It was widely reported (e.g. in the NY Times), that President Obama recently pressured Governor Paterson (of NY) not to run for re-election. The president, when asked, has refused publicly to endorse Governor Paterson. This strikes me as odd. Governor Paterson is the first black American to be Governor of New York, is a Democrat, and has liberal views not unlike the president's. Why would President Obama not support the first black governor of New York? Could it be racism? Does he believe that a black man isn't fit to be governor of such an important state? Could it be that he doesn't think Governor Paterson can win, and winning trumps ideals about political views, overcoming adversity (Governor Paterson is legally blind, and was the first disabled student at Hempstead High School), and the example the Governor sets for black Americans and disabled young people (he also ran the NYC marathon). And...if winning trumps ideals and inspiration...what does that say about the president's character?
Does this make President Obama a racist? I don't know...I guess I'll have to ask Jimmy carter.
The Old Man
By the way...Governor Paterson graduated from Columbia just like you know who.
Sep 24, 2009
Right, wrong, or just missing the mark? (part 2)
The problems with the anti-reform movement, if you like, are encapsulated in the man who stood up at a town hall meeting and told Rep. Robert Inglis (Republican, S.C.) to "keep your government hands off my Medicare".
But let me first say this: I think it's great that so many people have been showing up at town hall meetings, and the Tea Party protests. That's democracy in action. I disagree with the agenda to kill public health insurance, but I love the method: people getting informed and getting active; bringing their kids, too. I love the method just as much when it happens to be a massive anti-war protest involving hundreds of thousands of people and no corporate sponsors or primetime cable network to cheerlead for it. (Like this one, this one, this one, and this one.)
The problem with the Tea Party / town hall activities is that the bulk of the people involved--average people with genuine concerns--were whipped into fearful hysteria by public relations firms hired by corporations, who spread lies and propaganda and deliberately sabotaged meaningful discussion.
Two of the main groups behind the Tea Parties are corporate front-groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity (AFP). Their astro-turfing shenanigans have been well documented. The Wall Street Journal detailed FreedomWorks' phony "grassroots" website AngryRenter.com over a year ago.
A political action committee called Right Prinicples, whose founder Bob MacGuffie is involved with many tea party groups (AFP, teapartypatriots.com ("collaborator" of FreedomWorks), the Media Research Center's NewsBusters) released a memo recommending the tactics of shouting, disrupting, and inflating their numbers at town halls:
Glenn Beck's influence can't be overlooked. (You know, that guy who hates socialism and loves Thomas Paine, but apparently never read Paine's essays. The guy who admitted on The View he makes stuff up, that he is not an investigative reporter, doesn't check facts, just "commentates on life". The guy who said Obama is a racist who hates white people.) This nutty dude spearheaded the 9/12 project and spent a lot of time cheerleading for the Tea Parties on primetime cable. So did the rest of Fox News, whose boss, tabloid dispenser Rupert Murdoch, stated at the World Economic Forum that he uses his media empire to try to shape the public agenda. Fox News' promotion of the Tea Parties was, as always, good for a laugh, but it's even funnier when contrasted with their past coverage of anti-war protests.
While I expect anchors on Fox News to clown around buffoonishly for my amusement, it is surprising to witness Beck-level inanity spewing from more respectable conservative sources. Investors Business Daily (IBD), for example, dishonestly smeared the British National Health Service (NHS), saying:
IBD might also consider the "horror movie script" character of the deluded fantasies of people who have been scared out of their wits by hysterical accusations Obama is a Nazi. Or Stalinist. Or anti-Christ. And he wants to euthanize grandma or send Glenn Beck's disabled daughter to a concentration camp.
So, to answer the question posed in my previous post: How do you shift longstanding popular opinion nearly 20 percentage points, in a matter of weeks? Step 1: spend millions of dollars on advertizing. Step 2: lie to people.
But let me first say this: I think it's great that so many people have been showing up at town hall meetings, and the Tea Party protests. That's democracy in action. I disagree with the agenda to kill public health insurance, but I love the method: people getting informed and getting active; bringing their kids, too. I love the method just as much when it happens to be a massive anti-war protest involving hundreds of thousands of people and no corporate sponsors or primetime cable network to cheerlead for it. (Like this one, this one, this one, and this one.)
The problem with the Tea Party / town hall activities is that the bulk of the people involved--average people with genuine concerns--were whipped into fearful hysteria by public relations firms hired by corporations, who spread lies and propaganda and deliberately sabotaged meaningful discussion.
Two of the main groups behind the Tea Parties are corporate front-groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity (AFP). Their astro-turfing shenanigans have been well documented. The Wall Street Journal detailed FreedomWorks' phony "grassroots" website AngryRenter.com over a year ago.
A political action committee called Right Prinicples, whose founder Bob MacGuffie is involved with many tea party groups (AFP, teapartypatriots.com ("collaborator" of FreedomWorks), the Media Research Center's NewsBusters) released a memo recommending the tactics of shouting, disrupting, and inflating their numbers at town halls:
“The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”Read it yourself here. Listen to him defend the memo on the Alan Colmes show here. As you can see in all the videos and reports of the town halls, the advice was put to good use.
Glenn Beck's influence can't be overlooked. (You know, that guy who hates socialism and loves Thomas Paine, but apparently never read Paine's essays. The guy who admitted on The View he makes stuff up, that he is not an investigative reporter, doesn't check facts, just "commentates on life". The guy who said Obama is a racist who hates white people.) This nutty dude spearheaded the 9/12 project and spent a lot of time cheerleading for the Tea Parties on primetime cable. So did the rest of Fox News, whose boss, tabloid dispenser Rupert Murdoch, stated at the World Economic Forum that he uses his media empire to try to shape the public agenda. Fox News' promotion of the Tea Parties was, as always, good for a laugh, but it's even funnier when contrasted with their past coverage of anti-war protests.
While I expect anchors on Fox News to clown around buffoonishly for my amusement, it is surprising to witness Beck-level inanity spewing from more respectable conservative sources. Investors Business Daily (IBD), for example, dishonestly smeared the British National Health Service (NHS), saying:
"The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script...people such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."Stephen Hawking, who has lived in the UK all his life and unlike many Americans enjoys free healthcare, responded that he "wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS". The writers at IBD might consider whether a person with Mr. Hawking's disability and a modest salary would "have a chance" dealing with Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield instead of the NHS. Maybe we should ask the families of the 18,000 Americans who die each year due to lack of coverage. (By the way, I was treated at one of Britain's public hospitals once. Ask me if I survived.)
IBD might also consider the "horror movie script" character of the deluded fantasies of people who have been scared out of their wits by hysterical accusations Obama is a Nazi. Or Stalinist. Or anti-Christ. And he wants to euthanize grandma or send Glenn Beck's disabled daughter to a concentration camp.
So, to answer the question posed in my previous post: How do you shift longstanding popular opinion nearly 20 percentage points, in a matter of weeks? Step 1: spend millions of dollars on advertizing. Step 2: lie to people.
Sep 22, 2009
Right, wrong, or just missing the mark?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Old Man and I have a lot in common in terms of our basic assumptions and values, and our goals. However, we disagree on certain facts, and their proportions. So, while we stand together and aim for the same targets--what we perceive to be anti-democratic trends, corrupt power, and distortion of the truth--a different understanding of what is factually true nudges our shots apart. I often think his targets are legitimate ones, but what he regards as a ten-point buck looks like a rubber ducky to me, and vice-versa.
Whose facts are right? I don't know. I think mine are, but I could be mistaken. I've cited sources so you can check for yourself.
There's a lot of truth in the Old Man's post "Obama and the Ruling Class", but in my opinion, that truth is sort of hidden underneath his intended argument. There are connections between Obama and the ruling class. Those connections are best captured by the Wall Street Journal, which reported health insurance stocks have gone up since lobbyists negotiated at the White House weeks ago, reaching a closed-doors agreement that may force people to buy the expensive, inefficient, unreliable private health insurance they despise, with no choice of a public option. Even if we elect a liberal President and a majority of Democrats, the lobbyists have stacked the deck against health reform because they pay major Dems, too.
A note on the czar issue: as we all know, comrades, historically presidents have appointed special advisers, often called "czars", to deal with major issues or new crises. Sometimes, so-called czars are confirmed by the Senate. Sometimes they are not, however, and in those cases, there is a serious question of constitutionality. Former president Bush filled over thirty "czar" posts, apparently an unprecedented number. Unfortunately, President Obama has taken advantage of the crises and continued this trend.
This brings me to Mark Lloyd: conservatives have made much of so-called "Diversity Czar" of the FCC Mark Lloyd's comments about Venezuela. Conservative sites like NewsBusters posted a short 39-second clip of Lloyd's comments, taking them entirely out of context. NewsBusters is one of many projects of the Media Research Center, which receives millions of dollars in funding from the same few corporate funds that prop up so many "think tanks" (conservative and liberal). You can listen to Lloyd's full comments, in context, here.
Lloyd says state-monopolized radio enabled the genocide in Rwanda. He says corporate domination of Venezuelan media usurped democracy. His very basic, obvious point is that in a democracy we don't want a monopoly over communication, by state or corporate power. He wants diversity. Hence his job title. He gives an EXCELLENT summary of the problems with American media here.
Personally, I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, but I do think a limited natural resource like radio frequencies should be owned by local people, only rented to private power. Same goes for the oil resources in Venezuela. Mark Lloyd correctly and bravely described the people's revolution which reinstated the democratic government there "incredible". He did not call Chavez' media policies "incredible" but did not call them all bad, either, for good reasons.
A bit of history: the mass, and largely peaceful uprising in Venezuela was in response to a 2002 military coup (sadly, with tacit U.S. support) which kidnapped the president, disbanded parliament, nulled their constitution and -- revealingly -- declared a reversal of oil policy. All in one day. (Source, source, source).
The coup was supported by media networks dominated by the Venezuelan oligarchy which lied, saying President Chavez had resigned, etc. Imagine if Al-Jazeera successfully kidnapped our president and dissolved the U.S. Congress, then tried to mislead us as we took to the streets to reclaim our democracy. We would shut down their stations instantly, their executives would be executed for high treason. The Venezuelan government, for its part, encouraged reconciliation, did not renew broadcasting licenses to two networks that supported the coup, started a pro-government media outlet, and launched investigations five years later. Not the mass kidnapping/killings and assassination of editors and Catholic priests that were carried out by U.S.-backed South American dictatorships. Investigations. Whooptey-doo.
I take that back, there was at least one assassination: the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting of civilians by coup supporters was assassinated. My mistake.
Okay: there are serious issues surrounding Hugo Chavez and free speech. But again, the real issues are buried under the intended point of the Old Man's post.
Same goes for the point about the mainstream media's coverage of the Tea Party protests. The coverage WAS amusing, on all networks. But there is no evidence the crowd was in the millions, contrary to what conservative blogs and British tabloids have claimed. FactCheck.org and Politifact.com have laid out the evidence. It was a huge crowd. Just not as big as the millions who gathered in the D.C. Mall for President Obama's inauguration, which was the largest crowd there, ever (check out the satellite photos).
Let's get some perspective: Americans right now are sharply divided on the proposed healthcare reforms, according to Gallup. This is quite interesting, because a solid majority of Americans favored passing a major health reform bill, with higher taxes and expanded government insurance coverage all the way up to July. So what happened in the space of a few months to cause decades-old popular support for healthcare reform to drop 16 to 20 points, so that opposition now has a small majority? Stay tuned, folks!
Whose facts are right? I don't know. I think mine are, but I could be mistaken. I've cited sources so you can check for yourself.
There's a lot of truth in the Old Man's post "Obama and the Ruling Class", but in my opinion, that truth is sort of hidden underneath his intended argument. There are connections between Obama and the ruling class. Those connections are best captured by the Wall Street Journal, which reported health insurance stocks have gone up since lobbyists negotiated at the White House weeks ago, reaching a closed-doors agreement that may force people to buy the expensive, inefficient, unreliable private health insurance they despise, with no choice of a public option. Even if we elect a liberal President and a majority of Democrats, the lobbyists have stacked the deck against health reform because they pay major Dems, too.
A note on the czar issue: as we all know, comrades, historically presidents have appointed special advisers, often called "czars", to deal with major issues or new crises. Sometimes, so-called czars are confirmed by the Senate. Sometimes they are not, however, and in those cases, there is a serious question of constitutionality. Former president Bush filled over thirty "czar" posts, apparently an unprecedented number. Unfortunately, President Obama has taken advantage of the crises and continued this trend.
This brings me to Mark Lloyd: conservatives have made much of so-called "Diversity Czar" of the FCC Mark Lloyd's comments about Venezuela. Conservative sites like NewsBusters posted a short 39-second clip of Lloyd's comments, taking them entirely out of context. NewsBusters is one of many projects of the Media Research Center, which receives millions of dollars in funding from the same few corporate funds that prop up so many "think tanks" (conservative and liberal). You can listen to Lloyd's full comments, in context, here.
Lloyd says state-monopolized radio enabled the genocide in Rwanda. He says corporate domination of Venezuelan media usurped democracy. His very basic, obvious point is that in a democracy we don't want a monopoly over communication, by state or corporate power. He wants diversity. Hence his job title. He gives an EXCELLENT summary of the problems with American media here.
Personally, I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, but I do think a limited natural resource like radio frequencies should be owned by local people, only rented to private power. Same goes for the oil resources in Venezuela. Mark Lloyd correctly and bravely described the people's revolution which reinstated the democratic government there "incredible". He did not call Chavez' media policies "incredible" but did not call them all bad, either, for good reasons.
A bit of history: the mass, and largely peaceful uprising in Venezuela was in response to a 2002 military coup (sadly, with tacit U.S. support) which kidnapped the president, disbanded parliament, nulled their constitution and -- revealingly -- declared a reversal of oil policy. All in one day. (Source, source, source).
The coup was supported by media networks dominated by the Venezuelan oligarchy which lied, saying President Chavez had resigned, etc. Imagine if Al-Jazeera successfully kidnapped our president and dissolved the U.S. Congress, then tried to mislead us as we took to the streets to reclaim our democracy. We would shut down their stations instantly, their executives would be executed for high treason. The Venezuelan government, for its part, encouraged reconciliation, did not renew broadcasting licenses to two networks that supported the coup, started a pro-government media outlet, and launched investigations five years later. Not the mass kidnapping/killings and assassination of editors and Catholic priests that were carried out by U.S.-backed South American dictatorships. Investigations. Whooptey-doo.
I take that back, there was at least one assassination: the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting of civilians by coup supporters was assassinated. My mistake.
Okay: there are serious issues surrounding Hugo Chavez and free speech. But again, the real issues are buried under the intended point of the Old Man's post.
Same goes for the point about the mainstream media's coverage of the Tea Party protests. The coverage WAS amusing, on all networks. But there is no evidence the crowd was in the millions, contrary to what conservative blogs and British tabloids have claimed. FactCheck.org and Politifact.com have laid out the evidence. It was a huge crowd. Just not as big as the millions who gathered in the D.C. Mall for President Obama's inauguration, which was the largest crowd there, ever (check out the satellite photos).
Let's get some perspective: Americans right now are sharply divided on the proposed healthcare reforms, according to Gallup. This is quite interesting, because a solid majority of Americans favored passing a major health reform bill, with higher taxes and expanded government insurance coverage all the way up to July. So what happened in the space of a few months to cause decades-old popular support for healthcare reform to drop 16 to 20 points, so that opposition now has a small majority? Stay tuned, folks!
Sep 20, 2009
Jimmy carter, Discrimination and Politics
Former President Jimmy Carter (whose accomplishments in race relations as president escape me at the moment), declared the other day that most of the opposition to President Obama's policies and beliefs are driven by racism.
I agree that there are small minded people, who inject some form of discrimination into all of their views. This is true of Southerners and Northerners, New Yorkers and people from the Mid West. Do you know any white people from the North, and/or Media people, who almost instinctively lower their assessments of someone's IQ because that someone speaks with a southern accent? How many people stereotype people from the deep South as racist or ignorant? I grew up in New York, where many people referred to the part of the country where we live (middle America) as "the flyover zone", with a disdainful stereotyping of the people "out there" as not very intelligent, and the whole area as not worth stopping in on your way to the other cultured part of the country (California). Jews, homosexuals and blacks are still discriminated against in this society, as are most of us, by some, for one reason or another. Some types of discrimination have been much worse than others, for sure.
But, the point is that the discrimination against Jews, black Americans and homosexuals, while still painful and wrong, has diminished to the point that it is a very small obstacle to success, and almost irrelevant in political discussion. Further, it has gotten to a point where overemphasis is deleterious to those groups, rather than helpful. From the President of the U.S., to the supreme court, to Secretaries of State, to sports and media, to Oprah, to the corporate heads of giants like American Express and Wall Street firms to college admissions, to being lawyers or doctors...to owning homes or starting businesses...these three groups do better in America than anywhere else in the world, and their ethnic or sexual or religious grouping now amounts to a speed bump in the pursuit of success. Yes, my liberal friends (and I mean that), as you often say...let's debate "...President Obama about his beliefs and policies..", and not whip out the race card as soon as someone disagrees with those beliefs and policies, trying to marginalize disagreement by calling it racism.
As for Jimmy Carter...yes you do know about him...if you don't, look it up, it's a matter of public record. It is not just that President Carter's church "…didn't have any black members." It's that the church (Plains Baptist) actively voted to not allow blacks to be members (1976 or 1977), while Carter was president (not something from when he was in college or in his twenties), and while he was a Deacon and Elder (leader) in that church!! This is significantly different than attending a church where there were no black members. Some of his own family members quit that church in protest and started a new church…but not the holier than thou Jimmy. This makes him a bona fide hypocrite, and not worth listening to.
Th Old Man
I agree that there are small minded people, who inject some form of discrimination into all of their views. This is true of Southerners and Northerners, New Yorkers and people from the Mid West. Do you know any white people from the North, and/or Media people, who almost instinctively lower their assessments of someone's IQ because that someone speaks with a southern accent? How many people stereotype people from the deep South as racist or ignorant? I grew up in New York, where many people referred to the part of the country where we live (middle America) as "the flyover zone", with a disdainful stereotyping of the people "out there" as not very intelligent, and the whole area as not worth stopping in on your way to the other cultured part of the country (California). Jews, homosexuals and blacks are still discriminated against in this society, as are most of us, by some, for one reason or another. Some types of discrimination have been much worse than others, for sure.
But, the point is that the discrimination against Jews, black Americans and homosexuals, while still painful and wrong, has diminished to the point that it is a very small obstacle to success, and almost irrelevant in political discussion. Further, it has gotten to a point where overemphasis is deleterious to those groups, rather than helpful. From the President of the U.S., to the supreme court, to Secretaries of State, to sports and media, to Oprah, to the corporate heads of giants like American Express and Wall Street firms to college admissions, to being lawyers or doctors...to owning homes or starting businesses...these three groups do better in America than anywhere else in the world, and their ethnic or sexual or religious grouping now amounts to a speed bump in the pursuit of success. Yes, my liberal friends (and I mean that), as you often say...let's debate "...President Obama about his beliefs and policies..", and not whip out the race card as soon as someone disagrees with those beliefs and policies, trying to marginalize disagreement by calling it racism.
As for Jimmy Carter...yes you do know about him...if you don't, look it up, it's a matter of public record. It is not just that President Carter's church "…didn't have any black members." It's that the church (Plains Baptist) actively voted to not allow blacks to be members (1976 or 1977), while Carter was president (not something from when he was in college or in his twenties), and while he was a Deacon and Elder (leader) in that church!! This is significantly different than attending a church where there were no black members. Some of his own family members quit that church in protest and started a new church…but not the holier than thou Jimmy. This makes him a bona fide hypocrite, and not worth listening to.
Th Old Man
Sep 13, 2009
Obama and the Ruling Class
Obama and the Ruling Class in America
To paraphrase a Ross Perot quote about NAFTA, don’t look now, but that sucking sound you hear might be your voice in government being taken away. The administration’s race toward socialist programs, massive and irresponsible spending, and government intrusion into citizen’s lives, overshadows an even more alarming pattern… the growing efforts to control media and what the people hear.
Before you dismiss this as over-reacting, consider the quotes from Mark Lloyd, an Obama appointed, unelected Czar of “Diversity in media”. The “Diversity Czar” has been assigned the task of assuring there is the right balance of reporting in the news media. “Right balance”, according to whom? Since when did the State have the right to monitor and regulate political content in the media? Mr. Lloyd has suggested assessing 100% of the total operating budget as a fee on radio shows with political content that is too unbalanced, and use this money to see that “public” (read State run) radio has “at least as much, if not more” funding and air time. He said “Part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads upset is our suggestion that the (private) commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay.” Too unbalanced according to…You got it, the State. Whose rules... you got it, the State. By the way, if Mr. Lloyd and the State take money from the private radio shows and dole it out to the “public” radio…do you think they’ll have any influence on political content? Keep in mind, the “public” radio station is specifically being set up and funded to counterbalance what Mr. Lloyd and the State believe to be unbalanced or not giving the “correct” view of the issues. Mr. Lloyd called Hugo Chavez takeover “…an incredible revolution.” He went on to praise Chavez, saying that “Chavez began to take very seriously the Media in his country” and dealt with it. Please note that Chavez “dealing with it”, meant he shut down over 200 radio stations and now has the State regulate the political content of television broadcasts. This is the approach publically praised by the Administration’s unelected “Radio Ruler”. Go on the internet…look it up. I know it sounds crazy….I think it is crazy…but it’s actually being proposed by the Administration.
Another aspect of this issue is the management of television media. Here it is much easier, because most of the TV media is following the Obama rhetoric like sailors following the Sirens. This weekend’s march on the capitol is an excellent example. The pictures from overhead and aerial videos are dramatic. (See one example below).
This is clearly one of the biggest marches ever on the capitol, and a huge protest. Yet, most of the TV media gave it only passing mention and print media tried to downplay the size, estimating the crowd as “thousands” or “tens of thousands”. Clearly, when the videos and overhead shots are put together, this is hundreds of thousands of people. The MSNBC reporter at the scene gushed “but or own people estimate the crowd at hundreds of thousands” (wonder if he’ll ever be heard from again).
The more shocking part is the reaction of the Ruling Class (otherwise known as Congress and the Adminstration). Think about it…with hundreds of thousands of people in the capitol, trying to make their voices heard to their supposed representatives…the President was spirited off (his helicopter flew over the advancing crowd) to attend a managed friendly crowd safely in the Target Center. He was, of course, cheered by that crowd (of about 15 thousand), boosting his impression that most Americans are wildly enthusiastic about his programs. That speech received much more press coverage than hundreds of thousands of citizens protesting their government. Even worse, Congressman after Congressman criticized and demonized the protesters, and vowed not to listen to them! Congressmen were publically quoted saying things like “I’m not going to put up with them (the protesters)”, and “This is my town hall meeting”, and “I’m not going to give them (that would be the voters) a forum”. One even talked on her cell phone disdainfully while one of “them” tried to ask a question of her.
There’s an old Buffalo Springfield song, “For What it’s Worth”, that has lyrics that just might apply again today.
There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear,
I think it’s time we stop children, what’s that sound,
Everybody look what’s going down.
There’s battle lines being drawn, nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.
(Some) people speaking their minds, getting so much resistance from behind.
What a field day for the heat, a thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and they’re carrying signs…
I don’t know if this protest movement will succeed in causing political change as the one that did when that song was written, but either way, our system is at an inflection point, and the direction of the curve will change.
The Old Man
To paraphrase a Ross Perot quote about NAFTA, don’t look now, but that sucking sound you hear might be your voice in government being taken away. The administration’s race toward socialist programs, massive and irresponsible spending, and government intrusion into citizen’s lives, overshadows an even more alarming pattern… the growing efforts to control media and what the people hear.
Before you dismiss this as over-reacting, consider the quotes from Mark Lloyd, an Obama appointed, unelected Czar of “Diversity in media”. The “Diversity Czar” has been assigned the task of assuring there is the right balance of reporting in the news media. “Right balance”, according to whom? Since when did the State have the right to monitor and regulate political content in the media? Mr. Lloyd has suggested assessing 100% of the total operating budget as a fee on radio shows with political content that is too unbalanced, and use this money to see that “public” (read State run) radio has “at least as much, if not more” funding and air time. He said “Part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads upset is our suggestion that the (private) commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay.” Too unbalanced according to…You got it, the State. Whose rules... you got it, the State. By the way, if Mr. Lloyd and the State take money from the private radio shows and dole it out to the “public” radio…do you think they’ll have any influence on political content? Keep in mind, the “public” radio station is specifically being set up and funded to counterbalance what Mr. Lloyd and the State believe to be unbalanced or not giving the “correct” view of the issues. Mr. Lloyd called Hugo Chavez takeover “…an incredible revolution.” He went on to praise Chavez, saying that “Chavez began to take very seriously the Media in his country” and dealt with it. Please note that Chavez “dealing with it”, meant he shut down over 200 radio stations and now has the State regulate the political content of television broadcasts. This is the approach publically praised by the Administration’s unelected “Radio Ruler”. Go on the internet…look it up. I know it sounds crazy….I think it is crazy…but it’s actually being proposed by the Administration.
Another aspect of this issue is the management of television media. Here it is much easier, because most of the TV media is following the Obama rhetoric like sailors following the Sirens. This weekend’s march on the capitol is an excellent example. The pictures from overhead and aerial videos are dramatic. (See one example below).
This is clearly one of the biggest marches ever on the capitol, and a huge protest. Yet, most of the TV media gave it only passing mention and print media tried to downplay the size, estimating the crowd as “thousands” or “tens of thousands”. Clearly, when the videos and overhead shots are put together, this is hundreds of thousands of people. The MSNBC reporter at the scene gushed “but or own people estimate the crowd at hundreds of thousands” (wonder if he’ll ever be heard from again).
The more shocking part is the reaction of the Ruling Class (otherwise known as Congress and the Adminstration). Think about it…with hundreds of thousands of people in the capitol, trying to make their voices heard to their supposed representatives…the President was spirited off (his helicopter flew over the advancing crowd) to attend a managed friendly crowd safely in the Target Center. He was, of course, cheered by that crowd (of about 15 thousand), boosting his impression that most Americans are wildly enthusiastic about his programs. That speech received much more press coverage than hundreds of thousands of citizens protesting their government. Even worse, Congressman after Congressman criticized and demonized the protesters, and vowed not to listen to them! Congressmen were publically quoted saying things like “I’m not going to put up with them (the protesters)”, and “This is my town hall meeting”, and “I’m not going to give them (that would be the voters) a forum”. One even talked on her cell phone disdainfully while one of “them” tried to ask a question of her.
There’s an old Buffalo Springfield song, “For What it’s Worth”, that has lyrics that just might apply again today.
There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear,
I think it’s time we stop children, what’s that sound,
Everybody look what’s going down.
There’s battle lines being drawn, nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.
(Some) people speaking their minds, getting so much resistance from behind.
What a field day for the heat, a thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and they’re carrying signs…
I don’t know if this protest movement will succeed in causing political change as the one that did when that song was written, but either way, our system is at an inflection point, and the direction of the curve will change.
The Old Man
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)