Democratic Primary Exhaustion Thread

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, apply the "fairness doctrine" for me.

Would Rush, Hannity, and their ilk have to reverse their view points or just get off the air whole sale?

If Obama's preachers cursed out America would they have to report then then pick on Hillary about something for an equal amount of time?  What if they were meaner to Obama than Hillary, does the level of meanness have anything to do with the allotment of time?

On Hannity and Colmes the issues get about equal time, but Hannity is far more effective.  Does Colmes get an extra 5 minutes to make up for his ineffectiveness?

Hillary has 31.3 Million Google hits, Obama has 27.2 million.  Would Google have to redirect 500,000 hits to make sure they had fair media?  YouTube videos?

As a private citizen, I can pay for air time to advertise whatever I want. Including for or against a political candidate.  If I paid for a "John McCain is a liberal" commercial, would they have to run a commercial the other way even if no one wanted to pay for it?

Who is entitled to equal time?  Just Republicans and Democrats or the communist party, the Nazis, and everyone else on the ballot?
- - -

It just doesn't make sense.  The government telling everyone who, what and when to say things in order to keep it "fair."  Not only is it not workable, it goes against the basic tenants of our society.  Telling station owners, hosts, and guests what to represent and telling consumers what they will listen to doesn't sound "fair" to me.

If people did not like what they heard, or demanded other outlets and points of view - it would be represented.  A government mandate of "fairness" just isn't a workable concept.

CF, you've set up some pretty heavy straw men up there, none of which accurately reflect anything about how the Fairness Doctrine historically operated.  There were never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- tit for tat time swaps (ie. Rush gets 3 hours so Franken gets 3 hours.)  There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- government evaluating the effectiveness of Colmes vs. Hannity, and applying handicaps to the better speaker to bring down the level of speech.  There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- a way to apportion floating Google hits to the deficient candidate.  

It's also not about granting mail-bombers or pedophiles or cannibals a free podium for talking about healthcare or crop subsidies (though it might have helped Ron Paul during the primaries, as well as Biden and Dodd and Richardson, etc).

I brought it up because I think that one of the major lessons of the Bush years is that corporate media is much more acquiescent to the government than we ever expected it to be, and there should be an effort to find ways to re-separate the two. IMO, the market is incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I'd prefer using the market to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.

Since the market values profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior.  And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.

So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?  How do you encourage the market to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?

[cannon_fodder]

I did not intend to set up straw men, merely implying what government regulation entails.  You (they) have to determine where to draw the "fair" line.  I doubt they will go as far as I suggested, but in all seriousness someone needs to say "no, that's too far" within the "Government Media Fairness Board."  And if that concept does not cause concern, you trust government much more than I.

quote:So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?

Nothing.  People, and even corporations, have freedom of speech.  Political speech above all else.  The press has guaranteed freedom to report as they see fit.  The government should not, in any way, dictate or even suggest what items should be covered nor how.

While I share your concerns with media pandering to government officials, there is always someone to buck the trend.  No one was more beloved to the Media than Bill, until Drudge launched a media career reporting negatively on his relationships.  The news gets out, perhaps not always as efficiently as one would hope - but good reporting by the smallest source forces the "major" outlets to talk about it.

I guess what I'm saying is that news is business.  The BBC, CBA, NPR, and Deutsche Welle Radio have the luxury of serving the public good first - but CNN and Fox do not.  The system is not perfect, but in the history of the world our current system delivers more information than ever before (and most of its crap).  I guess we rely on activists like Bates to do the hard reporting if it comes to that...


And consider this:  under the current system the governments message in compliantly filtered through the media, under a "fair" system the governments message is dictated - at least in part, to the media.  Lest you think the government is going to force negative reporting on the government, or against whatever party is in power, or not turn corrupt and bureaucratic - you're damned if you do...

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, apply the "fairness doctrine" for me.

Would Rush, Hannity, and their ilk have to reverse their view points or just get off the air whole sale?

If Obama's preachers cursed out America would they have to report then then pick on Hillary about something for an equal amount of time?  What if they were meaner to Obama than Hillary, does the level of meanness have anything to do with the allotment of time?

On Hannity and Colmes the issues get about equal time, but Hannity is far more effective.  Does Colmes get an extra 5 minutes to make up for his ineffectiveness?

Hillary has 31.3 Million Google hits, Obama has 27.2 million.  Would Google have to redirect 500,000 hits to make sure they had fair media?  YouTube videos?

As a private citizen, I can pay for air time to advertise whatever I want. Including for or against a political candidate.  If I paid for a "John McCain is a liberal" commercial, would they have to run a commercial the other way even if no one wanted to pay for it?

Who is entitled to equal time?  Just Republicans and Democrats or the communist party, the Nazis, and everyone else on the ballot?
- - -

It just doesn't make sense.  The government telling everyone who, what and when to say things in order to keep it "fair."  Not only is it not workable, it goes against the basic tenants of our society.  Telling station owners, hosts, and guests what to represent and telling consumers what they will listen to doesn't sound "fair" to me.

If people did not like what they heard, or demanded other outlets and points of view - it would be represented.  A government mandate of "fairness" just isn't a workable concept.

CF, you've set up some pretty heavy straw men up there, none of which accurately reflect anything about how the Fairness Doctrine historically operated.  There were never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- tit for tat time swaps (ie. Rush gets 3 hours so Franken gets 3 hours.)  There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- government evaluating the effectiveness of Colmes vs. Hannity, and applying handicaps to the better speaker to bring down the level of speech.  There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- a way to apportion floating Google hits to the deficient candidate.  

It's also not about granting mail-bombers or pedophiles or cannibals a free podium for talking about healthcare or crop subsidies (though it might have helped Ron Paul during the primaries, as well as Biden and Dodd and Richardson, etc).

I brought it up because I think that one of the major lessons of the Bush years is that corporate media is much more acquiescent to the government than we ever expected it to be, and there should be an effort to find ways to re-separate the two. IMO, the market is incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I'd prefer using the market to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.

Since the market values profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior.  And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.

So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?  How do you encourage the market to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?

I'll take this one. . .

Ok, first of all, when you say "the market" what you are really saying is the American People (because we are the companies and individuals that vote with our dollars and comprise the market).  Therefore when you refer to "us" in your statements you are referring to a group that is separate from the american people (YOU and those that think like YOU).

So lets look at what you said:

. . . the AMERICAN PEOPLE are incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I prefer using THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.

Since THE AMERICAN PEOPLE value profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior.  And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.

So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?  How do you encourage THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?

"Civic Good" is not for you to decide.  We are a nation of people that vote politically AND economically.  These things are separate.  If you rely on government to regulate business then you have Fascism.  Fascism is only popular among groups of people that realize that they have no power to sway opinion except through the exercise of government.  This elitist attitude has never and will never work as long as we live in an open capitalist environment (because the "Government" and "The Market" are the same people).

Many who share this elitist attitude, that it is the government's duty to impose civic good, outside of a mandate of the people, fail to recognize that they must first dismantle capitalism for their government imposed framework to stand (and therefore the government must be comprised of people outside of "The Market" I.E. fellow elitists).

Air America is an excellent example.  Their biggest push was in the enforcement of what they branded as "civic good."  They attempted humor, but it disintegrated into angry talk, finger pointing, and assignment of guilt. . . thus alienating the very people necessary for the support of their elitist causes (the sponsors). At that  point they attempted to argue that it was the government's (the tax payers) duty to fund them in the name of equal time.  They pushed "The Fairness Doctrine" like it was the savior of mankind, but their dwindling hand full of listeners had no power to make that happen.  

I understand that you may not share my views but when you attempt to demonize using terms like "the market," you are doing the same thing as saying "the American People are stupid, so how can we use government to limit their choices and decision-making power."


People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran

[cannon_fodder]

I (heart) Gaspar.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by we vs us
CF, you've set up some pretty heavy straw men up there, none of which accurately reflect anything about how the Fairness Doctrine historically operated.  There were never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- tit for tat time swaps (ie. Rush gets 3 hours so Franken gets 3 hours.)  There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- government evaluating the effectiveness of Colmes vs. Hannity, and applying handicaps to the better speaker to bring down the level of speech.  There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- a way to apportion floating Google hits to the deficient candidate.  

It's also not about granting mail-bombers or pedophiles or cannibals a free podium for talking about healthcare or crop subsidies (though it might have helped Ron Paul during the primaries, as well as Biden and Dodd and Richardson, etc).

I brought it up because I think that one of the major lessons of the Bush years is that corporate media is much more acquiescent to the government than we ever expected it to be, and there should be an effort to find ways to re-separate the two. IMO, the market is incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I'd prefer using the market to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.

Since the market values profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior.  And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.

So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?  How do you encourage the market to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?

I'll take this one. . .

Ok, first of all, when you say "the market" what you are really saying is the American People (because we are the companies and individuals that vote with our dollars and comprise the market).  Therefore when you refer to "us" in your statements you are referring to a group that is separate from the american people (YOU and those that think like YOU).

So lets look at what you said:

. . . the AMERICAN PEOPLE are incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I prefer using THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.

Since THE AMERICAN PEOPLE value profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior.  And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.

So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?  How do you encourage THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?

"Civic Good" is not for you to decide.  We are a nation of people that vote politically AND economically.  These things are separate.  If you rely on government to regulate business then you have Fascism.  Fascism is only popular among groups of people that realize that they have no power to sway opinion except through the exercise of government.  This elitist attitude has never and will never work as long as we live in an open capitalist environment (because the "Government" and "The Market" are the same people).

Many who share this elitist attitude, that it is the government's duty to impose civic good, outside of a mandate of the people, fail to recognize that they must first dismantle capitalism for their government imposed framework to stand (and therefore the government must be comprised of people outside of "The Market" I.E. fellow elitists).

Air America is an excellent example.  Their biggest push was in the enforcement of what they branded as "civic good."  They attempted humor, but it disintegrated into angry talk, finger pointing, and assignment of guilt. . . thus alienating the very people necessary for the support of their elitist causes (the sponsors). At that  point they attempted to argue that it was the government's (the tax payers) duty to fund them in the name of equal time.  They pushed "The Fairness Doctrine" like it was the savior of mankind, but their dwindling hand full of listeners had no power to make that happen.  

I understand that you may not share my views but when you attempt to demonize using terms like "the market," you are doing the same thing as saying "the American People are stupid, so how can we use government to limit their choices and decision-making power."


People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran

The Market does not equal the American People. That's a dishonest substitution that twists my meaning.  

Your habit of trying to label my arguments as fascist is getting old real fast.  Nothing I'm suggesting comes anywhere near fascism.  Government regulation of something does not immediately make it fascism.  Dictionary.com defines fascism as:  

quote: fas·cism  1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

I am explicitely talking about levels of corporate regulation, not complete and utter control of every economic move you make.  Would you call the modern US a fascist state? Because we sure do regulate the economy in all kinds of ways right now, and current crises notwithstanding, that's worked pretty well so far.  And if not, then let's ease up on the name-calling, because I'm arguing for levels of the same stuff, not for anything new.

I also don't have any contempt for market economics but I don't think it accomplishes certain tasks well at all, while it is exceptional at accomplishing certain other things.  One thing it is good at is making lots of people money.  One thing it is not good at is valuing something for other than profit.  One good reason for a degree of government regulation is to encourage the free market in directions it might otherwise not go because of lack of profit, but in directions that are otherwise good for our society.  (And I'm not talking about "good" in the elitist-pinko-commie-liberal sense; I'm talking "good" in the "desirable direction to aim our country as decided upon by our elected representatives-sense.) But once again, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FASCISM OR TOTAL GOVERMENT CONTROL.  I'm talking about how democracy and capitalism interact.

A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press.  Check with the Founding Fathers on that one; they were big fans. I believe that one of our biggest problems with the press is that news divisions are profit centers first, and news divisions second. You may see that as an ideal situation, but to me that that takes away the "independent and adversarial" part of the press that we need, and makes them beholden to interests other than the People.  It makes them beholden to their Shareholders only, and that, I'm sure you'll agree, does not represent the whole country.

I'm actually betting you've never seen the movie "Network."  You should.  It's absolutely worth a viewing.  You might understand better what I'm talking about.

So, we don't have to talk about the Fairness Doctrine as written in 1967, but we should talk about ways to give the press some breathing room, a way to not have to be in pursuit of the bottom line all the time.  I have no desire to tell journalists what to write, or pundits what to say, but I do have an interest in helping them say things more clearly.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us



. . . One good reason for a degree of government regulation is to encourage the free market in directions it might otherwise not go because of lack of profit, but in directions that are otherwise good for our society.

Not government's job.

quote:
I have no desire to tell journalists what to write, or pundits what to say, but I do have an interest in helping them say things more clearly.

Not your job.

We have unbridled free media.  We have strong liberal network broadcasters, and strong conservative voices, and have libertarians like Boortz that use logic to make fun of both of them.  

To propose that it should be the government's job to decide what is fair is beyond ridiculous.

Yes these programs are funded by sponsors that in many cases have an interest in what is said as it affects the sale of their product.  If the sale of their product is dependent on an ever increasing listening group, they tend to agree with whatever brings the people to that market.

If the the programs go in a direction that alienates the public or decreases listenership the sponsor will drop the program, and the broadcaster risks decreased profit.  

So once again, the rains remain in the hands of the american people who listen to or watch the programs.  My example of Air America saying "sponsors be damned and therefore "listeners be damned" is still the perfect example of why government should stay out of it.

Ideas, news and culture must be allowed to stand on it's own!

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Wevus wrote
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press

On this, we are in 100% agreement.  I also agree that the press is too cozy with the government, and the government often tries to keep it that way (you won't get on Hillary's nor McCain's bus by being mean to them in ink).  But I fail to see how the government will remedy this situation when it stands to bennefit from it.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Wevus wrote
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press

On this, we are in 100% agreement.  I also agree that the press is too cozy with the government, and the government often tries to keep it that way (you won't get on Hillary's nor McCain's bus by being mean to them in ink).  But I fail to see how the government will remedy this situation when it stands to bennefit from it.

Then how does the situation change?  Do we sit back and hope that the market swings around sometime to address it?  And if it doesn't . . . then it wasn't important anyway?

Gaspar, I sometimes think you're writing from somewhere deep in a Dickens novel.  Your political views are like 1800's retro; your laissez faire economics get us nothing but Robber Barons, monopolies, widescale labor riots, and legions upon legions of poor.  It's Gilded Age stuff, pretty straight away.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Wevus wrote
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press

On this, we are in 100% agreement.  I also agree that the press is too cozy with the government, and the government often tries to keep it that way (you won't get on Hillary's nor McCain's bus by being mean to them in ink).  But I fail to see how the government will remedy this situation when it stands to bennefit from it.

Then how does the situation change?  Do we sit back and hope that the market swings around sometime to address it?  And if it doesn't . . . then it wasn't important anyway?

Gaspar, I sometimes think you're writing from somewhere deep in a Dickens novel.  Your political views are like 1800's retro; your laissez faire economics get us nothing but Robber Barons, monopolies, widescale labor riots, and legions upon legions of poor.  It's Gilded Age stuff, pretty straight away.

No we just see the world differently.  When I see a company like Phillips Petroleum or Microsoft, or OneOak I see success, employment and prosperity.  You see corporate greed.

When I see successful people, I think good for them!  How can I learn from that example.

 When you see successful people,  you envy their wealth and think "how can I make them share that with the rest of us?"  Government regulation is your only hope.

It's just a different world view.  I respect both sides, I just recognize what works and what does not.

As for your comment about "more poor" that is ridiculous!  The more freedom from government regulation in a community, the less poor.  It proven, measurable and you can see the examples in communities across the country and around the world!!!!! (that would be 5 exclamation points).

The pattern is as old as human life. The new rulers use more and more force, more police, more soldiers, trying to enforce more efficient control, trying to make the planned economy work by piling regulations on regulations, decree on decree. The people are hungry and hungrier. And how does a man on this earth get butter? Doesn't the government give butter? But government does not produce food from the earth; Government is guns. It is one common distinction of all civilized peoples, that they give their guns to the Government. Men in Government monopolize the necessary use of force; they are not using their energies productively; they are not milking cows. To get butter, they must use guns; they have nothing else to use. – Rose Wilder Lane


In order to prevent democracy from becoming a tyranny over minorities, individual rights must supersede all democratic voting and all regulations. Rights must come first. Laws should come second, and only to protect those rights; nothing more. – Stuart K. Hayashi


Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock, Founder and CEO Emeritus of Visa Corp


The beneficial effect of state intervention, especially in the form of legislation, is direct, immediate, and so to speak, visible, while its evil effects are gradual and indirect and lay out of sight ... Hence the majority of mankind must almost of necessity look with undue favor upon governmental intervention. – A. V. Dicey


There is nothing new in state interventionism. It is as old and reactionary as societal organization itself. Always, when it permeates the body politic, it kills the nation. – Spruille Braden


Whenever there is some trouble in any area of the economy, the simplest solution to many people is "Let the government fix it." Yet ... every time the government uses its money or its power to favor this group or that ... the net result is such a web of supports, subsidies, interventions and controls that it is almost impossible for a nation to find its way back into a dynamic system of really free enterprise. – Lawrence Fertig

And finally the best lesson of all:

The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. – Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson

I could go on for ever!  What lessons has strict government regulation ever taught us that are good?  Any?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


Then how does the situation change?  Do we sit back and hope that the market swings around sometime to address it?  And if it doesn't . . . then it wasn't important anyway?

. . .

[The]laissez faire economics get us nothing but Robber Barons, monopolies, widescale labor riots, and legions upon legions of poor.  It's Gilded Age stuff, pretty straight away.

I don't know, and am not that concerned about it.  Currently many media outlets are buddy buddy, but not all .  Huffington, Drudge, several major newspapers and a litany of other media outlets do investigations and are open to "leaks,"  they are more than happy to run with stories.  Even CBS recently was more than happy to run with news against the administration - even without verification.

The relationship is tenuous, but I don't think the press is totally out.  Certainly not to any intervention point.  And of course the market point about people not wanting to pay for hard news as much AND the idea that the government is not likely to do a good job forcing the media to be critical of it.
- - -

Also, laissez faire economics transformed the United States into the worlds economic super power.  It has made more no-ones into rich here than elsewhere.  What do you think caused the internet boom to happen in the United States instead of elsewhere?  Why are oil jobs booming in Tulsa (just contracted a $3mil tank made in Tulsa to go to Korea)?

The hands off approach leads to more economic disparity than other methods, but 'have nots' in capitalist system have more than the average person elsewhere.  

Also worth noting, your notion of Robber Barons and monopolies is not in line with Smith's laissez faire economics.  Government intervention is proper to correct market errors - which includes manipulation, imperfect information, and abuse.  So robber barons, monopolies, coercive employers (ie. company towns) should face recourse from the government to correct these flaws.

Corruption and abuse is a danger in any system.  In fact, it manifests itself more strongly in less open, less free systems.  So the fact that it exists in capitalism should not be held against it to the exclusion of all other economic systems.

[iplaw]

Gaspar...I think I have my first Internet crush...[:I]

Adam Smith would be so proud of you right now...

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Gaspar...I think I have my first Internet crush...[:I]

Adam Smith would be so proud of you right now...

Awww! [:I]
I'm also one of the few people on earth that thinks Ayn Rand is hot!




She has a sexy brain!

[Gaspar]

WevsUs, FOTD, and a host of others.  I have the ultimate website for you.  It makes me laugh, but it could help you to strengthen your arguments rather than just raise your voices.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/index.php

It is basically the opposite of how I believe so I give it to you as a gift.  It seems to fit your clumsy but passionate arguments.

You're welcome!

P.S. CF it's good for a laugh!

[iplaw]

And I thought Helen Thomas was hot!

[FOTD]

You whack job Anne Coulter from the looks of the avatar, Ken.[^]