Some possible ideas:

1. Undermine newspapers through all legal means. The enviros are working to ban plastic grocery bags or to impose a fee of 24 cents per bag. Why not do the same with the plastic bags that newspapers come in. This would aAdd another cost to the product to help drive it out of business. We can also complain to local city councils about the noise made early in the morning from home deliveries. Force the papers to be delivered later, after people go to work. That will make the product less desirable.

2. Lots of newspapers push “newspapers in education” programs where subscribers and others donate papers to schools. Papers are so one-sided that they don’t belong in schools anymore. Complain to your schools and libraries. Alternatively, demand balance in newspapers. If the school or library has the NT Times, why not the Washington Times for some balance?

3. There’s a great, un-met demand for local TV news that at least gives voice to conservative views and news, much as Fox does on a national level. A venture capital fund might do quite well by buying a TV station in each major market and covering the news from a conservative angle.

The point is that nothing is going to change unless conservatives take action and demand action. It starts with you.

3.

“..they are no longer a “newspaper” but rather an “opinionpaper”..” Comment by redc1c4 — 9/30/2008 @ 9:51 am

When the Soviet Union folded up, I once made the comment to a friend that two things would soon happen. The Irish terrorist group, the Provo-IRA, would begin peace talks with the British because the IRA’s Soviet support would dry up, and the Los Angeles Times would raise its newsstand price from 25¢ to 50¢ because of the same reason. Both came to pass.

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both

they are no longer a “newspaper” but rather an “opinionpaper”

Obviously, there are plenty of theories, ranging from a “Supreme Being” to “big bangs”, but NOBODY really knows FOR CERTAIN. THAT is a FACT.

Except for a handful of weddings and funerals, I haven’t set foot in a church in 25 years, but I still find the blatant anti-religious bigotry on this and other message boards disgusting.

Evidently, many/most of you are not personally acquainted with any “creationists”, so you seem to believe the “hype” that many/most of these folks are “anti-science”.

In fact, based on my conversations with quite a few of them, nothing could be further from the truth. They just happen to the believe that “the world” was created in a certain manner – a belief, by the way, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion of how we should proceed from where we are TODAY.

The bottom line is that this whole “creationism” discussion is nothing more than an attempt to paint a conservative as a backwards cretin from the hills.

One more thing: I’d like to see someone turn this “debate” around on Obama and Biden. Somebody should ask them, point-blank, “do you believe in God?”

If Obama and Biden answer yes, then they should be subjected to the same criticism as Palin because, quite obviously, if you believe in a “Supreme Being”, then you must believe that He/She/It created “the world”. (And, as any lib will tell you, only the truly ignorant believe in such fairy tales.)

Of course, if they answer no, Obama and Biden will offend a significant percentage of “true” moderates whose votes are needed to win this election.

Thus, we know what their answer would be.

They expected this election to be a cakewalk, and now that it’s not, they will do anything to get the White House.

It would have been a cakewalk, especially against someone who excites his base the way John Kerry did four years ago, if they had nominated someone else.