Suffer the little children.....

[Kimmo]

 

you're too jaded. you were young once, right? what happened?

 

I know I know: You turned into a ruskie.

[Kimmo]

you're too jaded. you were young once, right? what happened?

 

Hi Cocoa, how's life?

 

life is excellent, if not a wee bit hectic with an active 8 month old.

[prole]

That party's even more reactionary than the other one. Man, you're EXTREME!

 

Not quite as radical as a college student living off of loans who's never worked a day in his life nor been self-sufficient, but pontificates endlessly about societal ills and economic systems, but who can be?

 

That's a good one. I worked everyday from age 15 until college and have worked everyday since. Rest assured Kojak, my working class-cred is as solid as yours.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

you're too jaded. you were young once, right? what happened?

 

I know I know: You turned into a ruskie.

 

*yawn*. never been a russkiy. do you call mexicans "spaniards"

too?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

That's a good one. I worked everyday from age 15 until college and have worked everyday since. Rest assured Kojak, my working class-cred is as solid as yours.

 

is that why you don't have time to climb?

[Kimmo]

 

you're too jaded. you were young once, right? what happened?

 

I know I know: You turned into a ruskie.

 

*yawn*. never been a russkiy. do you call mexicans "spaniards"?

 

you turned into a mexican? they don't seem jaded though....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

you turned into a mexican? they don't seem jaded though....

 

there's something about carne asada burritos and margaritas that just bring a smile to anyone's face

 

[j_b]

Gotta love the trajectory of the argumentation here: First deny that the "public", "common interest", "society", etc. exists. Second, raise the spectre of big government. Then, deny there's a problem, "everything's fine, we're giving them what they want". Next, pull out the boogyman again, this time in East Coast liberal female variant. Finally, when all else fails, matter-of-factly state that the entire parameter of debate is irrelevant anyway: TV is dead. Wash hands, tell everybody you gotta go take a shit.

 

The Conservative Movement: Defending Blind Ignorance for the Masses in the Name of Freedom Since...well, Forever.

 

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about "freedom" and "competition" always end up defending corporate monopolies.

[JayB]

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists

 

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed?

 

for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies.

 

For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak.

 

I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe.

 

Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age.

 

"Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...."

 

The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

 

Most of the items passing for news on the itnernet is opinion, talking heads, blogs reguritating wire service stories, and "analysis". There is very little investigative journalism that orginates from these sources. Rather that is still the domain of newspapers, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.; and some broadcast news - 60 minutes comes to mind.

 

While the information is now more widely dispersed via the internet - it's pulling content from the traditional news sources. And more variations on the same content, rehashed over and over, is not adding any information but spin. Maybe this will change as the medium matures - but my guess is that we'll just get more dancing midgets on things like youtube and an endless succession of 15-minute-moments that continue to find a vast audience of dolts.

 

Anyone who wants the information can easily find it. Anyone with a pulse can find draft copies of pending legislation, in about five mintues, even before it hits the floor for a final vote. I do this at least once a month. Ditto for every episode of FrontLine, recordings of significant political speeches, SEC-Filings for public companies, minutes from Congressional hearings, content and perspective from news organizations based outside of the US, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There's never been a time when either becoming or staying informed was easier.

 

Seems like your main gripe here is with the American public. No?

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about "freedom" and "competition" always end up defending corporate monopolies.

 

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about the evils of "corporate monopolies" always want to replace them with "government monopolies"

 

 

[j_b]

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about "freedom" and "competition" always end up defending corporate monopolies.

 

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about the evils of "corporate monopolies" always want to replace them with "government monopolies"

 

 

another blatant lie form the board nincompoop

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about "freedom" and "competition" always end up defending corporate monopolies.

 

Isn't it amazing how those who gargle continually about the evils of "corporate monopolies" always want to replace them with "government monopolies"

 

 

another blatant lie form the board nincompoop

 

yeah, you are so opposed to government monopolies.

 

how's that project going to control the airwaves, commie fucktard?

 

 

[j_b]

yeah, we know that for retards, "government", the elected representative of the people is a vast commie conspiracy.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

yeah, we know that for retards, "government", the elected representative of the people is a vast commie conspiracy.

 

your notion of the role of government is pretty damn clear, so quit pretending otherwise

 

[prole]

Anyone who wants the information can easily find it. Anyone with a pulse can find draft copies of pending legislation, in about five mintues, even before it hits the floor for a final vote. I do this at least once a month. Ditto for every episode of FrontLine, recordings of significant political speeches, SEC-Filings for public companies, minutes from Congressional hearings, content and perspective from news organizations based outside of the US, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There's never been a time when either becoming or staying informed was easier.

 

Seems like your main gripe here is with the American public. No?

 

 

Arguing for the internet is not an argument against more diverse, less commercially restrictive television.

[j_b]

Anyone who wants the information can easily find it. Anyone with a pulse can find draft copies of pending legislation, in about five mintues, even before it hits the floor for a final vote. I do this at least once a month. Ditto for every episode of FrontLine, recordings of significant political speeches, SEC-Filings for public companies, minutes from Congressional hearings, content and perspective from news organizations based outside of the US, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There's never been a time when either becoming or staying informed was easier.

 

Seems like your main gripe here is with the American public. No?

 

 

If Jay can do it, there is nothing further to add. All problems solved.

[j_b]

yeah, we know that for retards, "government", the elected representative of the people is a vast commie conspiracy.

 

your notion of the role of government is pretty damn clear, so quit pretending otherwise

 

aaah yes, my notion that elected representatives should act on the mandate given by their electorate and that pols should be independent from corporate money. Definitely, a vast conspiracy.

[ivan]

return to the original excuse the government has for interfering here - "our airwaves" - fox is a CABLE channel primarily and isn't using the public's resources to broadcast its admitedly tawdry bullshit

 

It isn't an excuse but the understanding that control of the means to convey information to the public is part of the commons because of its critical importance toward enabling democratic participation of citizenry to the political process. It being called CABLE is a in great part a misnomer as shown by satellite dish reception, or the fact that hardwired cable isn't even the most desirable technology: generalization of wireless would be much cheaper and free us from wired cable monopolies, which explains in part why wired cable monopolies are fighting tooth and nail against community sponsored wireless.

i may not be a consitutional expert, but i do recall a concept from my senior gov class called "limited powers" - for better or worse, for the gov to step in, they have to have been given the express power to do so - even the "regulating the public airwaves" schtick thing is an abuse of the elastic clause, imho. i'm pretty much an anarcho-libertard - i don't think the gov should be regulating shit that i look or listen to (anymore than what i want to put in my body, do to another consenting adult, etc.) - i agree it would be nice to have more commericial-free tv, but it should not be a power of the goverment to tell somebody else they have to shut the fuck up or turn it down a bit

 

can you quote chapter n' verse? - in what article of the consitution do you see the justification for the state to get involved in this issue?

[ivan]

aaah yes, my notion that elected representatives should act on the mandate given by their electorate and that pols should be independent from corporate money. Definitely, a vast conspiracy.

the power of money goverment is a problem of epic proportions, to that i'll agree - however, how are you constitutionally going to resolve it?

 

the rich fucking the poor is as timeless as the earth itself - i don't like it, but i don't see any great solution beyond the fucked up jury-rigged bullshit thing we currently have rattling down the road

[prole]

Ya, why would anybody want any regulation over what's going into our bodies?

 

[ivan]

Ya, why would anybody want any regulation over what's going into our bodies?

 

yup - you've got my argument nailed

 

and, as said other places, i'm hardly a believer in the perfect world - incidentally, the private means of destroying folks who sell harmful products works too - i seem to recall thalidomide folks getting to sue.

[prole]

i seem to recall thalidomide folks getting to sue.

 

A little late, wouldn't you think?

[prole]

the private means of destroying folks who sell harmful products works too

 

Ya, you can bet those consumers will never buy that product again!

[j_b]

i may not be a consitutional expert, but i do recall a concept from my senior gov class called "limited powers" - for better or worse, for the gov to step in, they have to have been given the express power to do so - even the "regulating the public airwaves" schtick thing is an abuse of the elastic clause, imho. i'm pretty much an anarcho-libertard - i don't think the gov should be regulating shit that i look or listen to (anymore than what i want to put in my body, do to another consenting adult, etc.) - i agree it would be nice to have more commericial-free tv, but it should not be a power of the goverment to tell somebody else they have to shut the fuck up or turn it down a bit

 

can you quote chapter n' verse? - in what article of the consitution do you see the justification for the state to get involved in this issue?

 

I am no constitutional lawyer either and beyond over-arching principles, I am no great fan of referring to a document written a long time ago to decide how we should run our business, but I think the usual response to this is that only government is allowed to grant monopoly and for a short time by the US constitution. The corollary is therefore that government can prevent monopolies when it doesn't see fit:

 

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

 

But more generally, like you, I have no interest in granting government control over what I can read and cannot read, but we are precisely talking about government enabling diversity by preventing effective corporate monopoly over information and we aren't talking about government banning speech.

[prole]

i don't like it, but i don't see any great solution beyond the fucked up jury-rigged bullshit thing we currently have rattling down the road

 

"This is what we fought the Nazis for, some fucked up jury-rigged bullshit thing rambling down the road?"

 

Edited October 1, 2009 by prole