Isn't the whole point of PBS learning, not just experiencing stuff they already know about? And last year's documentary slate notably benefited from this initiative and had great documentaries like The Last Out, Shut Up and Paint, Scenes from the Glittering World, Let the Little Light Shine, Midwives, Delikado, When Claude Got Shot, Owned, Happiness is 4 Million, An Act of Worship, etc.

This is all off the top of my head just from POV and Independent Lens btw, not even getting into Ken Burns's documentary about Muhammad Ali, America Reframed, etc.

Exactly. Going back to Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, you should impeach and remove the President from office before pursuing prosecution.

It's that presidents can't be prosecuted while in office and it's not a conservative legal theory. It's a pretty cut and dry 101 thing. Federal prosecutions are conducted by the executive branch. The president is irrevocably at the head of the executive branch. While lower authorities like the Attorney General can recuse themselves because everyone is ultimately under the authority of the president, the president can't recuse themselves. There's no one to recuse to. And you can't be at the head of your own prosecution. That's a fundamental fact that applies to everyone.

The real question is, why do people think it's such a great idea for a President to be prosecuted by their own DOJ? This was always so weird to me, when people would lay out the case for Trump to go to jail. He's corrupt, he's a liar, he abuses power...so let's have the people under his authority prosecute him?

Probably tracking the car to make sure it didn't overstay the permit

That's what's happening now. The price and difficulty of obtaining materials and ingredients is up and rising. Shipping is up and rising. Rent is up and rising. Getting labor and labor costs are up and rising, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is happening nonetheless. And restaurants are still on their back foot after 2+ years of business disruption due to COVID. The prices on the menu need to go up to account for this and take advantage of all of the customers, but you can only raise prices so much before demand drops. And that's how restaurants are getting squeezed out of business.

Oh yah, I fuck with a David Simon closing montage. I like how he only uses diagetic music until we get to the end of season or end of show montage.

The federal government still maintains oversight of the MWAA and holds the title, so the federal government is the only party that can change the name.

What you're referring to is the fact that the localities didn't want to pay for all of the costs associated with the name change because it was passed as an unfunded mandate, and localities hate that.

This is a rare example of the person something is named after actually having a lot to do with its existence. It's not like Dulles, who had nothing to do with the airport. Reagan actually got the airport transferred to local control, which cleared the way for the renovations in the 90s that added Terminal 2

Better come in early to beat the rush hour traffic

It's actually the opposite. They keep these dates in reserve and only actually go ahead with them if there's demand. Especially now, with the exorbitant cost of touring, you don't want to do multiple shows in a location unless they're sell-outs or close to it.

So, of course, with the Death Cab show from this year at the Anthem, they would be cautious about doing too much in the DC area. And the demand for that show doesn't really tell them anything about what it'd be like at the much, much larger MPP. But, they saw from the demand there that it was worth adding one show at the Anthem. And they saw based on the sellout there that it was worth adding another.

The first Anthem show was actually added an hour before the general on sale.

And yes, it's common for tours to have additional dates and venues "on hold" to announce if tickets sell well. It's part of the meticulous planning. They probably added the first Anthem date because pre-sale at MPP went well. Then they added the second Anthem date because the on-sale for those two shows went well.

>The fact that they went long regardless

removed the reason for pre-taping the speeches

>Not true.

Yes, true. They did air all of the awards and speeches.

>Literally every disenfranchised category were piling on the academy about this

Because they thought the awards and speeches would get cut. You might have considered them to be throwaway videos, but I enjoyed watching the speeches.

They were all aired. All that got cut out was the banter from the presenter and the winners walking to the stage. They're just going to do it live because they didn't end up saving that much time

You can barely even hear the music on those other broadcasters, if at all

Not every broadcaster gives you the same viewing experience. NBC is the official broadcaster of the parade, so they give you the performances and some other things you don't get from the other broadcasters.

I'd love to hear your opinion if you can address the comment

>he wasn't the reporter. He literally passed along a tip.

So, that means he was the reporter. Reporters report tips. If he wasn't busy, he would have written the story too. That's what they were asking him to do.

>he didn't push to publish (and in fact explicitly tossed that decision to editors)

Giving them a tip that he knew or should have known didn't meet AP reporting standards and then not telling them not to publish based on that.

>he literally said "hey heard this from a guy, who another guy we know trusts

He didn't. If he did, they would have said "oh, this is wrong, go back and do it the right way". He took a tip up the chain, written in an unclear way, that he should have known didn't meet reporting standards, and didn't make clear that it didn't meet reporting standards, even when asked if it should be reported.

>Yet you keep pointing to implied smears from the AP against the guy they just scapegoated, and ignore actual screenshots of the conversation in question

No, I'm pointing out what's going on in the conversation and then also pointing out that the AP said this wasn't an isolated incident.

He is the reporter. He has the responsibility to verify. In some cases, the reporter is the only one who knows the anonymous source. They assumed the tip was properly vetted because it shouldn't have been brought to them otherwise. If he was too busy, he should have passed it off to another trusted reporter, not sent it up the chain with an unclear status. And then, when asked if this was enough to publish based on, he should have said "NO because this doesn't meet AP's reporting guidelines. Sorry if I wasn't clear." not "not my job".

And, again, AP's statement implied this wasn't an isolated incident. Blame is 100% on him, this was a totally half-assed reporting job.

The conversation isn't about whether LaPorta's tip is correct, it's about whether LaPorta's correct tip was enough to publish based off of. It assumed LaPorta was correct because he shouldn't have brought in a tip if he hadn't verified it properly according to AP's standards first. And like the article said, AP found he hadn't and implied this wasn't the first time.

See, this is good. Keep your trolling off the road and on the internet where it won't bother anyone.

And since this is a thread about unsafe drivers, it's worth noting unsafe behavior.

You literally just described how you honked at someone only when you were able to get near them at a red light to express your anger, not when the honking could help. And you should know that, to everyone around you, it just looks like someone honking at a red light for no reason. And you're distracting them with that

No, a maniac was weaving through traffic. That's when you honk the horn, to alert people to something that's happening so they can make sure they're safe. That's when it's okay to distract other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, because there might be a threat to their safety.

Like you said, you only honk the horn when you're at a stop light to shame bad drivers. So then you're distracting those other people on the road just so you can express anger.