Hitler & Rush: a reply to James Glass
Richard Clark
And how do (right-wing radio demogogues) maintain their audience?
Perhaps the audience -AGREES- with the positions being advanced.
Leaving aside the question of their correctness, if a large majority agrees
with these positions, they will find listeners.
MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
or not fund? The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Patrick R. Collins
: j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
: And how do (right-wing radio demogogues) maintain their audience?
: Perhaps the audience -AGREES- with the positions being advanced.
: Leaving aside the question of their correctness, if a large majority agrees
: with these positions, they will find listeners.
: MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
: in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
: is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
: or not fund? The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
Two points:
1) Did you hear about the UseNet posted that postulated that the first
person to bring up Hitler in a discussion should be counted the loser
automatically??
2) the airwaves issue is one of technology. In the early 20's, radio
bandwidth was wide, because the frequency could not be controlled very
well. Currently, the freq. can be controlled much more tightly, allowing
many more radio and TV stations on the air. So, one could see in the near
future your argument being completely negated by the ability to put a
station on the air, as long as you can fund it.
: Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
: stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
: and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
: minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
: like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
: bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
One could also say the RL is countering all the BS put on by PBS, CBS,
NBC, and ABC for many years.
If PBS had been better balanced, we would not be having this discussion now.
The Chicago Trib had a funny cartoon this weekend.
A guy is at the car shop. he says" My car has a mechanical problem. It
will suddenly swerve to the left."
The mechanic says, "No, it's an electrical problem."
"What do you mean??"
"Your radio dial is set to PBS."
--
Regards, Pat
It's true, I have fired weapons in support of the PLA.
Scott Wilhelm
>j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
Well, currently the liberals control the four major stations most of the FM
stattions and CPB. Hee we conservatives have to pay for the ilk
of that liar Nina Totenburg. How bout we have the govt pay Rush
to balance out Nina, wouldn't that be fair???
Ifm you want a liberal radio show, go find an investor. Then go ahead
and start your show. That is balance...Course people probably won't
listen to you, cauz if they want the liberal viewpoint they have so
many ohter sources to turn to...
--
Scott Wilhelm
Internet: ph2...@prism.gatech.edu
Lance Visser
>j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
+>MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
+>in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
+>is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
+>or not fund?
The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
+>The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
+>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
+>stations the right to use the airwaves.
And the alternative is to have government-censorship of the airwaves
based on the politics of the program. The government built the
transportation system over which newspapers and magazines reach the people.
I suppose by your logic the taxpayers are funding newspapers and magazines
and thus should have the right to control their content as well.
+>By way of balance and fairness,
+>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
+>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
+>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
+>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
I dont think the government has any business establishing speach
to counteract other speech.
Lamont Granquist
>Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
>stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
The problem is that Limbaugh + Cronies can get financial support from
businesses, while the views that Nader, Chomsky, etc present do not
get financial support. The error that the previous poster was making was
that the "information consumers" control the content of the airwaves, when
in fact it is the advertisers that control the veto over content and
set the bounds of allowable expression.
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
James Glass
No. Popularity of a 'demogogue' is not the only criterion for what taxpayers and their
government should fund. Government has no business funding broadcasting, period. Popularity
*IS* the only criterion for what CONSUMERS should fund; how could it ever be otherwise?
The right to free speech is -NOT- the right to an audience, a fact liberals seem unable to
grasp.
Failure to subsidize is -NOT- censorship, another fact libs have trouble with.
Want to rant liberal slogans? Get yerself a soapbox. Hot air is free.
Want to be Rush Limbaugh? (i.e., enormously successful and popular)? Get yerself a soapbox
and promote a popular message. By and by you will be on hundreds of stations with an audience
of 20 million. Automatic, see?
And with respect to fairness, as Rush himself points out, he and the other conservative talk-
show hosts *ARE* the balance against PBS, NPR, and the major media, all of which are blatantly
leftist in orientation, bias, and preference.
Jim Glass
Gordon Fitch
| The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
| airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
| are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
I was unaware that broadcasters paid for the frequencies
they use; I thought they got them for nothing (outside of
some kind of pledge to operate in the public interest, as
judged mostly by themselves). FAIR suggested that instead
of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
and the money given to communities to fund local non-
commercial broadcasting; these could form a large national
organization if they wished, or go it alone. I assumed that
no money was now being derived from this possible source.
Could you clarify? What are broadcasters now paying for the
frequencies?
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Robert Reay
: The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
: Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
: stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
: and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
: minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
: like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
: bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Why can't they do it themselves? Why do I need to pay taxes to put these
people on the air? You'd think that if a evil liar like Rush can get
enough people excited about his show to put up money, these other folks
could too.
Michael J. Edelman
: vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser):
: | The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
: | airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
: | are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
: | ...
: I was unaware that broadcasters paid for the frequencies
: they use; I thought they got them for nothing
And why not? Is the government doing regular maintainance to repair
the ether? Are they doing electron replenishment? Maintaining
the ionosphere?
: judged mostly by themselves). FAIR suggested that instead
: of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
: broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
: and the money given to communities to fund local non-
: commercial broadcasting...
..in which resources would be allocated on political grounds. I.e., friends
of the government get frequencies, right?
How about this: Let's say we acution off the airwaves, and then lower everyone
else's taxes. If people want to start community broadcasting stations, let
them.
--mike
Michael J. Edelman
: The problem is that Limbaugh + Cronies can get financial support from
: businesses, while the views that Nader, Chomsky, etc present do not
: get financial support.
Excuse me? Did I hear that properly?
Nader rakes in millions from trial lawyers via his various 'foundations'.
In fact, Nader *is* essentially the trial lawyer's PAC in America. And
all the donations are tax free. Nader will never, ever criticize lawyers.
Nader's money comes out of money awarded from lawsuits.
Limbaugh is not a tax-free foundation, last I heard. I imagine he makes
a salary and that money comes from advertising revenue and other
business ventures. His money comes from people who choose to buy his
newsletter and books and those who patronize his sponsors.
--mike
Patrick R. Collins
: In article <3jg087$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
: Patrick R. Collins <pcol...@prairienet.org> wrote:
: >The Chicago Trib had a funny cartoon this weekend.
: >
: >A guy is at the car shop. he says" My car has a mechanical problem. It
: >will suddenly swerve to the left."
: >
: >The mechanic says, "No, it's an electrical problem."
: >
: >"What do you mean??"
: >
: >"Your radio dial is set to PBS."
: >
: The idiocy of this cartoon is demonstrated not only by the fact that
: PBS/NPR are not nearly as liberal as conservatives love to claim, but by
: the fact that PBS does *television* and NPR does *radio*. If the cartoon
: was correct and the poster is wrong, the idiocy is his alone.
Yes, the mistake is indeed mine. However, the fact that a cartoon (and I
don't think this is a poltical cartoon at all, just daily life stuff) can
make fun of it means the impressions is indeed widespread.
Peter R Cook
people and completely destroys the credibility of the accuser.
Thou should me ashamed of thyself.
--
Peter R. Cook p...@world.std.com PRC Records Owner.
PRC Records pc...@tdh.qntm.com System Software Engineer.
Marlborough, MA USA Up The Irons! Drummer.
Timothy Kordas
aside from a nominal fee for each entry into the frequency "lottery"
there is no charge (and there are a number of companies which will
prepare the paperwork for you - again for a nominal fee)...
the FCC frequency lottery is something which, I believe, has received a
lot of attention by Public Choice Economists (especially those interested
in "rent seeking" behavior) - the concern is that instead of stimulating
the economy with new activity all of the gains from the frequency grants
are consumed by the process (and associated industry) of applying for the
grants. (I can *try* to come up with some references here).
so basically by selling off the frequencies the FCC could produce a significant
amount of revenue...instead of giving licenses away to people who turn
around and sell anyway.
-Tim
--
Timothy J. Kordas
http://bambi.eeap.cwru.edu/tjk/tim.html
Gordon Fitch
| : | The taxpayers do not "fund" commercial radio. They sell the
| : | airspace to broadcasters, but its more that the commercial interests
| : | are paying the government than the taxpayers are funding the media.
| : | ...
Gordon Fitch (g...@panix.com) wrote:
| : I was unaware that broadcasters paid for the frequencies
| : they use; I thought they got them for nothing
m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman):
| And why not? Is the government doing regular maintainance to repair
| the ether? Are they doing electron replenishment? Maintaining
| the ionosphere?
What the government does is create property on the
electromagnetic spectrum, just as it created property on the
land, by drawing boundaries and constructing a system of
regulation to maintain them. So there's a kind of
primordial seizure or acquisition of the resource by the
government on behalf, theoretically, of all the people,
after which the resource is parceled out to individuals or
groups in exchange for something (if only development the
government believes may be beneficial). In the case of
land, the U.S. government chose to retain some of the land
for direct administration, e.g. national parks and the like.
Other interests in land property were sometimes assigned to
communal purposes, e.g. the land-grant colleges.
You may find all this repugnant. Many anarchists would like
to simply abolish government and corporate control of
electromagnetic communications. But I can assure you the
businesses actually involved in broadcasting are most
solicitous of the health of the regulatory system, because
they do not want the frequencies they control impinged upon.
Therefore -- since the government provides the service of
forcing possible impingers off the air -- it seems that it
could exact a considerable fee for this valuable service,
and we could see to it that these funds were channeled into
local non-commercial services.
gcf:
| : judged mostly by themselves). FAIR suggested that instead
| : of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
| : broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
| : and the money given to communities to fund local non-
| : commercial broadcasting...
m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman):
| ..in which resources would be allocated on political grounds. I.e., friends
| of the government get frequencies, right?
This is already the case, although it's somewhat the other
way around: the class of people who get the frequencies
pretty much determine who the government is and what the
government does. Consider the close association between Mr.
Limbaugh and Mr. Gingrich.
However, one might specify that the money had to be turned
over to local cooperatives, or some other publicly
accountable local agency.
m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman):
|How about this: Let's say we acution off the airwaves, and then lower everyone
|else's taxes. If people want to start community broadcasting stations, let
|them.
I tend to think the plutocratic solution for everything may
not be optimal for my interests. However, a variation on
this might be run, where some frequencies were reserved for
non-commercial broadcasting and auctioned to people who
agreed not to use them for commercial purposes. In theory
they would command a much lower price, which might put them
in the range of community groups.
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Patryk Silver
a reply .. by Patrick R. Collins@prair
> One could also say the RL is countering all the BS put on by PBS, CBS,
> NBC, and ABC for many years.
>
> If PBS had been better balanced, we would not be having this discussion now.
>
Putting aside your dubious notion of "balance," what's all this blather
about PBS being titled toward the so-called "liberal left"? A cursory
glance at the week-in/week-out schedule of PBS shows a rather tepid,
uncontroversial hodgepodge of cooking programs, exercise shows,
kiddie-fare, masterpiece theatre, business news reports, nature
programs, aged documentaries and biographies, and yuppie home-repair
shows. Where exactly is this outrageous "liberal-left" propoganda the
rightwing/centrist press keeps whining about? Take out your _TV Guides_
and do an itemized survey of all the programming appearing on PBS
stations in your area covering a one week period, then post your
findings. Show us where all this dangerous, subversive,
countercultural, marxist, feminist, lesbian programming is to be found.
In the hundreds of hours of PBS programming appearing each month, does
the inocuous appearance of a single program on, say, Argentinian
Campesinos--airing at 11:30 Tuesday evening--thereby constitute some
egregious violation of the the lofty principles of "balance"?
To anyone the least familiar with what actually passes as progressive
positions, the charge that PBS and ABCNNBCBS are anything other than
wholley centrist forums for noncontroversial infotainment deserves
little in the way of serious consideration. That folks like Rush
Limbaugh have managed to convince people like PCollins to the contrary
is no mean achievment.
Brian Siano
: Excerpts from netnews.alt.fan.noam-chomsky: 6-Mar-95 Re: Hitler & Rush:
: a reply .. by Patrick R. Collins@prair
: >
: > One could also say the RL is countering all the BS put on by PBS, CBS,
: > NBC, and ABC for many years.
: >
: > If PBS had been better balanced, we would not be having this discussion now.
: Putting aside your dubious notion of "balance," what's all this blather
: about PBS being titled toward the so-called "liberal left"? A cursory
: glance at the week-in/week-out schedule of PBS shows a rather tepid,
: uncontroversial hodgepodge of cooking programs, exercise shows,
: kiddie-fare, masterpiece theatre, business news reports, nature
: programs, aged documentaries and biographies, and yuppie home-repair
: shows. Where exactly is this outrageous "liberal-left" propoganda the
: rightwing/centrist press keeps whining about?
Precisely. Consider the political discussion programs we get
through PBS. A show like _South Africa Now_ and _Human Rights and
Wrongs_ were mainly supported by small grants and viewer support
pledge drives. These shows were continually under attack from
right-wing ideologues.
On the other hand, look at shows like _The McLaughlin Group_
or _Firing Line_. These shows are almost entirely supported through
conservative foundations like Olin, or-- in the case of the
_McLaughlin Group_-- funded entirely by General Electric. Few people
complain that these shows are on the air (an indication that liberals
and leftists are far more tolerant of diverse opinion), and combined
with corporate-oriented shows such as _Tony Brown's Journal_ or _Wall
street Week in Review_, or the centrist-to-conservative
_MacNeil-Lehrer report_ (or whatever it's called now) and Reagan
speechwriter Peggy Noonan's show "on values," and you'll find
that the alleged "left liberal" bias of PBS is, mainly, a myth.
Much of the support for this left-liberal-PBS claim seems to
rest upon a set of cultural associations; shows about opera, dance,
artists, and the like are associated with affluent intellectuals, and
the right has usually capitalized on stereotypes of intellectuals as
the enemy. And, occasionally, one sees a show that really does present
a view that's not part of the American Right-- the _Frontline_ series,
occasional documentaries on gays and lesbians, and the _Tales of the
City_ miniseries. But these are clearly exceptions to the rule at
PBS-- in fact, despite the high ratings garnered by _Tales_, PBS has
decided not to produce a sequel, very likely because of the attacks
from the Right.
john elfrank-dana
>
> : The problem is that Limbaugh + Cronies can get financial support from
> : businesses, while the views that Nader, Chomsky, etc present do not
> : get financial support.
>
> Excuse me? Did I hear that properly?
>
> Nader rakes in millions from trial lawyers via his various 'foundations'.
> In fact, Nader *is* essentially the trial lawyer's PAC in America. And
> all the donations are tax free. Nader will never, ever criticize lawyers.
> Nader's money comes out of money awarded from lawsuits.
You're right as ususal, Lamont. Also note the life-style Nader has
compared to our beloved fat one. Nader lives a Ghandian existence, I
wonder how Rush lives.
>
> Limbaugh is not a tax-free foundation, last I heard. I imagine he makes
> a salary and that money comes from advertising revenue and other
> business ventures. His money comes from people who choose to buy his
> newsletter and books and those who patronize his sponsors.
>
> --mike
But who gives a fuck about Rush? It's those whose interests he serves.
I suggest that people read last week's _Village Voice_. The cover
story is on "Whiny White Boys". It gives a pretty good analysis about
the new white boy voting block and how their existence as a block
means that there time is through. You see, they (whiny white boys)
used to run everything. Now, with the changes in society and greater
opportunitys for minorities and women, they are reduced to a voting
block.
The last election was a tawdry demonstration of their wieght. It only
had an impact because women, in general, chose to stay away from the
polls.
What's also interesting about the article is that it points out how
the whiny white boys like Rush and Newt dupe the middle-class white
boys into thinking they have their interests at heart. The same
class that is getting screwed by the very interests Newt and Rush
serve.
elf
Sergey Shimkevich
: You're right as ususal, Lamont. Also note the life-style Nader has
: compared to our beloved fat one. Nader lives a Ghandian existence, I
: wonder how Rush lives.
Last time I heard in a small (one-bedroom) apartment in Manhattan.
-S.S.
Ira Woodhead
I thought he still lived with his mother... Or maybe I'm thinking of
some other reactionary sexist egotistical bigot crybaby...
--
P Marks
heard of A.B.C., C.B.S. and N.B.C.
A handfull of "shockjocks" hardly redresses that balance - and there ARE
"liberal" (i.e. statist) talk show hosts but fewer people want to listen
to them.
As for the F.C.C. it should not exist. Even if one is an empiricist (and
has no ideological opposition to statism) then one should still oppose
the F.C.C. - it has a terrible record of bias (for example see the way
Alf Landon's broadcasts were treated compared to F.D.R.s in the 1936
election) and financial corruption - for example see how L.B.J. (as a New
Deal administrator made his fortune through the F.C.C.
Lastly your claim that Rush L. is a demagogue. Well if you look at
Ancient Greek history (where this concept comes from) you will find that
a demagogue was someone who attempted to stir people up with a message of
envy against anyone who was better off than themsleves - if the hopes
that, either through election or revolt, the masses would put them in
power. This definition is accepted by Plato (in the "Republic") and he
was hardly a libertarian or a friend of private traders.
Demanding more government spending and attacking anyone with more money
than averige is hardly what people like Rush L. are about.
I will not comment on your attempt to compare people like Rush L. to envy
filled statists like Adolf Hitler - it deserves no comment.
Paul Marks.
Richard Clark
Nader lives a Ghandian existence, I
>: wonder how Rush lives.
>
>Last time I heard in a small (one-bedroom) apartment in Manhattan.
Rush is now pulling in something like $20 million each year now, and has
gone through at least two new wives.
Richard Clark
>Lastly your claim that Rush L. is a demagogue. Well if you look at
>Ancient Greek history (where this concept comes from) you will find that
>a demagogue was someone who attempted to stir people up with a message of
>envy against anyone who was better off than themsleves - if the hopes
>that, either through election or revolt, the masses would put them in
>power. This definition is accepted by Plato (in the "Republic") and he
>was hardly a libertarian or a friend of private traders.
My dictionary is not written in Greek. I use words according to the meaning
I get from their dictionary definition. It might help the discussion
if you did the same. The meanings of words evolve and change as history
progresses.
>I will not comment on your attempt to compare people like Rush L. to envy
>filled statists like Adolf Hitler - it deserves no comment.
>
Hitler and Rush share these things: The verbal attack of minority groups.
The unwillingness to permit open debate in which they participate. Unswerving
support for the large financial interests which support them.
Actually the similarities deserve plenty of comment.
Scott Wilhelm
>pm...@unix.york.ac.uk (P Marks) writes:
NAme a time that Rush has attacked a minority group, cauz he hasn't...
Rush allows people to call in and debate him, does the leftist
evening news? He even gives his opponents more time
than those that agree with him...I also remember when he
wanted to debate Hillary on health care, and she refused
Finally, what do you mean by Rush supporting the fin. interests
supporting him? Do you mean the fact his show has commercials?
Now, I wouldn't call Clinton a NAZI, but if we are talking comparisons
here, Clinton fits the bill to a tee, not Rush.
Clinton wants to take everyone's guns away, just like Hitler.
He is denying Freedom of Speech and actually attacking
pro-lifers and members of the religiou Right thru
things like FOCA. I think Billy uses the words
conservative religious extremists at least 10 tmes a speech.
Clinton has some ties to the eugenics movement thru the likes of ex-
PP director Foster and the rest.
Clinton wants a new agreement between business and govt, a type
of socialism basically, similar to what the NAZIs had.
He wants the govt to be able to take your property without
compensation thru the EPA...
The paralles are just frightening... :-)
Front Desk
john elfrank-dana <elf...@dorsai.dorsai.org> wrote:
>What's also interesting about the article is that it points out how
>the whiny white boys like Rush and Newt dupe the middle-class white
>boys into thinking they have their interests at heart. The same
>class that is getting screwed by the very interests Newt and Rush
>serve.
This is nothing new. The dominant white power structure in America has been
convincing underprivileged whites that it represents them, usually through
religious/moral arguments and racist propaganda, since before the Civil
War. This includes both poor whites and women. Particularly in this area
of the country, poor whites favor big business over unions, trickle down
economics, and the cutting of social programs which often would benefit
them. The Rush Limbaugh's of the world feed off of the willingness of
under educated whites to accept catch phrases and overly simplified
explanations for their living conditions.
******************************************************************************
"The worker is the slave of capitalist society;
Jessica Goldstein the female worker is the slave of that slave."
(James Connolly)
******************************************************************************
Smiley
>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
>stations the right to use the airwaves.
No, no, no. The airwaves, like any other natural resource, belong to whoever finds them
or uses them first. That the government steps in and uses force to arbitrate usage
according to government whim is certainly not something to be confused with justice.
While we're discussing Hitler, let's connect Hitler with state control of the media.
By way of balance and fairness,
>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Since when is it fair for the government to simply allow Rush & Bob to provide a desired
service to consumers (who have the voluntary option to listen or not) and on the other
hand use my money to pay the others to put something on the air. Rush stands the test
of the market; public broadcasting is foisted upon us whether we like it or not.
Free market media is beholden to the suppliers of the revenue to keep broadcasting,
namely the consumers who buy the sponsors' products. Public radio is also very much
beholden to the suppliers of their revenue, but those suppliers are not you and I. The
supplier of the revenue to keep public broadcasting on the air is the state, and it's only
natural for public radio to cater to the state's agenda. Public radio is not impartial, and
they're not even on my side.
Bottom line for measuring any tax-provided service. If I really wanted the service at the
price the government is charging me for it, the government wouldn't have to force me to
buy it under the threat of imprisonment. That's exactly what the taxation system is. You
have to pay for these services whether you like it or not, and if you don't pay, you are
jailed.
Smiley
Advertisers are far more responsive to the desires of the populace than are legislators.
Advertisers are constantly in search of ratings, to know how well their programming is
received. It's not the advertisers that decide what we're "allowed" to watch, it's
consumer demand that decides what the advertisers are going to present to us. If an
advertiser doesn't satisfy their public, they lose money and go out of business.
Government has no such automatic quality control. If the government doesn't satisfy the
public, they can simply ignore us (to an alarming degree, anyway -- your opinion doesn't
count nearly as much as that large campaign contribution from R.J. Reynolds...). The
government doesn't need our consent to extract revenue from us. They take tax money
from us by force.
When talking about Private Sector vs. Government, you have it backwards as to which
one is forcing things on us.
Smiley
>of Congress appropriating money for PBS, some of the
>broadcast spectrum be auctioned off to commercial interests
>and the money given to communities to fund local non-
>commercial broadcasting; these could form a large national
>organization if they wished, or go it alone.
What gives the government the right to auction off airwaves? Natural resources should
be allocated on the basis of whoever utilizes them first.
Smiley
Public broadcasters know which side their bread is buttered on.
By that I mean they know where their funding comes from and they will quite naturally
think twice before they offend the source of their revenue.
Smiley
>...in which resources would be allocated on political grounds. I.e., friends
>of the government get frequencies, right?
>
>How about this: Let's say we acution off the airwaves, and then lower everyone
>else's taxes. If people want to start community broadcasting stations, let
>them.
>
>--mike
I agree completely. If some people want public radio so badly, let them fund it through
their own voluntary contributions. This discussion is not about whether there should be
public radio, it's about whether those who like public radio should be able to pay for it
with other peoples' money, against the will of those other people.
Why force me to buy something I don't want? If you want it, you pay for it, dammit!
Norman Nithman
Thomas Clarke <cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>In article <3k1fgk$8...@rigel.pixi.com> fr...@midearth.gov (Smiley) writes:
>
>> What gives the government the right to auction off airwaves? Natural
>>resources should be allocated on the basis of whoever
>>utilizes them first.
>Oh good. If you were running the world, then I could
>jam Rush's broadcasts.
>
I think what he meant was that the descendants of Marconi should have
dominion over the electromagnetic spectrum.
Norm
Thomas Clarke
> What gives the government the right to auction off airwaves? Natural
resources should
> be allocated on the basis of whoever utilizes them first.
Oh good. If you were running the world, then I could
jam Rush's broadcasts.
Tom Clarke
Richard Bachert
>
>In article <3k1ehk$8...@rigel.pixi.com>, Smiley <fr...@midearth.gov>
wrote:
>
>>No, no, no. The airwaves, like any other natural resource,
>>belong to whoever finds them
>>or uses them first.
>
>First, the stupid version:
> "Sez who?"
>
>Now, the smarter version:
> "Airwaves" are not a finite, tangible resource like land: It is
rather
> telling that we (as a culture) persist in forcing this paradigm into
our
> arguments regarding "bandwidth". Forced scarcity.
>
>
>It is quite possible to abandon the fixed-frequency model altogether
and move
>to a spread-spectrum approach, which would (in theory) allow far more
stations
>to coexist within the same market.
>
>In other words, instead of merely parceling out transmission
frequencies (i.e.
>"Joe, Inc. may transmit at 3Khz; Sue, Ltd. may transmit at 3.2Khz",
etc.), you
>"share" the available bandwidth by parceling out frequency-hopping
algorithms.
>
>If we were REALLY bold, we could even convert the whole radio system to
>digital and apply bitstream compression algorithms to the signals...
allowing
>an even greater amount of stations to co-exist.
>
>Unfortunately, given the cozy relationship between the FCC and mass
media, as
>well as general "market inertia", I do not expect to see any such
conversion
>during my lifetime.
>
>:Michael
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael LeBlanc / Attention FBI Grep Cats: I'm too busy trafficking
> m...@netcom.com / in Scientology Trade Secrets to download any
> WWW en route / Child Pornography.
>
Mike, Don't give up hope that the technology you suggest will never be
applied. Who'd have thought the income tax and the IRS would be
considered for their well-deserved places in the ashbin of history?
It's probably gonna' happen some time in '96-'97! If you'd like to know
more about "HOW" that's going to happen, call CATS at 1-800-767-7577!
Russell Stewart
said...
>
>No, no, no. The airwaves, like any other natural resource, belong to whoever
>finds them or uses them first. That the government steps in and uses force to
>arbitrate usage according to government whim is certainly not something to be
>confused with justice.
This sounds like a confusion between a truly democratic medium and one run by
private power (i.e., a small, priveleged group of individuals). One reflects the
opinions and ideas of the populace. One doesn't.
>While we're discussing Hitler, let's connect Hitler with state control of the me
>dia.
State-sanctioned tyranny is not the only kind of tyranny that can exist.
--
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/|
/_____________________________________________________________/ |
| Russell Stewart | Albuquerque | What? | |
| dia...@rt66.com | New Mexico | Is it my hair? | /
|__________________|___________________|______________________|/
"Tel Aviv- An Israeli housewife's fight with a stubborn cockroach
put her husband in the hospital with burns, a broken pelvis and
broken ribs, the Jerusalem Post newspaper reported yesterday."
Chris BeHanna
:>j...@deltanet.com (James Glass) says:
:>And how do (right-wing radio demogogues) maintain their audience?
:>Perhaps the audience -AGREES- with the positions being advanced.
:>Leaving aside the question of their correctness, if a large majority agrees
:>with these positions, they will find listeners.
:>MY REPLY: Jim, the same things can be said of Hitler and his audience
:>in the early 1930s. Are you saying that the popularity of a demogogue is
:>is the only criterion for what taxpayers and their government should fund
:>or not fund? The airwaves belong to the people. Flush Rimbaugh and Bob
:>Grant are free to speak to millions because the FCC has granted those
:>stations the right to use the airwaves. By way of balance and fairness,
:>and in the interests of public welfare, the government should at the very
:>minimum provide enough funding to public broadcasting to allow people
:>like Mario Cuomo, Ralph Nader and plenty of call-in folks to take on the
:>bullshit claims propagated by the likes of Flush'n'Bob
Lest anyone forget, the term "Nazi" is a contraction of "National
SOCIALIST".
You can accuse Rush Limbaugh of many things: arrogance,
thickheadedness, perhaps being overly fond of belittling people who disagree
with him, but accusing him of being a Nazi is far off the mark: I have yet
to hear him espouse a single Socialist viewpoint.
Cuomo, OTOH....
Now, as to fairness and public funding: Limbaugh PAYS for *his*
airtime. Why should we, the taxpayers *pay* for Cuomo's airtime?
C'mon, admit it: you're just bent 'cause Rush is a *LOT* more popular
than your favorite liberal demagogue, whomever that may be.
--
Chris BeHanna Secretary, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available