewriter or Jimmy Olsen's bow tie -- when contrasted to the disciplined nexus of private foundations, talk shows and dirt-seeking oppo men that the right uses to get out its message. Alterman vividly presents this nether world as something out of Dante's ''Inferno'' -- the trust-funders with deep pockets, like Richard Mellon Scaife; the Internet bottom-feeders who traffic in rumors and half-truths (Matt Drudge); the braying hosts and guests on shows like ''The O'Reilly Factor'' and ''The McLaughlin Group,'' who never shut their mouths to listen to one another (where's the duct tape when you actually need it?).
But it's one thing to rant about the right, and it's another to show tangible proof that democracy is being tampered with. This Alterman sets out to do in his two best chapters, detailing the press's dismissive treatment of Al Gore in 2000 and its indifference to the actual counting of the votes in Florida. Alterman suggests persuasively that the press mollycoddled George W. Bush in the months leading to the election. Another interesting revelation is that the Republicans were poised to launch a ''massive talk radio operation'' to attack the verdict if Gore won the electoral count but lost the popular vote. History turned out differently, as we know, and Gore was excoriated as a sore loser for even questioning the result. By working the refs, the Bush team ended up winning the Super Bowl....
— New York Times
What I Saw at the Devolution
This work is not designed to set forth novel or startling political doctrines. It is intended rather as a report on the fundamental enterprise of reexamination and self-criticism which liberalism has undergone in the last decade. The leaders in this enterprise have been the wiser men of an older generation. But its chief beneficiaries have been my own contemporaries; and its main consequence, I believe, has been to create a new and distinct political generation.
—Arthur Schlesinger, Opening words of The Vital Center, 1949
"Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun." It should have been no surprise that, try as I might, I couldn't get this Noel Coward ditty out of my head. Washington, D.C.'s dog days of summer have been legendary since the swamp was first declared our nation's capital as the bastard child of a constitutional compromise—and the summer of 1997 was no exception. Search as I might, however, I found few canines and even fewer foreigners as the temperature rose to oppressive levels. Instead, looking around the South Lawn of the White House, I saw a very different—though no less peculiar—menagerie braving Washington's heat and humidity on this most August day.
If I had not known better, I would almost have thought it was a heat-induced mirage. Striding out of the White House through a flag-bordered path and headed toward a platform on the South Lawn,not arm in arm but close, were the then opposing leaders of American political power: Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. It reminded me of the comic books of my childhood, when DC Comics' Batman and Marvel Comics' Spiderman would team up, Superman would battle Muhammad Ali, or all the superheroes would gather together for a "special" issue that every kid just had to have. Along with Clinton and Gingrich on the platform in front of me, and certainly even hotter than I was because of the powerful camera lights trained in their direction, were Vice President Al Gore, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Budget Chairman John Kasich, and dozens of members of Congress from both parties. They had come together to end nearly three decades of wanton fiscal insanity in Washington and sign the first balanced budget in a generation.
Since the moment I had started my job as Vice President Gore's senior speechwriter two months earlier, the push for a balanced budget had been at the center of my work. "Today is the reason I came to the White House," I wrote in my diary the day the budget deal was first announced. The provisions of the agreement would have a real impact on the millions of Americans who would benefit from the lower interest rates that would result from the balanced budget, from the plan's tax cut for middle-class families, from the health insurance it provided for low-income children, and from the college tuition assistance it offered. On top of all this, the achievement of a balanced budget after decades of debate and false starts was an important milestone for the country and for the New Democrat brand of thinking that Clinton had brought to the White House. I had come to Washington to make a difference. Now, the day after my 22nd birthday and less than two months since I had graduated from college, I was, Forrest Gump-like, standing in a sacred spot on a truly historic day.
But gnawing at my pride was a profound disquietude. At first I couldn't identify its source. The event was proceeding almost exactly as planned. Logistical preparations had begun days earlier in the West Wing basement office of Communications Director Ann Lewis. There, every last detail was haggled out—from the programs (parchment embossed with the presidential seal) to the invitees (over one thousand guests) to the music (answering a demand for "patriotic music," one meeting participant was forced to defend the choice of the Marine Band. "The Marine Band is `the President's Own,'" she sputtered. "They're about as American as you can get—and they're pretty wonderful!"). A top White House official poked her head in on her way out on the town that Friday evening and made sure the staff understood the significance of what we were doing. "This is the president's day," she directed. "Let's make it special for him."
Although the show was proceeding as planned, my uneasiness grew steadily stronger. The day was bigger than even the president of the United States. The assembled potentates had come to lower the curtain on something larger than three decades of budget deficits. Along with its specific importance, the balanced budget had a symbolic significance as well. Though I didn't realize it just then, I was witnessing the end of the political history of twentieth-century America. As historian John Lukacs has pointed out, internationally, the twentieth century really lasted from Franz Ferdinand's assassination and the beginning of World War I in 1914 to the moment when East Europeans tore apart the Iron Curtain with their bare hands and ended the Cold War in 1989. In that "short century," the forces of democracy and freedom faced off against monarchy, fascism, and communism—and emerged triumphant. Similarly, American politics of the twentieth century lasted from August 1910, when former President Theodore Roosevelt unveiled his New Nationalism vision of big government, to August 1997, when President Bill Clinton acknowledged that expanding centralized, top-down, bureaucratic government was a thing of the past.
It is no accident that these events occurred when they did. Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin, who put the New Nationalism into practice, lived in a time when centralized, assembly line factories were the cutting edge. They defined Americans' thinking about how the world should be ordered and structured. Bill Clinton came to power at a moment when this world was rapidly retreating and being replaced by a New Economy that was—perhaps above all else—intrinsically skeptical of centralized power and institutions, including government as Americans have come to know it. Clinton's signing of the balanced budget was a recognition of the awesome power the global financial markets now have in shaping American prosperity; it sent a clear message to Americans that government would live within its means, abiding by the same rules as the middle class; but most of all it made clear that the old, traditional choices about government had stopped being viable. Democratic big government programs and huge Republican tax giveaways—both types of government by "hot check"—were no longer live options.
As the ceremony went on, I began to realize why I was so anxious. When I was very young, my parents ran a small theater company in Los Angeles. I had grown up backstage, memorizing all the actors' parts and knowing when the audience would laugh far before they had any inkling of an impending guffaw. This predictability gave me comfort. Now, as the budget signing dragged on, an idea gnawed at me: a page was turning—and no one had their lines for the next act. In the years since that hot summer of 1997, politics has stumbled and bumbled along, without moving forward. The new lines still have not been written. This is the unfinished business of American politics.
Noticing the rest of my White House colleagues, and trying desperately to fit in and to avoid passing out, I took the lead of the men and doffed my suit jacket, slinging it ever so casually over my shoulder. I strained—unsuccessfully—to keep my mind from drifting during the interminable speeches. Watching the behavior of the assembled crowd, an observer might not have realized that this was such a crucial new beginning for the president, his party, and the nation. Over there was Press Secretary Mike McCurry sharing a laugh with a couple other staffers under the shade of a gnarled old tree. There was one of my colleagues, in his late 20s and—like Thomas Hobbes' life in a state of nature—"nasty, brutish, and short," sidling up to a pretty summer intern. There was a cluster of staffers from the First Lady's Office—Hillaryland, they called it—folding their programs into makeshift fans. And every so often, people would interrupt whatever they were doing to glance over at the made-for-TV production taking place before them.
It was indeed a special day for President Clinton—one that no one could have foreseen when he began his campaign for the White House. Running for president in 1992, Clinton had found a country gripped by a crisis of the old order. Confronted by the demise of the Cold War and the final death throes of the comfortable post-World War II economic arrangements, Americans felt certain of little more than decline—in their own standard of living, in the nation's economic well-being and social fabric, in their hopes for their children's future.
It was clearly a moment for creative, innovative leadership. But as the 1990s began, both parties were AWOL. The Republican Party gloried in the creed of greed and viewed crime and welfare as wedge issues to be exploited rather than problems to be solved. It had raised taxes on the middle class and presided over an era of dwindling growth. Education was an afterthought and Republican economic strategy was largely limited to the notion of rewarding those privileged with wealth and praying that their leftover trickle would sustain the nation.
At the same time, Americans saw a Democratic Party that had rejected its historic role as the tribune of the middle class. Many Democrats downplayed traditional values of work, family, responsibility, faith—labeling them the province of the Republicans. Paying more attention to rights than to responsibilities, to criminals than to victims, to bureaucrats than to entrepreneurs, to America's international sins than to its capacity for global good, the Democratic Party had lost its way.
Both parties concentrated on playing their assigned roles in the formulaic debate between "left" and "right" that characterized politics for most of the century—a debate that had become devoid of meaning, dependent on memory, derisive of the many. If American politics of the 1980s and early 1990s was a school dance, the Republicans would be locked in a chaste, but fervent embrace of economic elitism; the Democrats would be doing the lambada with cultural elitism; and America's middle class would be standing unobtrusively alone by the punch bowl. Politics was playing to those who favored French mustard—and ignoring those who used "French's." It rejected their interests and sneered at their values.
As the 1992 campaign got under way, few in Washington seemed to recognize this problem. But, far away from the glare of the national media's spotlight, a Democratic contender who had developed a cohesive critique of not only the Republican record but his own party's as well was preparing to step forward.
Arkansas' youthful, yet veteran, governor, Bill Clinton, was, as he described himself, "a different kind of Democrat." In a political career built like most—on lucky breaks, one of Clinton's luckiest came early on. In 1974, he lost his first race—a run for Congress. Beginning his career on the state level instead, he gained a greater perspective on the changes transforming America. Of course, he paid a price for this distance from D.C. His name wasn't bandied about with breezy familiarity at the chardonnay and brie parties on the Upper East Side where campaign cash is collected. He did not become a powerful, beef-ingesting, pork-dispensing, perk-exploiting Capitol Hill baron. Yet his breathing distance from Washington allowed him to realize very early on that the Capital's political debates were increasingly irrelevant to a changing nation. Announcing his presidential candidacy in October of 1991, he further distanced himself from the most powerful leaders of his own party. "The small towns and main streets of America aren't like the corridors and back rooms of Washington," he intoned from the steps of Arkansas' Old State House. "People out here don't care about the idle rhetoric of `left' and `right' and `liberal' and `conservative' and all the other words that have made our politics a substitute for action."
Clinton demonstrated a clear willingness to challenge both the Democratic Party's political arrangements and its ideological orthodoxies. For more than a year, as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council—a band of party rebels committed to building a new governing majority—Clinton had traveled the country speaking out on the party's need to change in order to keep up with the times. Now, as his presidential campaign got under way, Clinton would break forthrightly with his party's past.
I believe that together we have fulfilled the responsibility of our generation to guarantee opportunity to the next generation, the responsibility of our generation to take America into a new century, where there is opportunity for all who are responsible enough to work for it, where we have a chance to come together across all of our differences as a great American community.
—President Bill Clinton, at the balanced budget signing,
August 5, 1997
On October 23, 1991, twenty days after he announced his candidacy, Clinton traveled to Georgetown University, his alma mater, to deliver the first in a series of three speeches that formed the intellectual foundation of his candidacy. By the time he finished delivering the third in mid-December, he was languishing in fourth place in the polls in New Hampshire and had managed to raise only half as much in campaign funds as the leading fund-raiser in the pack. However, the press realized the effectiveness of his message. For instance, Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote that through this series of three speeches, "Clinton has cornered attention." Largely on the basis of these speeches, they anointed him with a front-runner status that he was to take all the way to the nomination.
The speech Clinton delivered that October day was one of the most eloquent given by an American politician in the past quarter century. Devoid of rhetorical bells and whistles, its power came from its honesty, from Clinton's willingness to speak truths that many politicians knew but few then had the courage to say.
Clinton thundered at those—rich, poor, and in between—whose demand for special favors had undermined the basic American creed of fairness. He said it was time that all Americans—from corporate CEOs to deadbeat dads, from Congressional chieftains to welfare moms—were held to an equal standard of responsibility for their actions. He offered a "New Covenant, a solemn agreement between the people and their government, to provide opportunity for everybody, inspire responsibility throughout our society, and restore a sense of community to this great nation."
Like President Reagan's central themes of smaller government, lower taxes, and stronger defense, this triad—opportunity, responsibility, community—served as the guiding principles of Clinton's presidency. These ideas were at the core of most every speech he delivered as president, and certainly every major one. In 1991, they were not just idle slogans, but fundamental departures from the Democratic dogma of the previous twenty-five years. They underscored his "different kind of Democrat" claim—an assertion that was central to his ability to win the White House. It is no accident that Walter Mondale did not even use the word "responsibility" once in his convention acceptance address while Bill Clinton used it six times.
In his first presidential campaignn, Clinton used "opportunity, responsibility, and community" to differentiate himself from both traditional Republican and Democratic nostrums. "Opportunity" was neither the no-growth economic record and indifference of the Bush years nor the government guarantee of equal results proffered by many Democrats—it was an outlook of rewarding hard work, encouraging strong economic growth, and above all else promoting access to education. His vision of "responsibility" included not just a promise to "end welfare as we know it," but an uncompromising demand for better corporate citizenship. Finally, his call for "community" rejected the loose principles of both the Left and Right, vowing to go "beyond every man for himself on one hand and the right to something for nothing on the other."
Clinton's New Covenant was less the basis for a new politics than a powerful reminder to the public that Clinton shared their distaste for the "brain-dead" old politics. Yet, it clearly reflected the raw resentments and muffled hopes of the average men and women who had seen both parties walk away from their historic commitments and get sidetracked by side issues. Unfortunately, as was once said of President William Howard Taft, if Clinton "were Pope he would think it necessary to appoint a few Protestant Cardinals." Once ensconced in office, Clinton brought into power a cadre of advisors and staffers who never bought into his message of change. He and his party paid a disastrous price for this in the 1994 midterm rejection.
In the summer of 1997, some of the White House staff gathered together in the ornately tiled Indian Treaty Room for a good-bye party for Donald Baer. The hard-driving former journalist who became Clinton's chief speechwriter and then communications director had helped engineer the president's political resurrection after 1994 and was one of the few true believers within the White House. As part of the "entertainment," the guests were treated to a parody of "We are the World," entitled "We are Dons World," written and performed by many of the White House speechwriters and communications staff. But it wasn't only the voices that were off-key.
When we were down and out
And there seemed no Hope at all
Don helped build that bridge
And now we're standing tall.
Well well well, we're a community now.
An opportunity to take responsibility
In our churches, mosques, and synagogues.
Rising to deliver some brief words of thanks to Baer, President Clinton couldn't help but deliver a mild rebuke to his staff members. His smile never leaving his face, but his eyes betraying a profound disappointment, Clinton said, "The thing about that `opportunity, responsibility, and community' is that for Don, they were never punch lines. They were what he believed in." As is often true, Clinton was also describing himself. But if he was disappointed in his staff, he might have seen where he fell short in leading them.
In signing the balanced budget, Clinton tried to make clear, once and for all, that Democrats would no longer peddle the shopworn planks of a bygone era. Whether it was free trade, welfare reform, fiscal responsibility, battling teen pregnancy, strong anticrime measures, use of military force abroad, or the death penalty, Clinton broke with the philosophy his party had promoted in recent years.
Yet, there is little assurance that his personal impact on the Democratic Party is necessarily anything more than ephemeral. From the very beginning, Clinton concentrated first and foremost on bringing change to the nation and saw bringing change to his party—if it happened—as a positive side-effect. Mere days after his election, the barons of congressional power flew down to Little Rock to meet with Clinton—an outsider who had explicitly campaigned against both the Democratic Congress and Washington, D.C., in general. Before the glare of the camera lights, these Washington pooh-bahs appeared with the crusading young reformer from the hinterlands and, in effect, took him under their left wing. "Don't worry, sonny," they seemed to say. "We'll show you how it's done." And Clinton followed their lead. His calls for cuts in bloated Capitol Hill staff and for the line-item veto vanished, he soft-pedaled his desire for campaign finance reform, and he suddenly became vague on the middle-class tax cut—once a centerpiece of his economic agenda.
From there forward, until his decisive break with congressional wisdom over the need for a balanced budget in the summer of 1995, Clinton chose accommodation over confrontation most every time. As president, he was seldom willing to expend his political capital in reconstructing the Democratic Party in his image. Most of his words and many of his actions pointed Democrats in a new direction. But when the forces defending the old party's apparatus and guarding its arrangements got in the way, he smoothed down the differences. This worked wonders for making peace; it was an enormous missed opportunity for remaking the Democratic Party.
Yet, while Clinton might have sped up the process, politics continued to change even without his active assistance. The same societal forces that had shaped Clinton in Arkansas were having an even greater impact in shaping the next generation of political leaders around the nation. As the 1990s progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the old ways of American politics were fading away. The story of one family in particular makes it clear that it is truly not your father's politics.
One would expect a moment of personal conversion to come while watching the sun rise over Machu Picchu, while running one's hands over the stones of the Great Wall of China, while traveling down the road to Damascus. It seems far less likely—and much less glamorous—for this moment of awakening to occur while campaigning for a state senate seat in St. Louis Park, a suburb of Minneapolis. After all, Saint Paul is one thing, St. Paul is another. Nevertheless, for one Minnesota politician, his successful first campaign put him in touch with voters who had concerns and outlooks very different from those of a previous generation.
The story begins 125 hundred miles away in a different world. On Halloween night 1936, the children of Theodore Mondale did not go door to door searching for candy. Their father was a stern and reverent preacher who frowned on the holiday's frivolity. Moreover, the tight grip of the Great Depressions seventh year left little levity in their tiny town of Ceylon, Minnesota. But there was another reason why the Mondale family was at home on this Halloween. Theodore Mondale had gathered his family to listen to the radio as Franklin Roosevelt brought his reelection campaign to a close with a stirring address at Madison Square Garden.
In a fiery speech, FDR sought to energize the Democratic Party's base of working Americans with a violent denunciation of the big business interests that he had battled during much of his first term. "I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match," said Roosevelt, struggling to make his voice heard above the crescendoing cheers of the crowd. "I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master." Listening at his father's side, 8-year-old Walter Mondale was exposed to a brand of politics he would practice all his life.
That October night, as he called "the roll of honor of those that stood with us," Roosevelt saw an industrial democracy with powerful interests arrayed on either side of a wide chasm. In his New Deal, he built up a big government to guarantee equal opportunity and protect Americans from the vicissitudes of adversity.
A decade later, Walter Mondale became swept up in a small insurgent faction led by Hubert Humphrey that was fighting to bring the values of the New Deal to Minnesota. They were the children of FDR, the "distinct political generation" that Schlesinger had described. Attacked as an "upstart," Mondale laid into an old giant of Minnesota politics for being "a voice out of the past. A last gasp of the old farmer-labor group." He stated that his goal was to speak for a new "generation that has grown up to plague the normal and traditional way of doing things." In a world that changes much faster than the minds of the people who live in it, the challenge of politics in every age is to assess the world as it is and respond to it with honesty instead of nostalgia. When he was young, Walter Mondale met that challenge directly.
But by the 1970s, as Mondale reached the heights of national leadership, America was changing both economically and socially. Americans were less likely to pledge their loyalty to parties in exchange for particular programs, to companies in exchange for a lifetime job, to interest groups in exchange for favors.
While he was vice president, Walter Mondale stated that the Democratic Party's job was to "take care of its friends." That meant extending the reach of government to help those who had long been left out of the American Dream—the poor, minorities, struggling workers. Unfortunately, it also meant the care and feeding of the constituency groups that made up the party's special interest infrastructure by offering them specific promises and programs. Mondale believed that in addressing organized labor, he spoke to working people; in speaking to civil rights leaders, he addressed minorities; in talking with feminists, he appealed to women. "My premise has always been that there are more Democrats than Republicans, and if we can keep our own family relatively intact, chances are we'll win," he wrote in a memo to President Carter as they began their general election fight in 1980. He urged Carter to appeal "directly to our constituencies—Jews, labor, minorities, farmers, ethnics, women, environmentalists, etc." Running that fall against Ronald Reagan, Carter and Mondale did just that—and lost in a landslide.
|Preface to the Paperback Edition
|Preface to the Hardcover Edition and Acknowledgments
|Introduction: Bias, Slander, and BS
|You're Only As Liberal As the Man Who Owns You
|The Punditocracy One: Television
|The Punditocracy Two: Print
|The Punditocracy Three: Radio and the Internet
|The Punditocracy Four: Experts and the World of Ideas
|What Social Bias?
|What Economic Bias?
|The Clinton Administration
|The 2000 Election
|W's World
|The (Really) Conservative Media
|Conclusion: An Honorable Profession
|Afterword: "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
|Reader Discussion Guide
Posted November 8, 2005
As a student at Oklahoma State University, I am very interested in journalism and broadcasting. Eric Alterman's book opens my eyes to many new ideas about conservative and liberal media. The purpose of the book is to inform people of the different bias parts in the media. Alterman does a wonderful job of showing both the conservative side and the liberal side in the media. I normally take the conservative side because that is how I have grown up as, but Alterman offers a new way of thinking. I have a stronger respect for the different sides of the media. After reading through the book, I came to discover that the liberal media is looked at differently than I look at it. I recommend this book to anyone that is interested in learning about the different views in the media. This book can change the way people deal with and handle the media.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 15, 2004
I can't help but be amazed at those reviewers who claim that Alterman's book is somehow proof of the media's liberal slant. Then again, Alterman does do an excellent job, via the presentation of statistics and examples, of demonstrating just how overmatched the liberals are--moneywise, popularity wise, and so on. He makes many excellent points such as: if the media is liberal, how to account for the vast presence of conservative pundits in the supposedly liberal media organizations? The New Yorker has Joe Klein, the Nation has the virulent Stalinist Alexander Cockburn, the Rolling Stone has P.J. O'Rourke, CNN has Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson, etc--all of those organizations have been accused by conservatives of being excessively liberal, yet all of them feature reactionaries. Second, if the media is truly liberal, why did it go after President Clinton with a Puritanical zeal that bordered on schizophrenia? Third, why did this so-called liberal media essentially hand George W. Bush the presidency while going out of his way to portray Al Gore as inferior? Fourth, why did this so-called liberal media essentially give President Bush a free pass on virtually every issue after Sept. 11? And so on. It is impossible to claim, after taking all of this into consideration, that the media slants leftward; if anything, it is too CONSERVATIVE. By using a combination of extraordinary monetary expenditures and skillful PR work, conservatives have succeeded in shifting the political field well to the right, leaving those to the left--even people like John McCain--to defend against the charges of liberal bias. Alterman dares to use FACTS--horror of horrors!--to substantiate his arguments, and for this he is accused of bias. If that isn't a clear example of the impudent Conservative PR machine at work, I don't know what is.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 21, 2006
All the book cites is how the Media isn't bias in very few forms. The media has been bias towards liberals for as long as I can remember. For example, the economy is never talked about with a Republican congress. Espeically when there is a Republican president in office. Liberals have dominated news and journalism. Just because the media is no longer a monopoly doesn't mean that it hasn't changed for the better.
0 out of 4 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 23, 2005
Constructing a cohesive, logical argument to refute the often-repeated claim that the media has a liberal bias requires careful planning and airtight evidence. Yet author Eric Alterman makes a strong case that, if anything, the media is dominated by conservatives who promote the findings of well-funded partisan think tanks, help book publishers who produce poorly researched ideological books, support incendiary TV and radio pundits, and abet editorialists who push the conservative line. Their goal, Alterman alleges, is to quash intelligent political debate and reduce complex arguments to simplistic black and white alternatives - all in support of a right-leaning political agenda. The book is thoroughly researched and documented, if sometimes so absorbed in its own point of view and so esoteric that only the most dedicated reader will follow it. We recommend this book to everyone interested in fostering more balanced political discussion.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 12, 2003
Given the fact the one of Alterman's other books is titled 'The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis)leads America' I can only conclude that Alterman himself is a biased person, and it obviously shows in this book. The vast majority of America knows there always has been a liberal bias. Try 'Bias' by Bernie Goldberg, a life long democrat and 28 year CBS News veteran, for a real lesson. Reading an Alterman book would be like reading a Limbaugh book, but on the other side of the spectrum. Five stars for good entertainment though.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 1, 2003
Actually, the first step in proving a thesis is researching the OPPOSING view of one's own. Some observations concerning the media 1)Even if the liberals outnumber the conservatives, which is highly doubtful, the extreme right is far more visible and occupy more prime-time television slots and radio shows than their liberal brethren. 2)As Goldman points out, the popularity of Fox News comes at the expense of the so-called liberal 'Big Three.' Goldman suggests it's due to Fox's by-line of 'fair and balanced,' though everybody knows this title is merely cosmetic. 3)Some views, no matter the ideology behind them, should be ridiculed. With my three point thesis right there, I could right a rant as shallow and poorly researched as Goldman's or Coulter's. Alterman, on the other hand, and this is big, does in-depth research on his thesis AND that of Goldman and Coulter. It is important to remember that Alterman is arguing that the media is NOT biased. He does not claim a right-wing media conspiracy as does his Conservative counterparts. Now, the reason I only gave four stars is for his attacks on Goldman and Coulter. Though humorous at first, after the evidence is laid out, personal attacks appear to be a bit below him.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 21, 2003
The author has done a terrific job of backing up his claims. I have read books on the left & the right & this book is FAR better than any of the rights' books. Time for Americans to wake up.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 24, 2003
Eric Alterman is perhaps one of the most gifted journalists of our time. His persona and humor are natural; he is not a fake. It is also just as natural for him to defend his far-left liberal colleagues. But, like most liberals he is blinded by the facts. I was in the newspaper business for nearly twenty years, and when the editor of a large northern California (liberal) newspaper said 'be sure to slant this article to favor Democrats' that's what we did. Every time. I was a Republican, and it didn't sit well. It's one of the reasons I'm now a lawyer (most of whom are also ferociously liberal). Alterman's defense of the left, I fear, is as natural to him as a parent defending a child. His book is a great read, but would better be marketed as fiction.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted May 31, 2003
<p> Nothing I have read by Stephen King or Michael Crichton ever scared me as badly as this book did. The details of the staged 'riots' in Florida and other aspects of the Republicans' hijacking of the presidency are chilling enough; but the media's failure (or inability) to expose them--in timely fashion--is even creepier. This nonfictional horror story is truly the most important book I've ever read. I recommend it to anyone who believes that the cost of freedom is constant vigilance. <p> The one- and two-star reviews previously posted here accuse Alterman of emotionalism, ad hominem attacks, poor fact-checking and outright fabrication. These only serve to clarify his illustration of the methodology of conservative bias; plainly put, they lie. They demonstrate the use of these insidious devices by using them themselves, whereas WLM? is in fact scrupulously sourced, and Alterman takes pains to express his admiration for some of the people whose work he impugns. (Clearly he disrespects Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge, but then, so do I, and for that he need excuse himself no more than I.) He is also very funny at times, and indeed scornful, but his occasional wisecracks scarcely compare with some of the hysterical ravings of those he criticizes. <p> Caveat: The book is sprinkled, not so much with typos, as with the results of the 'Non Campus Mentis' error of relying on a spell-checker for proofreading purposes. But even with the consequent nebulous &/or fragmentary sentences (and occasional minor errata, amended on the book's web site), the central theme of this work is unsullied, and its revelations are staggering.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 24, 2003
I book opened my eyes on the Conservative Fraud and Gimmicks to get Free Pass from the Media. Yes indeed the Media is to the right of the center from CNN to Fox.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 18, 2003
At last, a book that speaks to today¿s vast silent majority of moderate, civil, reasonable people. This entire hot dog fight started about 20 years ago¿this culture of the right-wing extremists who hate their imaginary enemies, the ¿liberals.¿ Most of them have never read a book and wouldn¿t know a real liberal if they fell over one; the real, secret Limbaugh definition of a liberal is anyone who doesn¿t put advertising dollars in Limbaugh¿s bank account, and that includes just about anyone with manners, decency, or reason. A generation ago, a conservative think tank study found that, while the media are almost entirely owned by conservatives, the study detected a 60% predominance by young liberal reporters in the news rooms. The study found that these young, better educated liberals were often having a disproportionate influence on how the news was presented. Having had some real-time experience in journalism, I could readily see the truth of that. Amazingly, this statistic was then elevated to the status of a fanatical crusade for people who waste their lives, their employer's time, and their spouse's sanity by spending many hours a day glued to right-wing talk shows. These people confuse anger and viciousness, name-calling and bad behavior, with civility and sound thinking. Just as the wild-eyed left had the country nauseated in the 1960s, so the wild-eyed right sickens moderate people today. The whole "liberal" canard is a shallow and meaningless myth for those who cannot think of anything smarter to call imaginary enemies they don't know anything about, but hate. Eric Alterman¿s book hits about 95% on target, and is a clarion call for honesty, decency, and humanity. Read this book if you are a civil person who cares about other people and about this country. If all you do is hate imaginary "liberals," just move on with your crayons and your beer to the book burning rally down the street--"this book's on you, bud." I saw Eric Alterman on NBC being tormented by three right-wing drones, and that speaks volumes for the truth that is so obvious--when will these brownshirts really start smashing crystal and closing "liberal" shops? Which way to the gulag? Keep writing, Eric--we need you.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 19, 2003
Worth reading from an academic perspective, but the author's arguments are not comprehensive and only focus on a narrow view of the media. This book actually supports Goldberg's thesis of liberal bias in the media. One has to wonder about any author who uses the word "truth" in a title.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 19, 2003
I'm a moderate Republican who has read Slander, Bias, and Let Freedom Ring. After reading those books, I felt ashamed of what my party has become: the Republican Party used to support family values and sound economic policy. And yes, Republican politicians even used to care about the environment!!! But now, I see that my party has become a party of industry tycoons, racists, and religious extremists who wave the flag to justify doing anything they please, including cutting veteran's benefits. They get their kicks out of attacking small desert nations with no armies. Anyhow, Eric Alterman essentially reminds us of what is obvious: there is a huge right-wing presence in the media. (FOX News Channel,Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Geraldo, etc etc etc). Wake up, America!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 22, 2003
In Eric Alterman newest book, he takes on the contention of Bernard Goldberg, author of Bias, and Ann Coulter,author of Slander, and other prominent public figures that the American news media has a bias towards left wing causes and political issues. While providing many statistics and anecdotal evidence in defense of his premise, Mr. Alterman can never break away from leaving the reader with the idea that the purpose and premise of his book is both tendentious and predetermined and that he is not seriously engaged in the discovery of the truth so much as he is engaged in discrediting others who are on the other side of the political spectrum. Rather than wrting an objective argument as to why the media is not as liberal as critics such as Bernard Goldberg. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and others allege it is, Mr. Alterman ends up tilting at windmills and working to weaken his own argument with his frequent outbursts into ad hominen attacks. No doubt his fans lap up this kind of red meat language like hungry lions, but the appeal beyond them to a more circumspect and tougher audience will go largely disregarded. Mr. Alterman presentation is in the manner of an absolute, that he has discovered the truth about the media, the whole truth, and the only truth, but the reader is left wondering if he has only found a black hole. The other point that one is left wondering about is if Mr. Alterman has any respect for opinions that differ from his own. His frequent outbursts that so and so represents a danger to our 'political public' or that this person 'lacks civility' rings somewhat hollow when coming from his poisoned pen. Alterman himself has frequently shown that he 'lacks civility' and has declared the nation would 'be better off' without certain people and their audiences. Ultimately. this book fails to prove its original contention and preaches to its own chorus. It may persuade a few, but not many. Like many books of this type, it is a minor tome, a book of the moment, written for those willing to buy into Mr. Alterman brand of politics, but largely unconvincing to the more serious and discerning reader. Save your time and moneyWas this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 31, 2003
I would point out that 'reviewer' JC on 24 Mar proves the point of the book. He cites a well known 'fact' that the media are supposedly liberal 10 to 1 or some such malarky. He then backs that up with nothing other than his own hot air. Is JC really Rush Limbaugh? The book was able to document with references, that the media are indeed right-winged biased in fact, but anyone with eyes and ears who lives in the U.S. knows that.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 8, 2003
Leftwing writer for such magazines as Mother Jones and the very leftwing Nation tries without success to debunk the notion that the Media doesn't tilt towards the left in it coverage of the news and political issues such as gun control and abortion. Save your money unless your into fiction.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 16, 2003
244 pages of liberal propaganda. The media's liberal outlets outnumber conservatives 10 to 1. The author takes that one conservative and applies it to the whole. It is a well known fact that extreme left liberals have been in control of the media for about 20 years(since the Reagan Administration).Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 14, 2003
Alterman forgot some of the cardinal rules in proving a thesis. First, choose facts and examples that support your case! Unfortunately, much of his writing proves the other side. Second, embellishment of the facts does not work on informed readers. Third, remain calm, and do not allow your emotions to cloud the issue. Alterman's hatred of certain segments and outlets of the media is really apparent. He tries too hard to prove some points and the result is the loss of credibility. In fact, the book itself is an example of liberal bias in the media! If you are one of the minority that does not prefer Fox News over Mother Jones as a reliable news source, then this book is for you! Yee-Hah, and circle the wagons! If you belong to the undecided this book will not convince you one way or the other and is not worth your while. And if, you are one of the conservative majority, well heck, its just more fodder for the cannon!!!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 9, 2003
Eric Alterman's splendid reality check neatly and factually deconstructs one of the right's favorite manipulations to shape and control public opinion. He carefully examines press, radio, and TV personalities revealing the real nature of the bias that fills the corporate-owned media. Alterman describes the relationship between rich right wingers and conservative think tanks, which are used by the media as sources of authority and 'conventional wisdom.' He also challenges the veracity of those tired, overused examples of liberal media bastions and we discover that they're not so liberal and haven't been for quite some time. I'm surprised that he got published at all. Unfortunately this viewpoint won't make the standard 'best seller' lists. Liberals don't buy in bulk unlike those who made Goldberg's Bias and Coulter's Slander megahits. While searching for this title at B&N's Nashua, NH superstore, I passed at least three prominent displays hawking Slander and Bias and numerous other rightist screeds. A CSR had to find What Liberal Media? for me and that looked 'iffy.' Later I stumbled across a few copies off the side, no doubt for the few remaining libruls living in exile across the NH-Mass border. A previous B&N on-line reviewer derides this book because of the word 'truth' in the title, but it seems that Alterman has hit the nerve where the right thinks that they have sole claim to the word and the concept. This speaks volumes (doh!).Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 9, 2003
This book is both long overdue and odd at the same time. It presents the only documented look at the media, and in so doing runs counter to the unsupported and viciously presented character assassinations and rants of books that claim the press has a Liberal tilt. At the same time, only those who are interested in hearing both sides of an argument will read it. That means only Liberals, almost by definition. And they already know about the media. It's usefulness is probably two-fold: it provides the only sourced and documented basis for forming an opinion, and those quotes will be useful in providing facts for people debating the subject, and second, it brings the topic into the public forum. The media, as judged by the media reviews above, have already staked out a defensive position, carping on the insignificant (the Mets?) as misdirection, or throwing their hands out and saying, 'Please don't take this seriously because it's critical of me!' You should judge for yourself. It's hard to imagine how anyone can consider themselves a well-informed citizen if they haven't read this book. RJMcDWas this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.


text:
Several individuals, organizations
and businesses were recognized Wednesday for their outstanding support of the United Way.
Outgoing Chairman of the Board Jeff
Kole, who is president of Kole Management Co., highlighted United Way of the
Coastal Empire's 2013 accomplishments and recognize key community volunteers
and contributors who helped United Way raise $8.9 million.
New officers and board members were
elected and retiring board members were recognized. The new campaign chair was
Three honorees received the Spirit
of Community Awards for their excellence in giving, advocating and volunteering
for the United Way: Robert S. Jepson, Linda Evans and WTOC's Craig Harney.
"It's great
recognition because the United Way is a great organization. To my mind, the
best run organization in the city. It's full of great people who do all the
right things for all the right reasons," Harney said.
Copyright 2014 WTOC.
All rights reserved.
PO Box 8086
Savannah, GA 31412
FCC Public File
EEO Public File
Closed Captioning

subset: commoncrawl


text:
wich is the differents? all do the same think?
The Brutalizer
+25 Attack Damage +15 Armor Penetration Passive: Reduces ability cooldowns by 10%.
Last Whisper
+20 Attack Damage +40% Attack Speed UNIQUE Passive: Attacks penetrate 40% of the defender's armor.
Stark's Fervor
+20% Attack Speed UNIQUE Aura: Gives nearby allied Champions 20% Lifesteal, 25% Attack Speed, and 30 Health per 5 seconds regenerated. Reduces the Armor of nearby enemy champions by 25
Senior Member
They all do essentially the same thing(your attack damage ignores the specified amount of the enemies armour), except brutalizer and last whisper only work for your attacks, while the aura of stark's reduces the armour of all nearby enemy champions for you and your team. This means that you and everyone else on your team basically has +25 armour penetration against any enemies within range of Stark's aura effect.
The end effect is the same, but it works out slightly differently. The key difference between Starks and the other two is an armour penalty like Starks, Black Cleaver and the upgraded Exhaust spell can make armour go negative (same goes for MR), while armour penetration can only make it go to 0.
It also goes in order of Armour Penalty -> % Armour penetration -> Flat armour penetration (I think, might have the last two mixed up).
So if you had all three of those against someone with 125 armour, their armour would be reduced to 100 by Starks, then your attack penetrates 40% (60 armour) and then 15 (45 armour). So your attack is calculated against 45 armour instead of 125.
i explain better im looking for 1 of that item probly i wil use 1 of it, usualy i play a solo hero, but if i found a good item group i can review my playstile plaining in duo.
so i have to choice 1 item who reduce armor or give me armor penetration, olso im always use Exhaust upgraded but i need more!
at advanced game when all got theyr setup 1 wipe = lose game and 1 more hero kil = win game
my frustation is stark work on team, but not always a team work fine ( i play usualy in a pug ) and give rally ****py bonus ( only 20% atk speed ), last wisper is cool with + dmg +aspd olso in advanced game when u can found a Armor based enemy 40% is umust!
are usere the bonuses from Stark's Fervor are applied on yourself? if is it i can take it because in my setup i dont have any lifeleach so with 1 item i take ias lifeleach armor reduction
The Black Cleaver is, IMO, the best armour reducing item in the game.
© 2013 Riot Games, Inc. All rights reserved. Riot Games, League of Legends and PvP.net are trademarks, services marks, or registered trademarks of Riot Games, Inc.


text:
|Home > Nutrition > Healthy Recipes > Magnificent Meatloaf
Category: Main Dish | Serves: 6
Nutrition Information:Calories: 268
Protein: 26 g
Carbs: 20 g
Fat: 10 g
Saturated Fat: 3 g
Sodium: 511 mg
Fiber: 1 g
This is not your average meatloaf! It's healthy, full of flavor and very easy to make. Serve with roasted potatoes and steamed veggies for a magnificent meal!
|Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
|Mix all meatloaf ingredients, form into small loaf and place in baking pan sprayed with nonstick cooking spray.
|Mix sauce ingredients in separate bowl and then pour over meat loaf.
|Bake for one hour. Yield: 6-8 servings.
|Ratings & Reviews
Reviewed By: bamstout
I hate when I read a recipe and someone says they loved it but they changed it sooo much. Well.... I changed it. I ...
|Jan 05, 2011
|This is really magnificent!
Reviewed By: Stormy Moon
I made this meatloaf tonite but changed a few things. Instead of turkey I used lean ground beef 95%, and instead of the ...
|Apr 23, 2008
Reviewed By: rebaann
A meatloaf that isn`t too dry or too soggy. I tweaked it slightly and probably will keep tweaking it. I grated the ...
|Apr 22, 2008
|View All Reviews
|Related Recipes
|All Main Dish Recipes
|Chutney And Chops
|Sesame Ginger Tofu
|Salmon And Mango Salsa
|Chicken Quesadilla LF
|Osso Buco
|Mahi Mahi And Salsa
Category: Main Dish
Calories: 340
|All Recipe Categories
|My Favorite Recipes
|Search Recipes
|All Recipes A-Z
|Nutrition/Recipe Blogs
|Recipe Videos
|Ask a Dietitian
|Chef's Essentials
|Food Labels 101
|Understanding Portions
|Menu Substitutions
|Food Allergy Warning
|Cooking Temperatures
|Meals in Minutes
|Features from Our Dietitian
|Dietitian Consult
Meghan Tiernan (MS, RD, LDN) is a registered dietitian with a passion for helping others achieve a healthy lifestyle. She strives to help others learn the most nutritious way to eat, in order to achieve good health.
|Best Foods to Control Cholesterol
Your cholesterol numbers are important ones to know and ones to work towards improving on a ...
|The Great Salt Debate
Reducing the salt in your diet is not a new topic in the health world. It has been engaged in ...
|Plan a Picnic for the 4th of July
The 4th of July is right around the corner! Prepare yourself for a hot day of parade ...
|Plan a Healthy Picnic!
Picnics are a great way to enjoy the summer weather. When planning your picnic menu, you ...


text:
Farmhouse | 3 bedrooms | sleeps 8
|Key Info
Casa Melograno is a lovely hold house typical of the Selinunte's countryside. This large estate consists of two villas, the Casa Melograno and the owner's house, they are completely indipendent. The house has recently been renovated with good taste and great care in the details. The architecture, both exterior and interior of the house, was fully respected using typical materials such as terracotta tiles on the roof or the terracotta bricks inside. The charming and panoramic location of Casa Melograno, at the summit of the estate, offers you a splendid view of the well tended countryside surrounding the property (olive trees and vineyards) and of the sea, wich is just 3 km away from the property. The house is divided in two apartments, which are on the same floor and communicate internally by a large door so, it can be used as a two separate apartments house or as a single house. From both the apartments you can enjoy a nice large terrace covered with a pergola, which is equipped with a wooden table and chairs for outdoor dining. The house has every modern comfort and is well furnished. Just a few meters from the house, a very nice swimmimg-pool 5x14m, gives you total relax with a wonderful view of the countryside.
7 Pers. - 120 mq
Ground floor: 2 indipendent living/dining room with kitchen, 2 double bedrooms, 2 shower/WC.
First floor: a small study room with 1 sofa bed, 1 double bedroom with ensuite shower/WC.
|Sleeps up to 8, 3 bedrooms
|Nearest beach
|Beach of Belice nature reserve
|Car essential
|Nearest Amenities
|8 km
|Nearest travel links
|Nearest airport: Palermo or Trapani 100 km, Nearest railway: Castelvetrano 10 km
|Family friendly
|Great for children of all ages, Suitable for people with restricted mobility
|Pets welcome, Yes, smoking allowed
Features and Facilities
|DVD player, Sea view
|Central heating, Air conditioning, CD player, Satellite TV
|Toaster, Iron, Hair dryer
|Dishwasher, Cooker, Fridge, Freezer, Washing machine
|3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms of which 2 Family bathrooms and 1 En suites
|2 Sofa beds, Double beds (3), Dining seats for 6, Lounge seats for 6
|Linen provided, Towels provided
|Balcony or terrace, Private garden, Shared garden, BBQ
The Sicily region
The Elemi, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Greeks, Arabs and Normans settled the Western side of the island. In the past this area was called " Val di Mazara; it includes hilly landscapes covered by rich Olive groves and well grown vineyards. Along the costal landscape you can admire not only beautiful beaches of golden sand that look over the African sea, as well as stretches of rock coast suitable for snorkelling and pleasure craft. This is the area of Tonnara" (Tuna fish processing farm), of " Blue fish", of the " salt routes ", of the Zingaro, of Moscato and Marsala, " " Liquid Gold", of the Temples and Mosaics.
Selinunte is the hugest archaeological park of Europe (270 h). Famous in the whole world, Selinunte is the most important archaeological site of the Mediterranean where it is possible to gather the most information's and materials about the meeting between two cultures: Greeks and Phoenicians. Today, inside the unique atmosphere of the archaeological park, are preserved huge rests of eight temples. Its wonderful Metopes make up a part of the most magnificent collection of the regional museum of Palermo. Today the economy of Marinella di Selinunte is based on the traditional fishing activity. Many fishers of the area still keep alive this activity, selling the famous sardine of Selinunte also through popular festivals. But the main resource is given by the tourist sector.
Thanks to the archaeological park, it has been possible to increase investments in this growing area, conquering a good portion of the tourist market.
Actually, with different receptive structures and others on their way, Selinunte is a referring point in western Sicily.
Places to visit: Selinunte 2 km, Agrigento 80 Km, Sciacca 30 Km, Erice 100 Km, Segesta 60 Km, Marsala 40 Km, Trapani 100 Km, Palermo 100 Km.
Availability Your dates are available
Guest reviewsPowered by TripAdvisor
Guest reviews no reviews
Guest reviews Powered by TripAdvisor
- 5 star
- 4
- 4 star
- 0
- 3 star
- 0
- 2 star
- 0
- 1 star
- 0
4 Aug 2014
"Perfektes Ferienhaus"
Übernahme von der Verwaltung war perfekt vorbereitet und pünktlich.Im Haus wurde uns durch den Verwalter alle Geräte erklärt (Satelliten TV, Klimaanlage, Backofen, Geschirrwaschmaschine und Waschm… More
3 Nov 2013
"A nice place to stay"
We enjoyed our stay in the Casa Melograno located in Marinella di Selinunte. The house is in very good condition, with three beautiful bedrooms (each with a private bathroom). Moreover, there are two living rooms fully equipped. The pool, located right next the house, gave an extra dimension to our holidays: we enjoyed hanging around, swimming, having apéro and watching the beautiful sun-sets. The owner/caretaker are very friendly people, and supported us whenever we needed it. Overall, a very nice place which we can definitely recommend.
2 Sep 2013
"We came, we saw, we fell in love!"
From the first moment we arrived at the property we had one of our best holidays ever. All brand new, clean and spacious. Fruit & vegetables to be picked from the neighbours (owners of the property: such a warm and helpful family!). The luxurious swimming pool. We'll definitely show up once (or many) more!
4 Aug 2013
"first class"
We had a wonderful week in early June. The accommodation was excellent, and all the equipment worked. There is a wonderful view over surrounding vineyards. Our hosts were very helpful.
This advert is created and maintained by the advertiser; we can only publish adverts in good faith as we don't own, manage or inspect any of the properties. We advise you to familiarise yourself with our terms of use.
You're booking with
Aldo M.
- 7 Years listed
85% Response rate
Calendar last updated:21 Aug 2014
Based in Italy
- English
- Italian
Also consider
- Trapani
- 1134 properties
- San Vito Lo Capo
- 242 properties
- Sciacca
- 181 properties
- Alcamo
- 119 properties
- Favignana
- 83 properties
- Menfi
- 66 properties
- Cinisi
- 41 properties
- Ribera
- 37 properties
- Castelvetrano
- 36 properties
- Contrada Fraginesi
- 36 properties
- Marinella, Sicily
- 19 properties
- Partinico
- 16 properties
- Buseto Palizzolo
- 15 properties
- Realmonte
- 13 properties
- Petrosino
- 12 properties
- Campobello Di Mazara
- 12 properties
- Tre Fontane
- 10 properties
- Strasatti Di Marsala
- 9 properties
- Calatafimi
- 7 properties
- Sant'Andrea bonagia
- 6 properties


text:
DearSugar Needs Your Help: He's Way Too Clingy!
DearSugar Needs Your Help: He's Way Too Clingy!
DearSugar and He's Driving Me Nuts Natasha need your help. She met a guy that she really likes, but he's rushing entirely too fast into their relationship. Despite her subtle hints, he's not backing off. Do you have any tips for her?
Dear Sugar,
I met this guy about three weeks ago while I was out with a friend of mine. He's a really sweet, genuine person, but after our first two dates, he was already saying "I love you." He calls all the time, and he always wants to hang out, but when we're together, he won't leave my side. I really like him, but I can't stand the clinginess. It's not only unattractive to me, but it's irritating beyond belief. I continuously tell him how I'm not ready for a serious relationship, but he still clings like crazy.
Is there a way I can tell him to back off some without hurting his feelings and driving him away? — He's Driving Me Nuts Natasha
dating and technology
- How to pick the perfect florist — Wedding Chicks
- DIY this cute "here comes the bride" banner — Green Wedding Shoes
- This couple opted for a beautiful rustic boho theme — Style Me Pretty
- Bold beauty trends to try for your bachelorette party — The Knot
- Bridal party ideas for every type of bride — 100 Layer Cake
- Chances are these 60 people will be at your wedding! — HuffPost Weddings
- Get the perfect mani to show off your engagement ring — Glamour
- 50 ways to stay within your wedding budget — Brides
- You should ask these questions before booking your wedding venue — Equally Wed


text:
EFL: Strategy Football (1999)
Enigma Football League: Strategy Football lets you hone your coaching skills as you choose which plays to make in various simulated situations.
Eldevin is a story-driven MMORPG playable in any modern Web broswer via a Java applet where you must help the Kingdom of Eldevin stop Tristan, the Emperor of the Infernal ...
Edge of Twilight
Travel through the two parallel realms of Hellayem, each featuring their own powers and perils, and explore the mysteries that pervade the land.
ESPN Great Outdoor Games: Bass Fishing
The first of Konami's ESPN Great Outdoor Sports series is Bass Fishing - a hardcore fishing simulation that retains the look and feel of ESPN's broadcasts.


text:
test caption placement
Magnificent Noro color is what you'll find in Obi - a wool, silk & mohair blend yarn in a bulky weight. Obi will create captivating stripes and a patterning effect in your finished pieces. Made in Japan
(based on 1 review)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
Reviewed by 1 customer
Displaying review 1
Back to top
(3 of 3 customers found this review helpful)
Too many knots
By Shannon
from Tulsa, OK
Best Uses
I bought this to make the cardigan sweater on the cover of the Webs winter catalogue. The yarn is very pretty, but throughout the skein, the yarn had been joined by knots. Because it is a self-striping yarn, I have been trying to match the colors on each side of the cardigan. However, the colors are not consistent because the yarn is joined by knot in several places, which is removing some of the colors in the order. This has been very frustrating as I have had to separate each skein and splice the colors in so that they are consistent. I would've expected that from a lesser quality and price yarn, but not from this.
Bottom Line No, I would not recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review
Comment on this review


text:
Editorial: Watchdogs keep their eyes on taxpayer assets
During the just-ended year of 2011, the scandal in the Los Angeles County city of Bell reached a climax with a recall election and the filing of criminal charges of misappropriation of public funds by city officials.
During this new year of 2012, we hope to see continued evidence of one of the positive results of the outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars in Bell.
We are referring to the civic-minded private individuals who adopted, or in some cases expanded, their role as citizen watchdogs in whatever community they call home, including residents of cities here in Ventura County.
At city halls, county government offices and other local public agencies, these self-appointed observers can carry out an important, necessary role — one that existed even before the scandal erupted in Bell.
Local democratic self-government invariably benefits from the scrutiny that comes with oversight by average residents and taxpayers. After all, it is taxpayers' money that is being spent by local government, and it is the public at large — the voters — who have the authority to determine whether the public's business is being carried out properly and effectively by local government.
So it is only appropriate that members of the public would step forward to monitor the activities of local government, notwithstanding the separate, valuable and sometimes herculean efforts of other citizens elected or appointed to city councils, planning commissions, school boards, the Board of Supervisors and other local panels.
This is not to imply that The Star agrees with every criticism or recommendation voiced by citizen watchdogs, any more than we would agree with every council member or supervisor.
But it does mean that we applaud those who unselfishly invest their time and talent by examining agendas and other public documents, scrutinizing budget figures, monitoring public meetings that may stretch for hours, and writing letters to the editor to alert their fellow citizens to their public concerns.
Such is the stuff of citizen engagement, and it helps keep local government accountable to the people.
We salute those who perform this service and we encourage more residents to consider taking such an active interest in the people's business in the new year.
Subscribe to the Ventura County Star
Need Help? Call us at 1-877-710-6182.
Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm / Saturday: 6:30am-10:30am / Sunday: 7am-11am


text:
112 members
157 members
136 members
Started this discussion. Last reply by jangles yesterday. 4 Replies 16 Likes
Started this discussion. Last reply by Navy for Moms Admin Aug 5. 2 Replies 2 Likes
Posted on January 9, 2014 at 3:30pm 6 Comments 0 Likes
Posted on December 12, 2013 at 3:00pm 4 Comments 2 Likes
We can't wait for #ArmyNavy 2013 to kick off on December 14. It goes without saying that this is no ordinary game; this is America's Game. We think Navy gets their 12th straight win; what's your prediction? Join our Thunderclap to show your support so we can…Continue
Posted on July 25, 2013 at 11:00am 3 Comments 3 Likes
Hey everyone!
Make sure you check out the new Navy STEM PSA. Filling the needs in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) is crucial to the future of the country. That's why we want you to watch the PSA and share it with friends and family. Get the word out there, encourage and be proud if your Sailor works in a STEM related area!…
Posted on December 8, 2012 at 9:00am 11 Comments 10 Likes
Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:30pm 1 Comment 12 Likes
Hi everybody!
Big news! The United States Navy is now on Pinterest, and we will have a NAVYForMoms board! For those of you who are on Pinterest, you know how much fun and how addicting the site can be! If you aren't on the site, you should sign up so that you can join in on all the fun!
If you want to contribute pictures that might be used on the NAVYForMoms board, send them to firstname.lastname@example.com
In order for us to "Pin" the photos to…Continue
Thank you Tiffany!
My Son leaves for boot camp on Sept.3rd. i am so happy to have this website i will be using it a lot .
Thankyou so much - I am looking forward to speaking to other moms. I feel like this will help me a lot. Only other nay moms could understand how I feel. I am so happy to have found this group
Thanks Tiffany! My son is ship 13, division 296. Can anyone tell me what Hell week consists of? Obviously it's not good....
Thank you so much Tiffany. Love this website:)
Thank you!
Thank you so much Tiffany,
My Son is supposed to Graduate on Sept 19th. But he got hurt and in rehab. It is his Birthday today. And he is going threw some neurological tests to see his nerves are not dead and he can train and be a sailor,He very nervous . He wanted this so bad and very upset about the set back. I wish I can be there for him. What can I do to help him?


text:
Primary Colors
Description: Director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Elaine May crafted a near-perfect adaptation of the 1996 best-seller, a hilarious and troubling fictional account of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, and recent events make it only more relevant.
Movie summaries and listings powered by Cinema-Source
Sign up for our free email newsletters and receive the latest advice and information on all things parenting.
Enter your email address to sign up or manage your account.


text:
Free Compass
Compass is a traveler's best friend.
You can use Compass in all outdoor activities as you can think about – walking, sailing, hiking, climbing, camping, flying, reading a map and so much more.
- One of the most accurate in its category
- 6 sleek visual styles – "Future", "Galaxy", "Retro", "Millitary", "Pirate", and "Classic"
- Optimized for all screen sizes
- Landscape and portrait orientations for tablets (depending on the default screen orientation)
- Calibration/interference warning (can be toggled on/off)
- Compass is one of the few apps that supports all Android versions – 1.5 to 4.4
Please Note: Your device should have a MAGNETIC SENSOR inside, otherwise the app will not work.
Requires Android : 1.5 and up


text:
Liszt and lowest price viagra brand cialis drug company lowest price viagra brand Schubert piano works
On February 15th, Daniel Barenboim sets out on an extensive tour performing both piano concertos by Franz Liszt and a handful of viagra approved try it all-Schubert recitals. After five concerts this week in Spain, he will appear at the viagra propranodol second annual Arthur Rubinstein Festival in Lodz, Poland, in Paris, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Milan. The conductors accompanying him on viagra prescription this tour -- Simone Young, Yaron Traub, Omer Wellber and viagra canada price Sebastian Weigle -- were all at one time conducting assistants to cialis prices the price viagra maestro himself. For exact programs and cialis for sale locations please see the try it canadian viagra and healthcare performances page.


text:
I am interested in hearing from those who have knowledge of, or even better, experience with tankless water heaters. We live in a four level house (old!) and I am wondering if tankless would work for us. We have a bath on each level except the first floor. We use natural gas here and I have heard it would not save us any money to have tankless. Anyway, please give me some advice. Thanks,
I did look but my specific questions on gas don't seem to be addressed and I am hoping for "fresh" info.
Hi Timbear, We built a new home and had a Tagai tankless heater installed. Our thinking was that we are retired and only two people normally living here. Also, we installed an 'air massage' tub for two that takes 80 gallons of water. Love the endless supply of hot water but do not believe it really is a savings. After cost of heater and installation, it will probably take 20 years to see a payback. Still, would do it again if given the choice. This heater can supply two showers at the same time and has given no problems.
Thanks, LDoyle! Tell me is your tankless located very far from the showers? I have heard distance is sometimes an issue. Thanks,
Hi Timbear, Yes, our tankless is located at one end of the house while the Master Bath is at the other. Only 'problem' is that we have to run the hot water until the lines are cleared of the cold. Since we are on well water, that is not too much of a problem but are installing a recirculating pump recommended bt Tagai. This allows us to press a button to start the pump and it turns off as soon as the hot water reaches the end of the line. This will ease our thoughts about wasting water.
tankless water heaters
Tankless water heaters
Tankless Water Heaters
Gas fired tankless water heater drawbacks
- 15 Old House Features We Shouldn't Abandon
- 17 Tiny Bathrooms We Love
- 15 Fast Facade Fixes for Instant Curb Appeal
- 9 Expert Furniture Arranging Tips
- 16 Inventive Beds You Can Make Yourself
- 5 Ways to Repurpose Old Window Screens
- 13 Lanterns For Your Porch, Patio, or Garden
- 133 Smart Storage Ideas for the Whole House
- 30 Things Every Adult Should Know How to Do
- 16 New Ways to Store Kitchen Necessities
- 12 Garden Sheds You Could Live (or Work) In
- 17 Jaw Dropping Deck Designs for Your Home
- 10 Woodworking Projects for Beginners
- 283 Great DIY Project Ideas
- DIY Plumbing Pipe Vase
- Decorating "Rules" Meant to Be Broken
- 17 Backsplashes for a Unique Kitchen
- Assembly Required: 15 DIY Kit Homes
- 16 Creative Cabinet Updates
- 10 Ways to Bring Typography Style Home
- Capitalize on Your Attic: 10 Inspirations
- Make Your Own Kitchen Island: 12 Designs
- 10 Creative New Ways to Use Old Bottles
- Small Bedrooms, Huge Amounts of Style
- 22 Tiny Houses We Love
- Tiny Bedroom? 10 Space-Saving Solutions
- Uses for Beer & Booze Around the House
- 1 Dozen Ways to Maximize a Small Yard
- 20 Ways to Make a Small Bathroom Big
- 5 Easy and Creative DIY Lamps


text:
Room taken, score one more for MP.
Hey Carey, I have just moved back to the area from Jackson WY and am looking for a place. Yours sounds like just the thing! If I could come take a look Id love to, sooner the better! I am a 31 year old male, excellent local references, carpenter, clean, responsible, veteran. Give me a call please at 757 810 0893, its a VA cell number but Ive been living in the greater area since 2009. Cheers! Dan