Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMichael Copps, a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), stops by The Nation offices every year to talk about what is happening to our media landscape. Invariably, he let's us know that no matter what a person considers his or her #1 issue – whether it be fighting poverty, ending the war, affordable health care, or anything else – the #2 issue better be media matters.
As he recently said in an interview with Salon: "Your No. 2 issue has to be this media issue, because all those other issues you care about… are funneled and filtered through big media, if they're lucky enough to get in that funnel at all…. Then they're covered with the slant of a few particular companies."
Copps is currently battling FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's attempt to circumvent public comment and rush through an anti-democratic plan that would make it easier for a single company to own multiple media outlets in a single market. Though Martin claims he would only allow companies in the top 20 markets to own both a daily newspaper and a broadcast outlet, Copps points out that that represents approximately 43 percent of US households, and there is a major loophole allowing companies to do the same in "just about any market on the basis of meeting a few loose criteria." Martin's consolidation not only would weaken an already lacking diversity of voices in the media as well as in media ownership, it would also deepen the political crisis of our time – our downsized politics of excluded alternatives.
It's worth noting that the FCC attempted an even more extreme consolidation makeover in 2003 and an outpouring of transpartisan grassroots, citizen opposition defeated its efforts. (That proposal would have allowed a single company in one town to own up to three TV stations, eight radio stations, the daily newspaper, the cable system and the Internet service provider – so it's not just old media that Martin has set his sights on.) The response in 2003 was a model of citizen activism that can work again. But at this crucial time, it's also important that presidential candidates show leadership, speak out, and educate the public on these issues. Some are doing that, and most are at the very least cosponsors of the bipartisan Media Ownership Act of 2007 which would prevent Martin from holding a FCC vote on the new rules – scheduled for December 18 and sure to win approval – for at least six months. Below is a look at what most of the democratic candidates are doing – or not doing – to address these issues.
Joe Biden: His campaign office directed me to this press release, in which Senator Biden stated his opposition to Martin's effort to repeal the rule which prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same city. "The Federal Communications Commission's plan to lift its anti-monopoly regulations could have dangerous consequences," said Biden. "If this plan goes forward, two or three media conglomerates could end up controlling every broadcast medium in the country. From a safety perspective, what happens if one company controls the television, radio and internet services in a region and its servers go down during a natural disaster or terrorist attack? From a constitutional perspective, what happens when one company owns all of the airwaves in an area and it refuses to broadcast certain content? These are important security and constitutional issues best addressed by keeping the current rules in place." Biden is a cosponsor of the Media Ownership Act.
Hillary Clinton: Her campaign press office sent me this statement: "Senator Clinton is very concerned about the manner in which Chairman Martin is attempting to change the media cross-ownership rules. There has been insufficient time given for public comment. Also, the Chairman is promoting media consolidation without attending to more pressing matters: increasing women and minority ownership of media, and preserving localism in media. Accordingly, Senator Clinton is cosponsoring the Media Ownership Act of 2007 which requires that an FCC rulemaking aimed at relaxing the consolidation rules be preceded by: (1) a thorough review and comment process, (2) a rulemaking on the preservation of localism, and (3) FCC action to promote female and minority media ownership…. In 2003, she co-sponsored legislation that aimed to limit consolidation of TV stations; and in 2004 she voted against the Omnibus Appropriations Conference bill in part because it included measures that would have increased media consolidation." It's disappointing, however, that there is nothing about these pressing matters on her website – in contrast to the other "top-tier" candidates.
Christopher Dodd: Sen. Dodd is a cosponsor of the Media Ownership Act. His campaign directed me to his statement on Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal takeover in which he said, "The power of the media is swiftly being limited to a few controlling hands, which poses a serious threat to our democracy. The foundation of our democracy rests in our ability to hear from a diverse array of sources so that we can make informed decisions." The campaign also referred me to Dodd's YouTube video response to the question of what he would do to protect independent voices in the media. Dodd discusses the impact of media consolidation, the importance of net neutrality, and expanding broadband access in this video.
John Edwards: Sen. Edwards speaks out strongly about media consolidation threatening free speech; tilting the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns; and making it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. His campaign forwarded me this link, which offers a very detailed take on the issues, including trends and statistics regarding media consolidation; impact of consolidation and deregulation on public interest and localism; and the need to maintain net neutrality and keep corporate media from blocking access, as well as provide universal broadband. Edwards has said, "The basis of a strong democracy is a diverse and dynamic media. It's time to take away the corporate media bullhorn and let America's many voices be heard."
Dennis Kucinich: He has a strong record addressing this issue. Rep. Kucinich wants "to create a greater diversity of viewpoints in the media by breaking up the major media conglomerates, encouraging competition and quality as well as diversity. We should place new caps on media ownership and ban the granting of exceptions to those caps. We should limit the number of media outlets one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television. We should strictly prohibit cross-ownership and vertical integration…. Funding for public broadcasting channels on television and radio should be greatly expanded, assuring the existence of media outlets free of the influence of advertisers.… I have a strong record on media reform. I filed formal objections with the FCC to their deregulation of the media. I held hearings on Capitol Hill on what the media weren't telling people about the war."
Barack Obama: A cosponsor of the Media Ownership Act, Sen. Obama has also written previously to Chairman Martin (along with Sen. John Kerry) – "to address the issue of minority media ownership, and the impact that new rules would have on opportunities for minority, small business, and women owned firms." He also co-authored an op-ed with Kerry addressing minority ownership and diverse viewpoints. His website states that "the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity…. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum. An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve." His detailed plan also includes protecting net neutrality and universal broadband access and his internet policies have been praised by well-known digital figures like Lawrence Lessig and Matt Stoller.
Bill Richardson: The campaign sent me this statement, "Growing media ownership consolidation is a problem, and Governor Richardson will work hard to ensure that this trend does not continue along the current path. Governor Richardson will re-invigorate both the FCC and the Department of Justice to make sure that our democracy is not undermined by excessive control of the media being placed in the hands of just a few. In that vein, Governor Richardson is adamantly opposed to Kevin Martin's proposed rule-change. We must remain vigilant in preventing media consolidation, whether by law or by loophole. Our democracy depends quite seriously on it."
While there are good, strong statements, and some detailed plans from the likes of Edwards, Dodd, Obama, and Kucinich, what is lacking is the integration of this message into the candidates' basic stump speech – the kind of thing Copps battles for every day: to make citizens realize that without a free, diverse media, we're up a creek if we want the issues that matter most to us to receive a good public airing and debate. It will take strong presidential leadership, continued congressional attention, and citizen vigilance to ensure that media consolidation doesn't further erode our democracy.
As Michael Copps recently wrote in an op-ed, "I say this is hardly the time to rush headlong into more of what we know has not worked given the wreckage caused by our decades-long flirtation with the notion that Wall Street always knows best when it comes to journalism." Here's a modest proposal for the candidates: how about Michael Copps as a pro-democracy FCC Chairman come 2009?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I anticipate....disappointment...come 2009....from President Hillary.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 8:44pm
Say this proposal doesn't pass, what happends when a small TV or radio station exeriences financial difficulties? What then? Do you let them fail as the free market dictates (and a small town or city loses one of its media outlets) or do you allow an independent buyer to take it over?
Posted by ACook at 12/12/2007 @ 9:15pm
The first line should say...
"When this proposal doesn't pass...
Posted by ACook at 12/12/2007 @ 9:25pm
Posted by ZERO 12/12/2007 @ 9:38pm
I guess my idea of an independent buyer, perhaps, would be someone who has financial interests in owing their own station. I don't know if that makes any sense or not.
Posted by ACook at 12/12/2007 @ 9:51pm
"The question I have for you is "How much inequity are you willing to turn a blind eye to in order to believe that collectively we are pursuing some sort of "free" market ideology?"
Posted by ZERO 12/12/2007 @ 9:43pm
Zero, I don't believe I'm turning a blind eye to the situation, but I have to admit, I don't listen to minority or women own stations either.
Posted by ACook at 12/12/2007 @ 10:05pm
There has been insufficient time given for public comment.
Read between the lines folks. Note Clinton doesn't exactly say what her position is and doesn't give her philosophical standing on the issue.....no big surprise. "Very concerned" just doesn't cut it. No wonder this candidate is darling of MSM. Good information KVH -- this is a critical issue that doesn't get enough coverage -- again no big surprise.
Posted by OneVote at 12/12/2007 @ 10:36pm
I can somewhat understand the `alarm' over media consolidation.....
But I don't get the `alarm' over really, really, really low female and minority ownership of media outlets....
If a white, AND MALE, say named ZERO, started the very first newspaper or TV station in a tiny and very, very remote town with 500 recent Hispanic immigrants, that prints and/or broadcasts in Espanol, is there anyone on this board who think the 500 Hispanics WON't patronize ZERO's business becausue he's WHIE AND MALE?
Flip this around....suppose Oprah bought The Food Channel, will blacks, women and Hispanics all decide to become avid viewers now that "one of them" is the owner?
Next thing you know, the Crazies will be howling for more women and minority-owned airlines, hospitals, farms,.....
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 10:45pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/12/2007 @ 9:15pm
same difference.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 10:46pm
"When this proposal doesn't pass...
Posted by ACOOK 12/12/2007 @ 9:25pm
is that what you want?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 10:46pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/12/2007 @ 10:45pm
happy, you continue to see the minority ownership as being the main problem.
the problem is when one corporation will own all (or most) sources of information in one area.
imagine if "motherjonesinc." owned all the local t.v. and newspaper in houston.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 10:52pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/12/2007 @ 10:46pm
FZ, I was only asking a curious question. I really don't listen to radio or watch TV that much.
Posted by ACook at 12/12/2007 @ 11:18pm
happy, you continue to see the minority ownership as being the main problem.
the problem is when one corporation will own all (or most) sources of information in one area....
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/12/2007 @ 10:52pm
Turn up the heat....your eyes or mind are frosting up!
I do NOT see the low minority/women ownership of media as a big, medium, small or microscopic problem. ESTE ES NO PROBLEMO, COMPRENDE?
Recent stats show the US is now well past ~65% in internet penetration....so, the "one area" issue doesn't much exist except for (borrowing from that sage @ 10:45 pm) "tiny and very, very remote town with 500 recent Hispanic immigrants" which isn't big enough to have: white-owned, black-owned, female-owned, right-owned, left-owned, Green-owned, gay/les-owned, Canuck-owned, Aussie-owned media outlets.
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 11:25pm
Posted by ZERO 12/12/2007 @ 9:43pm
the "free market" construct rightists adore
Typically false reasoning caused by projection of your beliefs onto us. 'Rightists' don't 'adore' free markets any more than they adore gravity or the second law of thermodynamics. Free markets work. Period. What we oppose is replacing them with leftist fantasies that don't.
Posted by pontificus at 12/12/2007 @ 11:46pm
Posted by ZERO 12/12/2007 @ 9:43pm
the "free market" construct rightists adore
Gee, if I rephrase Marion Barry somewhat, it's amazing how similar you and he sound: "this racist 'gravity' construct that the rightists adore". heh
Posted by pontificus at 12/12/2007 @ 11:51pm
Next we can hear from FROSTY about the 'great' health care system they have in Canada, which is just 'GREAT' and NOT FALLING APART AT ALL (but if it is, it's all because of those greedy capitalists).
Posted by pontificus at 12/12/2007 @ 11:56pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/12/2007 @ 11:25pm
Nielsen ratings for the week ending January 2, 2005 found NBC (11.2 million viewers) maintaining its lead over ABC (10.4 million viewers) and continuing its dominance over CBS (8.1 million viewers).
that's a lot of people still watching the news.
you should be worried.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 11:58pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/12/2007 @ 11:56pm
you're a one trick pony, dude.
every time you see my name,
ATTACK! LET'S GET 'EM ON HIS COMMIE HEALTH CARE.
dollar's at par.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/13/2007 @ 12:00am
Well, FROSTY, last time you said that I wished to turn Cuba into an American brothel. When I pointed out that it was already a brothel, one frequented by Canadians and Europeans, you got all huffy and asked why I would accuse you of such.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:04am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/13/2007 @ 12:00am
dollar's at par.
Who cares?
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:05am
Who cares?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/13/2007 @ 12:05am
the chinese
the saudis
and everybody else who holds ever shrinking dollar reserves.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 12:10am
Thank you Katrina for the great post on a great topic.
In some respects it's a seemingly obvious point that media matters are so critically important to any entity that wishes to call itself a democracy with a straight face. Yet, here we are living in a nation that prides itself on being the world's greatest democracy while the reality is a far cry from that delusion.
Free speech in a democracy is the air we breath, and that's probably why it's taken for granted. We simply forget how important it is until a "mysterious" epidemic of asthma breaks out and people begin to belatedly ask questions.
So I agree with Michael Copps, yourself, John Nichols, others at The Nation, and many other spots across the political spectrum who understand the critical importance of this free speech oxygen.
As the atmosphere of our planet continues to degrade, protection of our right to breath the clean air of intelligent discourse will be essential to the problem solving process no matter how our increasingly complex future unfolds.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:13am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/12/2007 @ 11:58pm
that's a lot of people still watching the news.
you should be worried.
Network and local news loses viewers more and more every year, especially those viewers who have a conservative viewpoint. With the internet, consolidation of tv and newspapers is a non-issue. It's like the buggy-whip manufacturers consolidating with the bridle makers. Print newspapers will be dead in 10 years. Network audiences shring every year as their aged viewer base dies off.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:16am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/13/2007 @ 12:10am
and everybody else who holds ever shrinking dollar reserves.
Predicting doom and gloom for the American heretics, eh FROSTY? Don't worry about us my man. Thanks for your concern though.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:19am
I'll bet the editor knows how to spell don't you dipshitz? See if you can find the mispelled words in your above rant. If you want to take the high ground, you've got to practice what you preach.
~Onevote @ 10:43pm
No need to reply into the void, one vote.
You see, I've discovered the secret of the identity of Frank Shitsz.
He is, in fact, the anti-matter universe counterpart to our own beloved Frosty Zoom.
If the two of them ever come into direct contact, they will annihilate each other.
So be careful not to get too close.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:19am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/13/2007 @ 12:13am
I believe you garner the award for the most inflated, self-important, doggerel-filled and ultimately meaningless post of the day.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:21am
~PONTIFICUS @ 12:21am
Why thank you, Pointy Ficus.
A criticism from you is the next best thing to winning a Nobel Prize.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:25am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/13/2007 @ 12:13am
BKOOL, I'm sorry for calling your post doggerel. It would be more accurate to call it blather.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:27am
~PONTIFICUS @ 12:27am
Your creativity is noted, Ficus.
Keep up the good work of your exhalations of inanity as it is an important function of plants to produce the oxygen we breath here at The Nation and elsewhere.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:32am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/13/2007 @ 12:25am
You write stuff like THAT and you call MY WRITING inane? LOL
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:34am
~PONTIFICUS @ 12:34am
I suggest you get some rest now, and store up for your next battle.
It's nighttime now, and probably best for you to shut your trap and engage in some transpiration.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:38am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/13/2007 @ 12:32am
The concept of free speech pertains mostly to speech that one finds unacceptable. Since the left has taken the initiative in recent years to define whole areas of speech to be unacceptable, and in certain places dominated by leftists (such as Canada and major universities) found such unacceptable speech to be illegal, it is utterly laughable ironic to here a leftist such as yourself waxing poetic regarding the glories of free speech in the most self-important, pompous manner possible, as if you knew the slightest thing about it. Give us all a break. Please.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:40am
Goodnight ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:41am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/13/2007 @ 12:41am
Goodnight! Perhaps tomorrow you can give us an update on how impeachment is going in Congress. And whether there are any indictments coming from the 'outing' of the secret agent Valerie Plame. Or Bush, Cheney, or their 'friends' huge profits in Halliburton that they're making off the war? And what about that war, eh? Not much about that anymore either? No more quagmire?
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:47am
Perhaps we should impeach Pelosi? For cynicism? Integrity would be FAR too much to ask, I suppose.
Reading the newspapers over the past week, you would have to conclude that this oversight system is broken. It was intended to set clear limits for intelligence activities, and then provide bipartisan political support for the operatives who do the dirty work. Instead, the process has allowed practices that are later viewed as abuses -- and then once the news leaks, it has encouraged a feeding frenzy of recrimination against the intelligence agencies.
That misfiring of oversight was described in The Washington Post last Sunday by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen. Their article described some of the background to last week's congressional uproar over the CIA's destruction of so-called "terror tapes" that had been made during harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists. It turned out that back in September 2002, four top members of the intelligence committees -- including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now House speaker -- had been given a "virtual tour" of CIA interrogation facilities overseas. They heard descriptions of some of the harsh techniques that would be used, including the now-infamous practice known as waterboarding.
"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement," former Rep. Porter Goss told the Post reporters. He attended the 2002 briefing, along with Pelosi, as chairman of the House intelligence committee. He later served from 2004 to 2006 as CIA director.
Posted by pontificus at 12/13/2007 @ 12:51am
You've been thoroughly defeated.
Come back when you've reincarnated to something intelligent.
Good night, and good luck ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 12:53am
Media concentration a key issue, thanks for raising it. But don't hold breath for HRC. Among the big media who've bought her, Rupert M stands out. Has the issue ever been raised in a Dem debate? If so, missed it. DKucinich hasn't missed it, however; it's big media that, with other Dems' conivance, keep Kucinich marginalized. Until DK raises enough $$ to become a serious ad time buyer, big media will continue to marginalize him &, more importantly, the key issues he raises re impeachment & preserving the Constitution. Support those stands, this Sat Dec. 15 - donate to dennis4president.com Dec. 15 - anniversary of the Bill of Rights taking effect. Use it now or lose it forever.
Posted by sloper at 12/13/2007 @ 12:55am
Posted by SLOPER 12/13/2007 @ 12:55am
hey,
that's a very good point.
media outlets pay attention to a candidate in proportion to the ad-time bought by said candidate.
very good.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 01:00am
~Sloper @ 12:55am
Thanks for spreadin' the word, Sloper.
Watch your step as leave here, though. Many piles of BS.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/13/2007 @ 01:02am
We, the people that post here, from right to left are interested in the social and political issues of our society. In these days of Internet-on-anything, mostly everyone can find "a hobby" or place were to navigate in. We live in an era of plurality of information and preferences.
The media, while not as omnipotent as 25 years ago, plays a decisive, informative, and "criteria forming" role for the public. Even people not interested in "serious issues" (as politics) will be lured to the media to watch sports or celebrities, and then will the particular media associate the "accidental news" to their permanent "real contents", exactly like passing counterfeit money. I have seen none do this better than FOX NEWS, they are really masters in applied psychology. One can see how do they "connect with the viewer" by combining police cases and exotic news with their direct -and subliminal- political content.
It is in our interest that the media be plural, original, and of high quality, that is, intelectually challenging. But then, how "The Nation" (with my excuses to their directors) can compete with Time magazine (who has the benefit of mass production and huge advertising) and still offer a high quality product? Specialization is the name of the game, to be able to deliver a product that (almost) nobody else has, like 'ring to finger' of its readers. Intellectual quality though, is a rare commodity these days and is not half as appreciated as a passing baseball pitcher.
Government should give tax incentives to 'small media' to encourage cultural richness of the people.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/13/2007 @ 01:05am
Government should give tax incentives to 'small media' to encourage cultural richness of the people.
Posted by FRANK42 12/13/2007 @ 01:05am
commie!
seriously, very well put. and very astute of you to see how a network like fox weaves its agenda into their "programming" (not just news -- ¿isn't "24" just more propaganda?)
yeah, "programming" says it all.
here's a few choice words from the media master:
"Radio provides a speed-up of information that also causes acceleration in other media. It certainly contracts the world to village size and creates insatiable village tastes for gossip, rumor, and personal malice." (1964)
"Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication." (1967)
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." (1964)
"It's misleading to suppose there's any basic difference between education & entertainment. This distinction merely relieves people of the responsibility of looking onto the matter." (1967)
m. mcluhan
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 01:27am
I began my broadcast news career in 1973. And over the past nearly 35 years I have watched a relentless downslide of local and regional news stories, especially those that demand brains, maturity and competent perspectives. Media consolidation, consultants and out-of-town ownerships have crushed real local news in the broadcast industry. Even in the larger markets, TV and radio stations have 100,000 watt signals but only 10 watt newsrooms. Even local newspapers have gotten soft, with high reporter turn-over and "mile-wide-quarter-inch-deep" analysis. It's gawd-awful what most Americans have to work with when trying to exercise their responsibility to meaningfully participate in our society. News has become just another "burger commodity" to be wolfed down in 15 second sound bites that bear little resemblance to what it really should be...the life's blood of a vibrant democracy. And these little "newsie anchor/studio muffins" like we see on the cable channels especially, aren't even aware of what they don't know, what they don't provide, and what they do provide--a growing state of oatmeal mentalities that relativizes everything into a meaningless glob of pseudo-information. It's enough to gag a sane person.
Posted by Dave Morgan at 12/13/2007 @ 02:41am
Again, just point out that Her Nibs had a fundraiser hosted by ...
Rupert Murdoch.
And unless we get a good honest-to-Big Juju miracle and Obama beats her for the nomination....she's likely to become Prez and NOT likely to screw over her ol' buddy Rupert.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 09:23am
So be careful not to get too close.
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/13/2007 @ 12:19am | ignore this person
Good advice Kool.....you know these "anti-matter" characters are just baiting you for a response. Best policy is just to ignore them - out of sight...out of mind.
Posted by OneVote at 12/13/2007 @ 09:23am
It's enough to gag a sane person.
Posted by DAVE MORGAN 12/13/2007 @ 02:41am | ignore this person
Nice read Dave. The dumbing down of the news is akin to the dumbing down of television in general. Appeal to the lowest common demoninator, and your comercial message will reach the widest audience. News used to be almost a public service for broadcast media in that they didn't try to squeeze every last ounce of advertising profit from it. Now....its just another commercial program. Heard an advertisement recently from a "local" tv news station that their news was the best because they were the only ones that were offering 11 minutes straight of uninterrupted news - without a "word from our sponsors." Can you imagine? 11 minutes of uninterrupted bland garbage. Thank you. BTW - I haven't ascertained this or not, but I'll bet that the last half of the broadcast has commercial interruption every 3 minutes.
Posted by OneVote at 12/13/2007 @ 09:33am
Posted by DAVE MORGAN 12/13/2007 @ 02:41am
just another burger commodity...........
well put, mr morgan.
fills you up in the short term, but if you keep downing them, they finish you off real quick.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 10:35am
Posted by DAVE MORGAN 12/13/2007 @ 02:41am
Amen to that Dave. The newspaper here has resorted to putting adds on television showing how much add space they have available to reach the readers. It's pretty pathetic when a news source is advertising on the competitions medium to aquire advertising.
A commercial to get another commercial so to speak. Go figure. No wonder nobody reads the paper here anymore.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/13/2007 @ 11:59am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/13/2007 @ 11:59am
WOLF, isn't that a bit of a weird "chicken or the egg" idea?
That they have low subscription rates because they advertise on another medium?
Wouldn't the reason they have to advertise be because...they have low subscription rates?
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 12:29pm
"Here's a modest proposal for the candidates: how about Michael Copps as a pro-democracy FCC Chairman come 2009?
Now that's an idea!
Posted by drhammer at 12/13/2007 @ 12:45pm
The state of affairs with respect to the media in the United States is utterly sad. Its impossible to watch the nightly "news" and not feel like you are being taken for a fool. The covereage is always the same and rarely is any true insight given. I think its safe to say that the best solution would be for everyone to turn off their televisions, stop reading the papers and just open up a good book. God knows, none of the candidates running for office now really want to do anything about the media - though of the response above, Clinton's was particularly bad.
p.s.
why do people think that the "free market" ideology is some sort of natural law on par with the laws of nature? The free market is a sham ideology that gives leverage to shady people to dole out power to priveleged people. If you doubt it, look again at the world.
Posted by rasalula at 12/13/2007 @ 2:03pm
Thanks for the legwork you did KVH in getting candidates' positions on this important issue summarized and out. If the more powerful of the 20th century fascist leaders had the type of propaganda mechanisms available to them in their prime that are available today, image the impact - hell, half of europe may have paid to join the arian revolution.
Think of how pontificus has equated "free" market economics as reliably true as gravity. Now where the heck did he get this blind faith to trust an economic ideology and equate it with the security and assuredness of gravity not allowing him to fly off into the ether? Likely, thanks to a constant media bombardment that includes the unreflective utterances (better: cynical machinations) of all sorts of pundits and leaders, our corporate media. Now how suprising is that! Ficus, please consider a stronger inquiry into how the hermeneutic endeavor (interpretation) is central to the workings and understandings of the human sciences (include economics); start with Hans Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method - pub 1957 org and the discussion that has continued since. Economics is not a hard science and straight forward profession, as say, mechanical engineering. The "free" market is not physics on the most basic level. To possess faith that economics suggests this certitude makes religious faith seem like there has never been problems with explanation of religious truth.
I'd let myself rage at the flip certainty you express about perhaps the most destructive form of economic ideology to be unleased on the globe. But, I feel sorry for you that you have so unreflectingly assimulated one of the bigger lies that corporate media has pounded us with: that the propagants of the "free" market ideology spew truth, all we non-believers need to do is get hit in the head by a proverbial apple (i. newton and all).
Posted by steve foster at 12/13/2007 @ 2:10pm
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
Posted by rasalula at 12/13/2007 @ 2:16pm
If you are relying today on media sources like television, radio, newspapers, and magazines for much more than entertainment...you are woefully ignorant.
I really don't care what happens to these "information" outlets since they don't inform me.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/13/2007 @ 2:02pm
So, you get all your information off the Internet?
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 2:21pm
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 12/13/2007 @ 2:10pm
right on,
just look at prices,
what goes up, must go up!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2007 @ 4:34pm
MASK:
No... he gets his information from the Bible, his pastor, and praying. No need for independent 3rd party verification there.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/13/2007 @ 5:50pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/13/2007 @ 5:50pm
I think LL just "mis-stated" again, and will (if he can) "clarify" that statement to the fact that he DOES get information from some form of newspaper, magazine, TV show, etc.
All of which will be right-wing, fundamentalist Christian, or both.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2007 @ 10:51pm
Let's see...my choices are;
Joe Biden - "These are important security and constitutional issues best addressed by keeping the current rules in place."
Christopher Dodd - "The foundation of our democracy rests in our ability to hear from a diverse array of sources so that we can make informed decisions."
John Edwards - "The basis of a strong democracy is a diverse and dynamic media. It's time to take away the corporate media bullhorn and let America's many voices be heard."
Dennis Kucinich - "We should limit the number of media outlets one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television. We should strictly prohibit cross-ownership and vertical integration…"
Bill Richardson - "Governor Richardson will re-invigorate both the FCC and the Department of Justice to make sure that our democracy is not undermined by excessive control of the media being placed in the hands of just a few"
Political sloganeering/bullshit? Maybe..."But what about the two best hopes for progressives"
Barack Obama - "An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve." His detailed plan also includes protecting net neutrality and universal broadband access
Eh.
No mention of the importance of preventing media consolidation. I like the net neutrality talk, but that's a different topic (sort of)
Hillary Clinton - "Senator Clinton is very concerned about the manner in which ...without attending to more pressing matters..."
...insufficient time given for public comment."
How about a comment from you hillary?
I am not impressed.
Even if we took all their campaign promises at face value, clinton again fails.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/14/2007 @ 12:08am
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/14/2007 @ 12:08am
perhaps you should check out the "white guy" thread.
synchronicity in action.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 12:18am
OOOOOOO!!!!
I'm a white guy too!
Posted by Malcontent at 12/14/2007 @ 12:30am
I think you jumped threads.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/14/2007 @ 12:31am
Threadjumper.
Why do you hate thread?
Posted by Malcontent at 12/14/2007 @ 12:32am
Katrina,
Here's the correct link to Edwards's take on it: http://johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/
(the one you've got there doesn't go anywhere)
thanks for this though, I'd not have looked for it if you hadn't piqued my interest with this description:
"very detailed take on the issues, including trends and statistics regarding media consolidation; impact of consolidation and deregulation on public interest and localism; and the need to maintain net neutrality and keep corporate media from blocking access, as well as provide universal broadband"
Thanks for this post on the candidates on this issue, which is key for me. Along with this, indicating his clear understanding and concern for the Big Media issue, Edwards seems to be the only contender other than Kucinich that has the slightest clue about the environment. Neither of which can be said for either Hillary or Obama.
There is one other key question. The integrity of our democracy has been mangled by the Bush Administration, much of it under the guise of "War-On-Terror", in ALL it's aspects (ie, "War Powers", executive privilege, signing statements, domination of the other branches of government, executive stonewalling and secrecy, no effective transparency or oversight, death blows to civil liberties, the constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, separation of church and state (faith-based-initiative bilking traditional nonprofit funding), habeus corpus, the Sedition Act, international relations, the Geneva Conventions, ad nauseum) not to mention all the foxes in henhouses appointees. DO the candidates acknowledge these aspects as critical issues, and HOW do they intend to remedy each of these problems as President?
All other critical issues hinge on how effectively these three key issues are dealt with.
Posted by crowings at 12/14/2007 @ 03:12am
This is a little off topic, but then again it isn't since this article was about the media. How come nobody in the media brings up the hypocracy of going after Barry Bonds for lying about whether or not he used steroids while our president gave Scooter Libby a get out of jail free card?
Why is it big news if an athelete cheats to be better at his job, but it's alright for politicians to lie (basically cheat) to the American people about false promises they have no intention to keep when the get into office?
Why is Bonds looking at possible prison time for using steriods while Alberto Gonzales isn't looking at the same prison time. What Bonds did was slightly harm an entertainment business, what Gonzo did was harm his nation. Which offense outweights the other?
Evidently lying to congress about wire tapping American citizens, waterboarding and torture in our name is not as big of an offense as taking steriods to hit 15 to 20 more homeruns a year.
I am not a Barry Bonds fan, but I do think they are coming down on this one guy a little to hard for something that mostly is going to hurt him in the long run.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 09:16am
Why do you hate thread?
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/14/2007 @ 12:32am
¿thread thrompson?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 09:29am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/14/2007 @ 1:06pm
All that and still time to post to the Nation, pray and think your own thoughts? I'm a bit skeptical LVL.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/14/2007 @ 1:52pm
LVLIBERTY1:
Yet with all that reading, you still manage to parrot the Republican neo-conservative party line...
I'm with SRJENKINS. Skepticism is to weak a word...
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 2:56pm
too*
sorry, having typing issues today. Blame the flu.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 2:56pm
LVLIBERTY1:
Tool has a song that describes you oh so well... it's called The Pot. I recommend it highly.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:17pm
Tool has a song that describes you oh so well... it's called The Pot. I recommend it highly.
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/14/2007 @ 4:17pm
perhaps,
but aren't we all kettles on some level or another.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 4:42pm
LVLIBERTY1:
As many will attest, I am an equal opportunity critic. How often have I come out firmly against the Democrats? Practically every day. So to even intimate that I am somehow either parroting ANYONE's political dogma besides my own, or somehow not remaining "fair and balanced" is simply more proof that you are completely dishonest in the intellectual sense.
What I will say is this. When the country has been run into the ground for the past 13 years by a cabal of anti-government goons whose goal it is to turn over every last vestige of governmental protection of the weak from the strong to the same private interests against whom the government is supposed to remain a bulwark, I am going to point it out. And if you think that is imbalanced, then I suggest you go cry some more in your coffee.
Furthermore, you are no libertarian. A true libertarian would not have supported this illegal war. A true libertarian would not have supported Bush on practically ANY of his policy maneuvers. A TRUE libertarian would smack you up-side your head for perpetuating such lies. And you would deserve it, too, because you have done nothing on this blog but lie, dissemble, obfuscate, and play patsy for a vicious and avaricious coterie of corporate pimps, with you as their whore.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:42pm
FROSTY ZOOM:
Does it not take one, indeed, to know one?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/14/2007 @ 4:06pm
I do research for a living. One of the qualities of a good researcher is being able to go through a lot of material quickly, assess reliable sources, identify the key ideas from those sources and the relevant criticism, and then put it together into a coherent whole.
Diversity of sources is good. But it is not enough, you need a diversity of viewpoints that try to paint the whole picture and offer different informed perspectives based on fact. And unfortunately, no matter how many diverse people like Robert Spencer you read (left or right), you're left with an understanding weaker than when you started because their perspective is informed by their agenda, prior to the facts. Diversity, in this context, is just another name for cherry picking.
I'd also argue that news programs and print sources do a terrible job - not only in presenting the facts accurately - but having a informed viewpoint on the facts. It's not what they are paid to do.
In short, you may spend a lot of time looking into this and that, but it doesn't make you more informed. Given some of the sources, you may even by less informed - like some of those studies talking about people that watch Fox News.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/14/2007 @ 6:42pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/14/2007 @ 4:18pm
One detail: there can be no individual liberty without economic liberty. If one has to work 16 hours a day to pay the bills, what real liberty does one have? And the right does a good job of ignoring economic liberty for poor people.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/14/2007 @ 6:45pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/14/2007 @ 6:45pm
you know,
what good is free speech if no one listens to you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/14/2007 @ 7:13pm
LVLIBERTY1:
You said:
I said theyparrot, not you parrot. I realize you are not in that grouping and thus did not say so.
My response:
Considering you were responding directly to my comment, it seemed pretty fair to assume you were lumping me in to that category.
You said:
As to not being libertarian, you then know few liberatarians. They are in fact very divided on the war. I'm not aware of many opposed to his SCOTUS choices or the lowering of taxes.
My response:
Actually, I know a ton of libertarians. And very few of them supported the war. They did not like the SCOTUS choices particularly because of their views on the separation of church and state, but I will agree that they supported the lowering of taxes. One outta three ain't bad in baseball, but here it amounts to failure.
You said:
I don't even work for corporate America. If anyone is a pimp for corporate America here, it would seem to be you. Aren't you the one pumping up Corporate America's values through your investment advice? I've said before, you seem the hypocrite given your redistributionist philosophy. Why haven't you quit if you hate the capitalist world so much?
My response:
Actually, I am self-employed. I have never, nor would I ever work for a large company. While I do admit there is a certain amount of paradox (nay, perhaps even hypocrisy) inherent in my life owing to the divergence between my personal beliefs and my job, it does not undermine the basic, fundamental truth of what I say.
As for me pumping up corporate America's values, actually I very rarely buy stock. Most of my investments are built around estate planning for older clients, and contrarian investing for my more aggressive clients. Lately that has included the buying of gold, silver, platinum, copper, real estate (rental only), currency speculation against the dollar, and a handful of other nuggets.
I am also in the process of putting together a grand co-operative across the entire western end of PA, but that will take a while, and a lot of money.
As I have stated in the past, it is extremely difficult to extricate oneself from this society if one expects to be able to raise children, maintain connectivity to the world around us, and more importantly, with family who lives several states away. It's simply a case of pragmatism overriding ideology, something I am sure you would not understand.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 8:22pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/14/2007 @ 7:50pm
I'll go out on an limb here and say any source that puts a masked figure with an assault rifle and offers to inform me regarding Islam, isn't a source worth consulting.
As you have already stated, visiting the other sites simply enables you to convince yourself how wrong all these liberals or Islamic fundamentalist are - I'd call that cherry picking.
Especially so when you don't put in a context. Your approach to Islam would be like if I spent the day taking a look at Christian Identity websites, consulting all the terrible things that are done in the Bible, reading histories of the Inquisition and concluding that Christianity is ultimately a hateful religion.
How then is what you are doing to Islam any different than what the secular leftists do to Christianity? Please feel free to put out the relevant differences - because it looks exactly the same to me.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/14/2007 @ 7:53pm
Consult the history of unfettered capitalism and it's impact on working people - slavery, exploited children, people working more than 16 hours, unsafe working conditions - and then tell me how going back to that means more liberty.
You couldn't be more right when you say that "it is theft from the labors of one to give to another." Take a former CEO, like Cheney. Please feel free to describe how he earned from his labor hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and deferred compensation. I agree a theft has occured - but it occurs with every dollar these people get that they didn't work for. That someone else worked for, was paid a fraction of their contribution to the final product, and then the additional value turned over to highly compensated employees like Cheney.
I don't think government is the solution. I think it is part of the problem, and I'm not sure I know how to fix it (possibly by creating greater diversity in the marketplace by buying products from smaller companies rather than large corporations). But I do know that the more you cut out government without some kind of solution in place, the more you set the stage for greater economic exploitation and less liberty.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/14/2007 @ 9:55pm
One detail: there can be no individual liberty without economic liberty. If one has to work 16 hours a day to pay the bills, what real liberty does one have? And the right does a good job of ignoring economic liberty for poor people.
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/14/2007 @ 6:45pm
Well put.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 11:41pm
Agreed.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/14/2007 @ 11:49pm
You couldn't be more right when you say that "it is theft from the labors of one to give to another." Take a former CEO, like Cheney. Please feel free to describe how he earned from his labor hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and deferred compensation. I agree a theft has occured - but it occurs with every dollar these people get that they didn't work for. That someone else worked for, was paid a fraction of their contribution to the final product, and then the additional value turned over to highly compensated employees like Cheney.
SRJ,
I tried using the same logic with MBB a while back to no avail. These guys view the world through finely filtered lenses. I used to have similar views though I was never a rethug, but I bought into the brainwashing that America and Americans are better than everyone else or we wouldn't be in the position we're in. I even used to think that God must have a special place for us because this nation had such wealth and standing in the world.
Then, I served in the armed forces and saw how people from other countries viewed us and it was a real eye opener. Later, I worked with people from other countries and realized how stupid I was in thinking that I or any other American was better than these people simply because I was born here and they were born there.
Maybe I was lucky and got to learn these lessons and some of these people haven't had the opportunity to see this, or they have filtered lenses on and never will see the truth. But the same logic applies to the wealthy. They figure that they are chosen or are better than those without wealth. Those without wealth become lesser beings than they are.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/14/2007 @ 11:58pm
But the same logic applies to the wealthy. They figure that they are chosen or are better than those without wealth. Those without wealth become lesser beings than they are.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/14/2007 @ 11:58pm
I would like to ammend that. Not all wealthy people are like this. I am talking about the ones who believe that they should incurr as much wealth as possible no matter what the consequenses to others. People like Dick Cheney and the neocon gang.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/15/2007 @ 12:15am
RIO BRAVO:
You said:
Thank you for proving that man can justify and rationalize any given situation to their own benefit!
My response:
Pretty weak commentary, considering the fact that I freely admit my own inconsistencies. That's called intellectual honesty. Now, pray tell, where is yours?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 12:16am
These guys view the world through finely filtered lenses.
by wolfgang1
i'd say "scratched".
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 12:38am
at about 1/2 the u.s. per capita cost.
Judge for yourself! I lowered my income 75% or to 25% of what I was making two years ago to help care for my daughters 3 kids now 6, 4, and two yrs. old so she could work 30hrs. in order to obtain health insurance for them!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/15/2007 @ 12:44am
c'mon up here pastor,
we all share the health care costs together, like one big congregation.
it's nice to use taxes to help people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 01:04am
oops. first line up there is supposed to in the middle.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 01:04am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/15/2007 @ 12:44am
Feel free to point out where it is flawed. The fact that there are some (many is wishful thinking) young people that make 6 and 7 figures only illustrates the point.
Take a look at Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2006.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
The top 20% make more money then the other 80% (Page 17). And you want to suggest it is because they are all working more? Sure it is a factor, but it's not the only, or even most significant factor.
"The poverty rate among full-time, year-round workers (2.7 percent) was lower than the rate for those who worked part-time or part-year (12.6 percent) in 2006. In addition, among people 16 and older, those who did not work in 2006 represented 43.1 percent of people in poverty, compared with 25.1 percent of all people. (Page 22)"
If you look at Appendix B, you'll see Poverty is defined by household to be between $10,488 to $4,333 (assuming up to nine children but could go lower) per person depending on how many people and how many children are in the household.
There are 2.7% of people working full-time (35 hours a week or more for 50 weeks) making less than defined poverty rate? And you are telling me they aren't be exploited or working hard?
Let's do the math shall we? Minimum wage ($5.15 * 35 hours * 50 weeks = $9,012.50 (before income, social security, sales and other taxes). I'll not even get into agricultural, migrant labor.
Your solution? Work more hours, get a better job - which brings me back to the economic liberty point. Working beyond a certain number of hours effectively means you have no liberty. Getting a better job means someone else does the $5.15 work - and best case scenario you get to join the exploiter class.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/15/2007 @ 12:44am
My wife and I together paid several times over your total income in taxes. It's a bit ironic that nearly half that money is socialized in the form of paying for the current war, veteran's benefits or war debt - which you apparently have no problem spending our money on. The moment we suggest that perhaps our money would better be spent alleviating the tax burden of working people and providing a better standard of life for people in this country - you want to bring socialism into the discussion.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/15/2007 @ 12:45pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/14/2007 @ 11:58pm
My time in the military was a wake up call for me as well - although for different reasons. I saw the logical conclusion of top-down authoritarianism in rampant drug use, the dehumanization of others that can be seen in many ways in which the military interacts with local people (e.g., the blind eye toward prostitution), mindless drudgery kept up for the sake of appearances, racism manifested in ways I'd never encountered before (even between service members), etc.
The starting place for any form of morality is equality - applying the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. The military is all about inequality - officers vs enlisted, by rank, in service vs contractors, military vs civilians.
People quickly learn to game the system. I knew people that married simply to collect a bigger check. Not to mention several instances where marriage was the path used wives used for getting citizenship. Deployments were the sources of infidelities and ideas such as geographical bachelor. I'll not even mention the kind of personal dynamics that come with being in close quarters with all of this going on.
I never gave much thought to how other people viewed all this because I just figured that they would look it much as I did. But that's not true. Not everyone gets to see the underbelly, and many people get taken in by the surface veneer.
They figure that they are chosen or are better than those without wealth. Those without wealth become lesser beings than they are.
Some do. I think the main problem is that most wealthy people have never been poor and cannot even empathize with their problems. I think of it as the Marie Antoinette syndrome. No bread? Oh, well just eat the crust of pate then. No concept that if there is no bread, there is no pate - because it is something outside their experience.
We all have this to some degree. Unless you have even done migrant, day laborer, domestic service or other kinds of work that are done by the working poor, it's hard to get a handle on the challenges. Of course, there are books like Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, but if you are spending your time worried about radical Islam and terrorism, then the working poor is probably something you don't get around to read - much like I can't be bothered to read much on radical Islam. I've got finite time, and there are a finite number of things I can care about - and ultimately, this is the problem we all have.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/15/2007 @ 1:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/15/2007 @ 1:26pm
You can use the Marxist critique of exploitation, without being Marxist. My point is that if we are already socializing people's money - half of which goes to pay for your war of terror, veteran's benefits and debt of previous wars - that perhaps there are better ways of allocating it.
As for Democratic Socialism, here's the key point:
"Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society...have depended on the the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends."
While I think the idea of democratic control over the means of production is a good idea, I don't support the idea of democratic control over them through means of a government. It is possible to run a farm, factory, store, or even corporation (although I think there is something fundamentally flawed in an corporate structure that works counter to democratic control) based on democratic decision making according to some set of principles like the Rochdale Principles - and the government never need get involved.
There are also plenty of current and historical examples. Mondragón in Spain, rural electrical coops under the New Deal, REI, housing coops, credit unions, so forth and so on.
The problem is that you - and those like you - use Socialist or Communist (or even terrorist, for that matter) too loosely. I've never argued for governmental control over the means of production nor of forming (or even supporting) a political party with that end in mind. In fact, I'm generally against participating in government at all - although I do so on occasion because of pragmatic considerations (such as voting for John Kerry last presidential election).
Posted by srjenkins at 12/15/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/15/2007 @ 2:27pm
To take a page from Chomsky, I'd say we are fellow travelers. If I were going to say whose thought appeals to me most, it would be Leo Tolstoy - not Chomsky.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/15/2007 @ 3:31pm
LVLIBERTY1:
You said:
So can I infer from your response that you are more aligned with Chomsky and Zinn and their concept of socialist anarchy?
My response:
See, there you go again trying to create labels for people again. I have a label for you. Terrorist. For being active in the anti-abortion crusade of the 90s, with the assassination of abortion doctors and the bombing of clinics. Regardless of whether you were actually doing the bombing, the fact is, birds of a feather flock together. You should be remitted to Gitmo.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 4:38pm
See, it doesn't feel too good to be falsely labeled, or to be called a terrorist... does it?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 4:39pm
LVLIBERTY1:
Funny, from what I have seen, it is you who have become the delusional one.
My above comment, the one you referenced, was more along the lines of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". It was meant to illustrate just how stupid, unwise, and downright batshit crazy many of your points are. I think I hit a nerve. Thanks for confirming.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/15/2007 @ 4:44pm
Well, this would be another place where you and I don't see eye-to-eye. I think the crucifixition of Christ by the Romans which was further urged on by the leaders of the church is a very clear cautionary tale of what followers of Christ can expect both from government and church leadership.
Further, much of the Gospel clearly pits Christ against church and government authority. He reinterprets scripture "as one having authority, and not as the scribes", and it is the processes of government that killed him.
I agree with the assessment that Paul reinterprets Jesus in ways that are not consistent with the teachings of Jesus, and I agree that the influence of Constantine further obfusicated Christ's message.
Since I don't subscribe to Paul's teachings, I don't have to contend with Romans 13:1-7. In fact, it's additional evidence that Paul's teaching is wrong. Based on the flawed logic of this passage, Christ himself should have knuckled under to "the authorities".
We should also be clear. I'm not arguing for rebelling, but non-cooperation. Government is simply an evil influence that must be resisted. The temptation to revolt against it is just one of the many ways it lures people into evil. It needs to be avoided...the same way you might avoid walking in excrement.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/15/2007 @ 5:52pm
LVLIBERTY1:
It is a dangerous theology in which the individual picks and chooses which scripture they choose to follow.
Funny... that is precisely what has been done throughout the ages. Saints Jerome and Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin, et al. just had more political power and money backing them when they chose which to follow, which to disregard.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 9:34pm
Why should this behavior by a neonazicon be a surprise, everyone I know that has not taken the dumb-down pill from the foxers and the Lou Dobbs think-less tank know all who were brought into this administration came for the graft, that none were qualified for anything else, Brown and the interior secretary come to mind. The treasonable acts committed by these agents of our domestic enemies need to be brought up short with a swift firing by the house, who is legally supposed to be monitoring these units actions and correcting their mistakes by whatever means. There is no reason why the house can not say, Mr. Martin you have repeatedly lied about the peoples needs expressed in this problem, so you must be remove from this position pending an investigation into possible deliberate distortions, possible bribes and fraud. That would start the news media investigating every deal this scumbag had been involved in and we could ruin his life, as well as save our news sources from the Oligarchy's control in one swift motion. I say to hell with the corporate tyrants and their bible beating, pro-death, pro-slavery, pro-child molesters, hypercritical closet queen bought dogs
Posted by htophet at 12/15/2007 @ 10:06pm
Why should this behavior by a neonazicon be a surprise, everyone I know that has not taken the dumb-down pill from the foxers and the Lou Dobbs think-less tank know all who were brought into this administration came for the graft, that none were qualified for anything else, Brown and the interior secretary come to mind. The treasonable acts committed by these agents of our domestic enemies need to be brought up short with a swift firing by the house, who is legally supposed to be monitoring these units actions and correcting their mistakes by whatever means. There is no reason why the house can not say, Mr. Martin you have repeatedly lied about the peoples needs expressed in this problem, so you must be remove from this position pending an investigation into possible deliberate distortions, possible bribes and fraud. That would start the news media investigating every deal this scumbag had been involved in and we could ruin his life, as well as save our news sources from the Oligarchy's control in one swift motion. I say to hell with the corporate tyrants and their bible beating, pro-death, pro-slavery, pro-child molesters, hypercritical closet queen bought dogs
Posted by htophet at 12/15/2007 @ 10:08pm
Why should this behavior by a neonazicon be a surprise, everyone I know that has not taken the dumb-down pill from the foxers and the Lou Dobbs think-less tank know all who were brought into this administration came for the graft, that none were qualified for anything else, Brown and the interior secretary come to mind. The treasonable acts committed by these agents of our domestic enemies need to be brought up short with a swift firing by the house, who is legally supposed to be monitoring these units actions and correcting their mistakes by whatever means. There is no reason why the house can not say, Mr. Martin you have repeatedly lied about the peoples needs expressed in this problem, so you must be remove from this position pending an investigation into possible deliberate distortions, possible bribes and fraud. That would start the news media investigating every deal this scumbag had been involved in and we could ruin his life, as well as save our news sources from the Oligarchy's control in one swift motion. I say to hell with the corporate tyrants and their bible beating, pro-death, pro-slavery, pro-child molesters, hypercritical closet queen bought dogs
Posted by htophet at 12/15/2007 @ 10:10pm
RIO BRAVO:
You said:
Yours is another example of those who call Good Evil and Evil Good! Go ahead and embrace the murder and slaughter through genocide of innocent unborn children and I am sure your reward will be appropriate at a time and in a manner you will regret in this life possiably and for a certainty in the next! Exercise your free choice by all means.
My response:
Ok, you really are starting to scare the children. Do you even have a clue just how ridiculous you sound?
You talk about genocide, yet you don't acknowledge the 1 million+ Iraqis who have died since 2003 as a direct result of our invading that country illegally. Nor do you acknowledge the millions of men, women, and children who died because they went without hospitals, clean water, proper sanitation, decent food, or electricity after the first invasion.
You talk about genocide yet you fundamentally support our "right" to pre-emptively nuke Iran, support our decision to firebomb and nuke population centers in WWII, and napalm villages in Viet Nam.
You talk about genocide yet you support the use of torture, even in the face of inhumanity and illegality.
You talk of genocide yet you support Israel's Nazi-like encroachment and disenfranchisement and apartheid of the Palestinians.
Just shut your mouth, you hypocritical ass. You are nothing. And to top it all off, you can't even summon the mental capabilities to, in some way, justify these positions. You don't even try. It's as if you have given no deeper thought to these positions than you would to which bathroom tissue you would buy. Yet you want me, along with others on this site, to take your arguments seriously regarding your perceived genocide of unborn babies? Get real.
And while you're at it, try expanding your head.
Upgrade your grey matter... because one day, it may matter.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 11:09pm
(Very Concerned) BullS**t at its finest.
Posted by rickgriffin at 12/15/2007 @ 11:32pm
RIO BRAVO:
Saying it doesn't make it so... strap em on and prove me wrong. Otherwise shut the fuck up. If you can't debate, and all you are going to do is sit there and disparage me because you just can't do any better, you're best stay quiet and let the adults chat here.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 11:43pm
Does anyone else want to back me up on this? MASK, you seem to be good at keeping a record of stupid things people say on here. I'm sure you must have kept some of that info on this asshat. Care to share?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 11:45pm
Who else besides me has seen RIO BRAVO make these claims besides me?
Posted by jorcheim at 12/15/2007 @ 11:46pm
RIO BRAVO:
You said:
Lets see Iran (for those who put soooooo much confidence in our intelligence community) was (and probably still is) refining uranium to produce weapons grade material to destroy Israel and threaten others, they are the "home" of Islamic Facism and Terrorism since at least the 1970's for the whole middle east having trained, funded, proliferated and enhanced every such organization there, killed and taken hostage how many Americans (Jimminey Peanut can tell us how to placate them)..... No we probably should not even consider any attack on them!
My response:
Wow... so much bullshit being shoveled, I'm not even sure where to start. First, the reason we had "intelligence failures" prior to the Iraq invasion was due to Cheney and Rummy stove-piping unfiltered raw information, with no 2nd or 3rd source corroboration, all because they were trying to manufacture what they needed to justify an invasion.
Second, who gives a shit about Israel. They are not critical to our vested interests, despite what AIPAC and your fundamentalist friends want you to believe. They perpetuate crimes against humanity on a daily basis, and frankly, many of their problems are created by their own hand.
Third, the Iranians have a hard-core fundamentalist leadership because we ABORTED their sovereign attempts at true democracy when we overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh. We reinstalled a military dictator, against the wished of the populace there, and the Ayatollahs managed to overthrow him because, quite simply, he was an idiot and a puppet of the US intelligence community and state-within-a-state.
Fourth, hey guess what... we supported the Islamic terrorists too! Remember the mujahadeen? How about Bin Laden? Ok, ok... how about Afghanistan, back when the Russians were kicking around in that sandbox? Still nothing? Yeah, I figured as much.
And fifth... you're talking about the hostages that your favorite president, Ronnie Reagan, negotiated with the Iranians to hold onto until after the election... right? You do mean those hostages, right? Right... just making sure.
You said:
Say didn't the Nazis firebomb, bomb, strafe, invade and murder citizens of all the countries of Europe (anyone from 1930s-40s London, Spain, Poland, France etc.feel free to weigh in)....No I guess we should have minded our own business and not repaid them for their acts! (anti-war idiots alway ignore the acts of the enemies of mankind usually)
My response:
Wow, another doozy... Gee, RIO I thought you were a Christian. Do you think that bombing population centers actually did any good? As the Nazis would have told you after the Blitz, it doesn't. In fact, it stiffens the resolve of the defending nation's population. Just ask the British what the overall effect was on their population. See, I have. I did a pretty substantial research project on just this issue when I lived in Germany, and interviewed numerous Germans, many of whom were confirmed Nazis during the war. I even interviewed a whole bunch of Brits, and they had come to the exact same conclusion. But of course, that actually takes critical thinking... not exactly your strong suit.
Never mind the fact that it is heinous. Are you saying that we should descend to the same level of evil as our enemies in war? Hmmm, that sounds strangely like something Hitler once said. Something along the lines of, sometimes in order to beat a demon, you must become the devil...
And while we are on the topic of the "firebomb, bomb, strafe, invade and murder citizens" issue... how do you explain Viet Nam? They never invaded the US, yet we literally napalmed and firebombed and machine gunned that place to hell. How about Laos? Or Cambodia? or Korea? of Iraq? Or the countless countries in which we have overthrown regimes simply because the old regime was not suitable to the interests of our multinational corporations?
Yeah, I thought so... nothing to say about all the millions of people we killed, or the lives we ruined and destroyed, all for the financial interests of some rich assholes who have managed to lead you and your kind around by your noses, somehow convincing you that it is some universal struggle for people to be free, if only they could work in a sweatshop for barely pennies a day.
No... the only person ignore facts in this discussion is yourself.
You said:
Just because the Demoncrats Kennedy and Johnson who brought us the Vietnam war loved napalming southeast-asians don't try your "transference" abilities here like most leftwingnuts do with Nixon!
My response:
Are you honestly trying to say that LBJ was a liberal? Apparently you have never been to Texas, and know practically nothing about American politics.
How do you explain away Korea? Or the Dominican Republic, when we invaded them? How about Haiti? Or Guatemala? Or Nicaragua? Or Lebanon? All of those were by Republicans.
Yeah... thought so...
You said:
Since you have read all the bible and studied world history and the history revealed by the bible itself which is continually being substantiated perhaps you will tell us all how the nonexistent historically "palestinians" have so much rights to the land? You know like the Jeruselum city build by King David, the Temple mound where Abraham was restrained by God from sacrificing Issac and Solomon Davids son build the temple whose foundations and the eastern wall remain today?
My response:
This is precisely the kind of thinking that caused the displacement and murder and genocide of the Native Americans. You sicken me.
In case you weren't aware, Muslims had had Jerusalem for centuries, and they have every bit the claim on it, probably considerably more, than the Jews.
Sure, the Old Testament makes claims on that region for the Jews, but hey... it was written by Jews! No wonder they are the Chosen People according to it! And no wonder Israel is their homeland! Amazing how that works. I bet if I wrote a book and made claims that Pennsylvania is now and will forever be my homeland, and I am my family are God's chosen ones, a thousand years from now (or more!) my begotten progeny can make the claim that they own the state, by rights, because it says so in an old fucking book, written by their Great x 100 Grandfather.
You said:
There, now you know what I have to say on those subjects whose answers you prefer to fabricate for me!
My response:
No fabrication here, Slappy. All truth, all the time. You know... verifiable by science and experimentation? Where empirical evidence is more important than mythology and bald conjecture?
Not familiar? Yeah, I figured not.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 12:59am
RIO BRAVO:
You are a moron.
You said:
I find it more than intresting that all of my comments on the nation site have been deleted here tonight. I guess there really are NO, Nada, and None openminded and nonmyopic blog site monitors out there! No free Speech allowed here!
My response:
They are all, sadly, still showing up for me. Since I have a rule that I don't put anyone on ignore, I must suffer the potentially stupifying posts by you and your half-retarded cousins MARYBRETBRAD, JOHN MAASCH aka JOMAMMA, FRANKSHITZ, and LVLIBERTY1.
You should learn to come up with some better material.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/16/2007 @ 01:02am
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/16/2007 @ 12:59am
i see you had some soup.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 03:09am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/15/2007 @ 8:17pm
It is a dangerous theology in which the individual picks and chooses which scripture they choose to follow.
This statement, at least, I can agree with. But there is an easy answer to this problem - the Holy Spirit. If God is teaching us himself through the Holy Spirit, then scripture, church traditions, our church community, religious writings and so forth are the means the Teacher uses to expound on the Gospel message. It's a continuing revelation - and we like the original twelve disciples can make mistakes, misunderstand what is being taught and have the limitations inherent in our historical moment.
I think all theology is dangerous. It is relying on ideas rather than the teachings of the Inner Guide. If we are having trouble hearing the Inner Guide, then we need to focus on what Jesus said when he was here.
I think we are least prone to error when we stick with Christ's statements in the Gospels, and Christ's statements in the Gospels are essentially a command to do and be good, and I find it to be clearest and most lucid in Matthew - particularly the Sermon on the Mount. In short, I'm a Christian, not a Paulian.
Through Paul's letters, we get much of both the theological explanations for our knowledge of the person of Christ and the role of grace in salvation. We have in Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, some of the most beautiful writing of the NT.
It's exactly these theological explanations with which I take issue. Why is it that Jesus never shared Paul's teachings with his own disciples? I find that curious. He didn't think it important to lay out something like the Nicene Creed himself? How do you account for that?
There is a great deal of beautiful religious writing - the Rule of St. Benedict, Dark Night of the Soul, The Imitiation of Christ, A Testament of Devotion, the homilies of Matthew Kelty and many others. They are useful and interesting - but they aren't scripture. Paul's writings belong in the same category.
Our faith would indeed be a far greater struggle without the incredible contributions to scripture without Paul's writings.
It should be a far greater struggle than most Christians allow it to be - including myself. So much easier to follow the teachings of Christ if you believe God has done all the work for you and you don't actually have to do any of the things Christ laid out in the Sermon of the Mount.
I'll take a look at your links next week.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/15/2007 @ 11:24pm
The "church" which Christ "created" latter to call themselves christians did not condemn him, but the leaders of the Jewish Temple of Old Testament origin did. They are NOT the same church establishment...
The problem is not the church - meaning the religious community. The problem is the religious leaders of the church - many of which have the same qualities of those leaders of the Jewish Temple of the Old Testament. Tell me Dostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor parable doesn't have some truth to it - that church leadership no longer needs Christ.
Christ said "I have come to fulfill the law NOT destroy it" so how could he be rejecting what you wrongly refer to as the church?
The law is not the teachings of the Pharisees or their modern day equivalents - who lead their congregations as false prophets and putting words into Christ's mouth that we never there.
"For God so loved the world that he GAVE his only begotten son that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should NOT perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
I do like that quote. But interesting that people don't continue on to the rest of the passage: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19-21)
It means that those that geniunely believe have fruits that are the evidence of God working through them - refer again to the Sermon on the Mount.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods". No way is that against the government!
The context is that it was a coin. "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 6:24). If you aren't serving Money, you'll have nothing to give to Caesar.
Apparently you deny Pauls defense of his ministry...
I do.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/16/2007 @ 3:30pm
Apparently you and others misread "the south"! You might have the transplanted yankee citizenry pegged, but any dissatisfaction otherwise is with the lack of intensity in "laying waste" to our enemies! We have been itching to use Sherman's scorched earth tactics for over 100 years!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 8:57pm
Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2007 @ 7:23pm