30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging 720
Cutie Pi writes "In a recent Rasmussen poll looking at the public's attitudes toward a possible revival of the fairness doctrine by the Democrats, a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates (originally intended for public airwaves) to cover the Internet as well. It is encouraging that a minority of people feel that way, but Democrats say 'hands-off the Internet ... by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.'"
All blogs are editorials (Score:5, Insightful)
Editorials are opinion, not legitimate reporting of facts.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a great idea and very important (Score:5, Insightful)
Because with only three blogs in the blog-o-sphere, the millions of Americans these blogs serve really deserve government-mandated balance.
Oh, what's that, there's more than three? How many, then? Five?
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative politicians want a smaller government. The previous Republican majority was not conservative.
The truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Balanced is not equal to fair.
"Balanced" in this case means that only the democratic party and the republican party will have their voices heard.
I would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that there's no way something this asinine could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. Especially since political speech is exactly the epicenter of that amendment. I would say that, but I also witnessed all three branches of the federal government fail us spectacularly on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
Don't worry, so are they! How I long for the days when the Repulicans were for a government that took less of your money, and the Democrats were for a government that took less of your freedoms. Now both are pro-censorship, and both are for more government spending, and both are for more government power to combat scary things.
How would a "balanced internet" work in the first place? Can you not find a blog aready to cater to any political belief no matter how bizzare? Now I'm the one confused.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy to circumvent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
We also have to stop thinking that there must be 2 sides to every issue and that both sides are equally valid. That sort of thinking is where you get things like the media treating Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory, because they're convinced that every issue must have two equally valid sides, even when only one side is actually supported by any kind of scientific evidence.
Don't worry... (Score:3, Insightful)
So are us Republicans. We vote for these guys, and then they act like Democrats.
Then we go vote for a staunch small government man like Ron Paul and find our votes (at least in New Hampshire) did not get recorded for whatever reason.
No. Artificially limiting discourse... (Score:2, Insightful)
We need new ideas, new ways of thinking about issues, each other, and ourselves in order to evolve as a society and as a species.
Now, for any organization that claims to be journalistic in nature *of course* balance is essential. That includes online news sites, which should not be trying to swaying opinion but rather about conveying facts in the most objective way possible in order to keep the public informed.
But bloggers are not news agencies. They are simply a measure of the attitudes and opinions of people at large, so I can think of no good reason to impose some kind of balance on that. Doing so would only stifle our evolution toward a better humanity.
Imposing balance on a blogger online is no different than imposing balance on someone standing on a soap box at the street corner. It's optional, not required.
At least that's the way I see it.
*steps off soap box*
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Go by the term Classical Liberal then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [wikipedia.org]
Those want a limited government (which itself is a more correct term, a smaller government is the natural effect byproduct of a limited government but a smaller government isn't always more limited - i.e. outsourcing everything)
"Conservative" means nothing anymore, it's been so diluted. The biggest "conservatives" are nothing more but against taxes (passing staggering debt onto future generations while still paying for massive entitlements/porkbarrel is not more conservative than tax and spend), embrace war against drugs/crime/poverty/nations (war is the health of the state, thus anti-conservative) and lastly, wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
Plus the term liberal drives many of the unreasonable ones on edge. People like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh types that want to pidgeonhole everyone in their arguments.
Re:Democrats trying to turn us into a nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you on everything but the smoking issue. Your right to smoke does not over rule my right to not breath in your smoke. And before you say "then you can leave", no, that's not the way the world works. I don't have to quit my job because you want to smoke.
Already was the law from 1949-1984ish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will this include issues such as (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you make a false assumption there:
Why does the number of sides to an issue have to be 2?
"Which party is the best?" Are you saying that you have to take a Democrat and a Republican? What about the other parties?
You mention the Earth's shape. You would talk to the flat-earth people, and then whom? The people who believe that the Earth is a sphere? What about the scientists who think it is an oblate spheroid [wikipedia.org]. What about people who think it is a more complex 4-dimensional shape?
Any meaningful question/issue is going to have more than 2 sides, and trying to squeeze a meaningful discussion into a binary decision is pretty harmful. Just look at our parties. They have migrated to be slightly away from each other, but both actually quite close together.
Balanced? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps the word I am looking for is "hypocritical".
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:1, Insightful)
Both are pro-censorship, but the Republicans aren't nearly as bad as the Democrats in that regard. Only Democrats would care about something like "fairness" in media, especially on the internet. With Republicans, they only want to censor when people say things that big corporations find offensive. Make a blog where you complain about politicians, and Republicans aren't going to bother you much, even if you spout ultra-liberal views. But make a conservative blog and the Democrats will complain you're not being "fair" or "balanced". (Of course, the Dems never complain about liberal bias.) OTOH, make a blog where you trash some corporations, and the Republicans will happily pass a law making it easy for the corporations to shut you down using barratry, trademark law, or some other legal crap.
The reasons for this aren't very complicated. Democrats are socialists who admire the old Soviet state; they want to create a huge government to make everyone equal (by hatchet, axe, and saw if necessary), and to take care of everyone, with themselves at the top of course. Republicans are fascists who want a few large corporations to take power, so they can claim people have freedom (even though they don't, because they're being oppressed by the corporations).
If you want freedom, the only party that's interested in that is the Libertarians. The other two want to oppress you and take your money, just in slightly different ways.
Re:Don't worry... (Score:1, Insightful)
We vote for these guys, and then they act like Democrats.
Oh bullshit. At least the Dems would've had the sense to tax, as well as spend, as opposed to Bush's strategy of spend and *cut* taxes.
Face it, you may not like the Dems, but the neocons are even worse.
OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Less than 1/3 of all Americans support the censorship of political blogs.
b) 70% of Americans do not support regulation of political blogging.
Same data, different spin.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Illiberal liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are so many supposedly liberal-minded people so ... illiberal? Is it because they think a fairness doctrine would only be used against Republicans?
It's like they want to attack their enemies by removing the oxygen out of the air, without considering how they themselves will breath.
A Pox on Both Parties! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly was small about massive defense spending, and trying to legislate morality?
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:2, Insightful)
The previous Republican majority was not conservative.
If by "previous" you mean "previous several, and current, and probably the next several". And to avoid coming off as simple flamebait, I know that just because all republican politicians are for expanding government control, that doesn't mean all republican voters are. Just like all democratic politicians are pussies, but not all democratic voters are.
Though really, if you're identifying yourself as either, you're voluntarily lumping yourself in with one crowd or the other, so don't get angry when assumptions are made. It's your own damned fault in that case.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are fascists who want a few large corporations to take power, so they can claim people have freedom (even though they don't, because they're being oppressed by the corporations).
The difference is that government power has the force of law, and you cannot escape. With "corporate power", it's entirely voluntary to be under it. And if you don't like it, you can always start your own entity. Example: The Democrats decide to ban "hate" music because it hurts people's feelings. You can go to jail and there is no escape. On the other hand, don't like the policies of the oh-so-corporate RIAA? Listen to independent music. Or create your music.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
"Jigsaw elections"? You mean Electoral Eollege? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the United States didn't have jigsaw puzzle elections, more moderate voices would gain prominence and the extremists would be pushed to the outskirts.
(I presume you're talking either about the Electoral College system or something else related to election by states rather than general popular vote.)
If the US didn't have "jigsaw puzzle elections" a corrupt political machine in a major urban area would be able to swing enough bogus votes to control the national government.
The election of the congress critters by district, senators by state, and president by state electors is one of the firewalls against tyranny.
(It's also part of the deal by which states with small populations were persuaded to federate with more crowded ones, which could totally swamp their interests if federal elections were by polling the whole mass rather than the jigsaw pieces. Change that and you might see another secessionist movement.)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
I call "no true scotsman" fallacy.
The previous Republican majority called itself conservative. They were lauded by media folks who called themselves conservative.
There were no voices saying that the previous Republican majority wasn't conservative until after the government failed miserably at everything it tried to do.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Editorials are opinion, not legitimate reporting of facts.
So? Opinion isn't exempt in the Fairness Doctrine. In fact most of the application of the doctrine on the airwaves has traditionally been against editorial content. The argument goes that there's only so much broadcast bandwidth out there, and so since the government licenses the airwaves, they have a responsibility to see that all viewpoints get a fair shot.
Never mind that with the huge selection of opinion avenues... radio, TV, satellite, print, the Internet... the idea of bandwidth scarcity is essentially obsolete, especially for the Internet. But that hasn't stopped the doctrine's backers from trying to bring it back from the dead anyway, and worse, they want to apply it to non-broadcast media.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies, or at least quiet them down some. The doctrine is nothing but government nannyism, and its death was too long in coming. For those of you that are so eager to bring it back, think long and hard about that. Sooner or later, someone you don't like is going to get elected, and use it against you.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not being supported by scientific evidence doesn't necessarily make something invalid either.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, the part about massive defense spending is part of my point. But that's actually a Democratic thing. Remember, LBJ (who kept us in Vietnam) was a Democrat. Republicans have been anti-defense spending until recent decades.
The only reason for the fairness doctrine... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason that the fairness doctrine was needed was because media outlets were owned by a few rich and powerful people. Opposing points of view couldn't get to the public otherwise.
Literally anyone can start their own blog for free and talk about anything they want. If a blogger is saying something that you disagree with, there is no need to force him to display your opinions on his blog. Just start your own.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
> "Balanced" in this case means that only the democratic party and the republican
> party will have their voices heard.
If only. In practice the "Fairness Doctrine" meant overt political programs were off limits period. Except for the newscasts which were all (90%+ with the rest deep in the closet) Democrats and the not so hidden political plotlines in most 'entertainment that always promoted the Democratic talking points of the moment. So in effect it meant Republicans had Firing Line on PBS and the Democrats got the rest of radio and TV... this was believed by all 'right thinking people' to be a problem because even one disenting voice was a menace to the revolution.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
It does when the whole argument revolves around presenting it in a science class. The media spent plenty of time on that issue, and often took great pains to make it seem like the arguments for and against ID in science classes were both equally valid, and should be given equal time.
All it takes... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that there's no way something this asinine could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. Especially since political speech is exactly the epicenter of that amendment. I would say that, but I also witnessed all three branches of the federal government fail us spectacularly on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
All it takes is enough sympathetic judges, and viola, it's Constitutional... even if it isn't Constitutional.
One thing both political sides seem to increasingly agree on these days is that the judicial branch may be the weak link in the design of our Constitutional guarantee of rights. If a judge says so, it's so, even the the Constitution directly contridicts it. All you need is a majority of SCOTUS opinions, and what's done is done. Once SCOTUS rules, unlike a Congressional Bill or an Executive Order, there's no way to appeal it. It's done. Final. You'd have to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to change that ruling, and if the issue came back before SCOTUS, they could simply void the meaning and spirt of the amendment with a stroke of their pens.
Increasingly, the written opinions of the Supreme Court is our real constitution, not the 200+ year old document itself.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Corporate power is backed by the government; that's why it's insidious. Without a government granting a corporate charter, and making laws favorable to large corporations (over small ones), they wouldn't have the power they do. So their backers can claim, falsely, that you have a choice. Yeah right.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly. The government has granted them a monopoly, though they're regulated. In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly. Even if the government hasn't explicitly given power to large corporations, the fact that they're large gives them enormous power over any would-be competitors. It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under. Large companies have an inertia effect that insulates them from the negative effects of bad decisions. Just like at Microsoft: their products are shoddy crap, yet they have the industry tied up due to their size, business connections, software compatibility issues, etc. If some small company had made a disastrous product like Vista, it would have gone bankrupt. But for MS, it's no big problem. How would another company compete against a behemoth of that size? Open-source is only doing it because it's completely changing the playing field, and we all had to suffer with MS's crap for many years before distros like Ubuntu came out providing a viable alternative.
True, it's easier to compete against an evil corporation than an evil government, but it's not that much easier. At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:2, Insightful)
The Libertarians care about you...
A Libertarian cares about him/her/itself. Libertarians aren't going to be upset when something wrong is happening to me, they are going to upset because that wrong thing might happen to them.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many democrats are even that far left, unfortunately.
Re:Oh goody... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I do not mean indoctrination. In our democracy the average person's job in government is to evaluate candidates' ability to govern. When the ability to govern includes decisions about technology and the average person doesn't understand technology at all... well then the average person can't do their job. So how is the "correct" candidate determined now? The media? Whoever is more charismatic? By the people already ruling? None of those systems work for long. An independent media will elect whoever gets it more money, eventually you'll end up with a charismatic idiot (or worse yet genius who wants to be a dictator), and of course no matter how noble the people who first ruled and no matter how well they choose their successors eventually corruption will creep in through the margin of error.
I'm not talking a matter of political philosophy, not republican vs democrat, not liberal vs conservative, not even libertarian vs authoritarian. I'm talking a matter of people who think it's ok to have a NINE TRILLION dollar debt and keep lowering taxes and increasing spending. It's simply NOT ok. It's a matter of people voting away democracy in the name of safety because they don't know any better. Democracy can't exist without people realizing this is a problem, and they can't do that without education.
As for wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner... Yea, democracy sucks. It's just that everything else sucks more. What's your better system? The only one I can think of is a benevolent dictatorship... and who decides who the next dictator is? What happens when they make a mistake and pick one that isn't quite so benevolent? No, the best we can do is democracy with checks and balances as strong as possible without grinding government to a halt.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
"Conservative" means nothing anymore ... . ... "conservatives" are nothing more but against taxes ... embrace war against drugs/crime/poverty/nations ... and lastly, wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
Not to (borrowing your term) pidgeonhole anyone or anything...
wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
You know, that's how I feel whenever I see people with bumper stickers slathered all over their cars (who are, imho, 99% of the time liberal). Why is it so important that other people know that you're a vegan, are pro-abortion, etc, or, my personal favorite, are mad that the US was "One pretzel away from getting rid of Bush." ~shrug~
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
The Libertarians care about you, but they have such a minority you will probably not see a Libetarian president in your lifetime.
No, they don't care about you or anyone else; they care about abstract principles.
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
At least, that's the honest Libertarian response. Depending on who you're talking to, you might hear something else instead, like "That's impossible, the market always provides for everyone! You must not be looking hard enough!" or "Surely there are plenty of charities that can help you out!"
Sides Sides Sides..... (Score:2, Insightful)
So you would have to have a side to balance out the other, okay.
So we have the Conservative and Liberals, ok, that is two sides, But what about the Libertarians?
OK, so who counters the Libertarians? The Socialists, what about the Anarchists, you counter those with the Nationalists?
Who gets to decide who needs to be countered and who is "neutral", what counters neutral?
Does the FCC get to decide who is Conservative and who is Liberal? Do we really want the government to control who can be a spokesperson for different groups?
Right now you have a bunch of pissed off Liberals who are pissed they can't get get entertaining hosts to spout their propaganda. The Conservatives are just happy to have some sorta outlet for their propaganda ie. non-public talk radio, web sites, etc... They don't want to give up what they have gained on the internet or on the airwaves.
As a Capitalist Libertarian I kinda agree with the former group. If conservative talk radio didn't have an audience, then why are advertisers paying good cold hard cash for time advertising on Rush'a, Hannity's and Savage's shows?
If there was a large audience for Liberal talk radio then Air America would have succeeded, but it didn't. Maybe that is because they already had Liberal radio in the form of NPR and the NPR listeners didn't want to tune out the public radio stations for the commercial Air America, then it failed.
Be is commercial or public, I don't want some stuffed shirt government bureaucrat telling me who to listen to.
Sure they can enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" but what is going to happen. Take the following scenario.
K-FCC Radio Schedule
12-3pm Rush Limbaugh
3-6pm Rhandi Rhodes
Will the core audience of Rush Limbaugh listeners listen to Rhandi Rhodes, no they won't they will just tune to another station that has a conservative host after his show is over.
To "Enforce" the "spirit" of the fairness Doctrine and make sure both get equal time will the FCC have to find a way to force the Rush Limbaugh listeners to listen to Rhandi Rhodes for the same amount of time.
Ok, so you have taken away people's rights to choose, nice to enforce "spirit of fairness' you have become totalitarian.
Same goes for the Internet. So if I post a blog saying I have Conservatives do i then have to have a section on the same page where I have to have someone post that they hate Liberals?
Where does it end? Could "clink and clack" on NPR say they don't like a certain car have to have someone one that then praises the same car they derided?
Can I make the easy jazz station play hard rock because I hate easy jazz? That is kinda what the FCC would be doing here. If they pass this I am calling all of those oldie station and demand they play new age techno, because I am too fucking lazy to turn the goddamned knob on the radio.
The people who want the "Fairness Doctrine" need to realize that it is against the the whole idea of freedom of speech.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Sheesh, any time the concept of business is defended, I must be a "Randian". Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Libertarians (and "Objectivists"_ are simplistic and deluded.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly.
First of all, electric power is a *government* monopoly. Second of all, I can generate my own power anytime I want. Ever heard of private generators? Solar? The reason power is a monopoly is because of the wiring issue.
In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly.
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it. In any case, the whole point of patents is to protect the individual inventor. Don't like corporations dominating an industry? Try a world without patents.
It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under.
Exactly! You understand, yet don't like patents? That's just bizarre. Anytime a small inventor invents something, the big companies would simply out-manufacture them instantly and put them out of business.
How would another company compete against a behemoth[Microsoft] of that size?
Incredibly easily, actually. The problem is that no one has had the balls to produce a redesigned, absolutely, positively, 100%-compatible Windows clone. And don't give me the old wrong answer about "Microsoft will just change Windows to make it incompatible." That's always been crap. Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products, and you can also keep an antitrust war chest to sue Microsoft if they tried to make Office incompatible.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
The "people" is not just you, it's also everyone else. Even if the government listened to "the people", that doesn't mean you agree with whatever the whims of "the people" happen to be. With a corporate world you don't need to beg politicians to do whatever you want. And also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.
Re:Voluntary? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
With sufficiently predatory lending practices and things of that nature, it becomes far less than "voluntary" too.
Good example! "Predatory"? Who held a gun to the head of these idiots who got loans they couldn't afford? As I said, being exploited by a corporation is entirely *voluntary*.
On the other hand, try opting out of various laws that you don't like. I'm sure I don't need to make a list of various laws that are stupid, yet you have no choice to suffer them.
Re:I would say... (Score:3, Insightful)
On come on, this comment after the last 8 years of the Republicans screwing the constitution for all it's worth? Or is it just that they didn't threaten to take your guns away, so it's all ok?
Bah, I hate them all, the Dems. just seem like they'll be the least worst ... but it's hard to tell (and rewarding the Republicans after the last 8 years isn't a pretty alternative). Kang or Kodos, you get to vote!
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
Whereas a democrat would say, "Stab Bill Gates, take his money and live in his house instead." Republicans would just slaughter your children and bathe in their blood because they are pure evil.
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others. Virtue shouldn't be forced. Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart. Almost everyone has friends that can help them out or family that can give them a place to stay. A typical response would be that you can't live off of wal mart's pay, to which I reply that you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
When tax money funds my server and connection, I'll let people who disagree with me guest-post in my Slashdot trolling.
Until then, fuck those guys.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Congratulations on winning a debate that we weren't even having. Who talked about the feds "withdrawing"? Of course government is necessary to step in and maintain law and order, and other protections of civil rights. That doesn't mean that I don't prefer, all things being equal, to voluntarily dealing with a corporation than involuntarily dealing with the government.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
It's become increasingly common these days (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as we see "neoconservatives" people who despite touting the conservative label are all about big government, there seems to be "neoliberals". Basically their idea is "You have the freedom of speech to say something that I agree with." If you say things they don't like, they want to silence you. The funny thing is they'll do this while claiming to be supporting free speech. See the problem is you are "bigoted" or "close minded" and thus what you want to say shouldn't be said.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812. I seriously doubt that it'd work out, and right now we can't do it anyway. But at least it would be the right thing to do.
Then again, I also don't care of those "break away" provinces break away -- let them for all I care. I also support Chechnya, the Basques and a slew of other things. Freedom good, Empire dickish.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others.
Heh. You do realize that you've simply restated my point, right? Sure, you used gentler words to do it, but that "real philosophy" boils down to exactly what I said earlier.
"Nobody should be forced to ... give up their money to help others" implies that when no one wants to help you out of the kindness of their hearts (as is often the case), you're just screwed.
Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart.
Many, many people who have jobs still don't make enough to really support themselves and their families. They're one illness or injury away from bankruptcy and destitution.
Your response to that is "you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more." In other words, it's just what I said: "make do with the smaller paycheck" is another way to say "sucks to be you", and getting those extra skills is often impossible when you still need to work full-time to support your family.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
But obviously they can't help everyone themselves, so what happens next?
Libertarians would have us believe that when charity fails, it's better to let those unfortunate people starve than to require the richest among us to give up a tiny fraction of their wealth to help them. They believe that their "freedom of choice" (i.e. the freedom not to pay taxes) is more important than whether or not someone else can put food on the table or send his kids to school.
That's one reason why they don't win elections: because most people just don't share those priorities.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
(who are, imho, 99% of the time liberal)
Back it up. If you give statistics, I want references. If you wish to avoid scrutiny, use the weak vague language made for such bullshitting occasions.
"..you're a vegan, are pro-abortion, etc.."
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who are "pro-abortion." Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter is a far cry from jumping for joy each time a poor girl in a terrible situation walks into a clinic.
What this means (Score:3, Insightful)
What this means in practice is that you have freedom of speech, as long as you agree with whoever is currently in power. (Both parties agree that it's only fair when it agrees with their current platforms.)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
No, government can be shaped by the people to reflect their needs and values, corporations cannot.
Which has a more direct effect:
A single vote among two candidates that represent a broad spectrum of issues (some I agree with, some I don't)... OR
Choosing DSL because my Cable Internet is too expensive, AND choosing the iPhone because I like the browser better instead of Nokia, AND driving a Honda instead of an American car brand because of better quality, AND going to the gas station across the street from the other one because it's 10 cents cheaper, AND... a thousand other daily decisions that DIRECTLY influence the behavior of various corporations because of the power of my money spending decisions.
Why people feel this powerlessness with the eeeevil corporations is beyond me. You have ultimate power, because you have what they desperately want: money.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they be forced to? Someone who makes the right choices in life (get an education, not get pregnant at 15, etc...) and becomes successful should now be forced to support those who made the poor choices? One of the reasons we're in this credit/housing mess right now is that we aren't letting people take the punishment for their poor choices. It's easy to take extreme risks when you think the government will always come to bail you out. Keep in mind I'm pointing at everyone from the greedy hedge fund guys on wall street to the hair dresser who buys an overpriced house 'because real estate goes up 20%/year.'
The richest among us give tons to charity and to taxes. The richest among us also spend A LOT of money (which actually provides...JOBS). As far as the sob story for the poor..save it. There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor. People are simple creatures and will tend to gravitate towards what's the most beneficial to them. When you give more money for putting out more kids, give them subsidized housing, free food, and other freebies you're not teaching them to get a job.
It's sad that we've basically turned into a 'take care of me' society. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. It's always someone else's fault. If people took more responsibility for themselves and not worry so much about everyone else the entire country would be a better place.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:2, Insightful)
What exactly was small about massive defense spending, and trying to legislate morality?
Supposedly not raising our taxes to do it.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
You know have noticed the internet acronym "IMHO" in my post. Not exactly a common internet acronym i guess, though you see it fairly often on slashdot etc. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imho [wiktionary.org] (in short, in my humble opinion). Emphasis on the opinion. I'd be fascinated by any statistics, but I don't have any. I'll google around a little bit, but it's hard to track this kind of thing.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine works for the Democratic Party in NC, and a number of years ago they briefly stopped selling bumper stickers, only to face a lot of popular discontent from people who were big fans of the bumper stickers (and reversed their decision). ~shrug~
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who are "pro-abortion." Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter is a far cry from jumping for joy each time a poor girl in a terrible situation walks into a clinic.
That's true to a degree, but ultimately, whether you consider yourself "pro-choice," "pro-life," whatever, you're arguing over one action--aborting a fetus. And those on one side want that to be legal, and the other want it to be illegal. The rest is just semantics.
"Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter" seems to me a bit disingenuous. I don't see many (and I'll bow to your preferences and use the term "pro-choice") pro-choice people arguing against the government's vital role in funding Planned Parenthood for instance. If you're really taking a libertarian view, one should probably argue against planned parenthood's dependent relationship. Not trying to put words in your mouth here, maybe you're consistent in your position, but most people I've met haven't made that argument.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:2, Insightful)
The Dems were never very organized to start with. Will Rogers has a quote about that.
The problem is that, while quite a lot of Dems and a Repubs are really in their party for a single issue, the Republicans' single issues conflict with each other, and the Democrats' do not. You can't be a theocrat and a libertarian at the same time, or in favor of small government and unending war, or anti-immigration and pro-big-business...
And those are just examples where the wheels have recently come off. There are actually a few more that should hit soon. For example, the small government people and the unending war people have a near trifecta incompatibility with the right-wing environmentalists, who are rapidly showing up from the religious right (Apparently, some of them have noticed humans are supposed to be the stewards of the earth.) All three of them disagree with the other two.
Clinton Defense Castration (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be noted that President Clinton cut the military - manpower, order of battle, the whole show - some 40%.
Not quite in half, but close enough.
The results have been on display in Georgia for about a week.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
like legal abortion, Planned Parenthood is about increasing one's ability to make informed choices about reproduction.
Yes, that is certainly part of Planned Parenthood's mission. Let's not forget that it's also an organization that was originally called the Birthcontrol League and that PP performs the majority of all abortions in the US. Ergo, when the Government funds PP, it funds a lot of abortions. I am very torn about abortion, and have argued both sides in the past, and don't particularly feel like taking a position now (lame, I know..) ... however, I think you illustrate very well the typical pro-abortion (or pro-choice if you prefer..) viewpoint that I mentioned to the GP. If you really think the Government should not legislate morality and should butt out, then that includes butting out for the things you like as well as the things you don't. Frequent problem with both the left and the right.
No true conservative... (Score:3, Insightful)
The No True Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy when your "no P is a Q" is a synthetic proposition, rather than an analytic one. If one were to say "no bachelor is married", and then someone stood up and said "I'm a married bachelor!", the first speaker would be perfectly correct in replying "if you are married, then you are not a true bachelor, despite what you may call yourself".
Of course, that's not incredibly helpful for us here because most of the qualities people take to be inherent in anyone rightly labeled "conservative" are actually synthetic rather than analytic qualities. About the only true "no true conservative..." sentence is "no true conservative favors rapid change", since the meaning of "conservative" is "opposed to rapid change". It just so happens that western societies and governments have recently (for the past century or two) been moving away from a very libertarian, capitalist model, and so those in favor of slowing or reversing that change get called "conservatives". But there's an even older flavor of "conservative" who was never happy with the move to that libertarian model in the first place, who are still trying to put a stop to the so-called "moral decadence" that it brought about. Two very different viewpoints, both calling themselves, and getting called, "conservative" - so who are the true conservatives then?
You can be a "true conservative" and support just about anything position that has any presence in the present, as to be a "true conservative" is just to want to conserve such things they way they are. Calling any particular political platform (aside from "lets be cautious with the changes here") "conservative" is like a Vietnamese person calling a European atheist a "Christian" (because European = Christian in his mind), or a medieval European calling an Indian Buddhist a "Hindu" (because Indian = Hindu in his mind). It's a sloppy substitution based on an inaccurate correlation. "European" and "Christian" do not mean the same thing, even though many or most Europeans may be Christians, so they cannot be used as synonyms like that. If you tried to do so and use that in support of an argument - e.g. "Most Englishmen are Protestant -> no true Englishman is Catholic" - then you would be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
But coming back from that tangent, my point is that words have a sort of historical inertia of meaning that persists despite peoples' misuse of them. Just because a bunch of authoritarian radicals (a radical being an extreme progressive, someone who wants lots of change made very quickly, the very opposite of a conservative) call themselves "conservatives" does not mean that they are, in fact, conservative. People with similar ideologies may have been conservative in times past, but since that ideology is a world different from how things are today, such people are not conservatives but in fact radicals.
all this shows... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
First off conservatism isn't defined by GW Bush. He's no exemplar of conservative thought or policy and has been consistently criticized from the right. Most people aren't terribly consistent in their political ideology, ESPECIALLY politicians since they must appeal to a broad coalition of support and most people have only the fuzziest political ideals. He no more defines conservatism than Clinton defined liberalism. You could make a decent case that as a practical matter Clinton who declared the "end of big government" and who's signature domestic policy ended up being welfare reform was more conservative than Bush who's signature domestic policies where massive increases in Education and Medicare spending. There's a strong pull on Presidents to achieve political success by stealing plays from their opponents playbook - you get your opponents votes because they actually agree with your policy and your own parties votes out of party loyalty. So Bush was able to get a "No Child Left Behind" policy sponsored and largely drafted by Ted Kennedy enacted with more Democratic than Republican votes... that didn't stop the Democrats who voted for it from castigating it as another "conservative" blunder by Bush once it proved unpopular though.
That being said, the classical liberal ideology that's often associated with conservatism in the US considers defense and police powers as the ONLY legitimate use of government power. The logic is something like this: Government governs by force (ultimately by violence or the threat of it). Therefore, government is only legitimate when acting in situations where the use of force is morally justified which basically boils down to defense. "(Law) is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." - Bastiat
So from that classically liberal ideology spending on defense is at least within the proper scope of government whereas most of the other stuff government does is illegitimate.
Well, those trying to "legislate morality" aren't usually the same as those calling for smaller government. Political parties are coalitions, the libertarian right one usually thinks of when talking about the desire for smaller government aren't exactly the same folks as the religious right one would think of wanting to "legislate morality". I think it says something though that the libertarians have at least in the past found the religious right more palatable as political allies than the Left. The RR's desire to "legislate morality" was less offensive to small government types than the left's desire to legislate everything else. Indeed it seems to me that as a practical matter at least as much of the legislation of morality is coming from the left as from the right. "Sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms and regulations about who, when, where and how they may be used are all coming from the left. Even in disputes directly between the left and the religious right it is almost as often the left that is using government to impose a moral judgement on someone who doesn't share that same moral code. Take the example of an evangelical that doesn't want to rent property to a gay couple. Which party in the dispute wants government to impose it's moral judgements on a private individual that doesn't share them?
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:3, Insightful)
On a slight side note, you don't think personal freedom is a type of morality? I do! I think you would find many people and governments around the world that would argue that individual freedom above all else is IMMORAL. What about the greater good? An individual's free choices are not always the best choices for everyone else.
On fairness, in particular (Score:1, Insightful)
This is actually about the failure of Air America, and the failure to silence Limbaugh.
_First, the crowds are different:_
Conservatives actually *care* about issues and details. They talk about what's good for the country, from the viewpoint of history. They take the time to listen to the radio, they've been taught to think critically and ask questions. This makes for interesting radio. 90% of Democrats can't tell you the name of a single Supreme Court Justice, many Conservatives can name them all.
Democrats/Liberals appear to choose their presidents based on how they look. Why else? Ask yourself: can you actually say you'd trust these people to park your car?
- Al "I invented the internet" Gore and his sky-is-falling global money scam.
- John "I voted against it, before I voted for it" Kerry and his core values that change with each and every poll.
- Barak "That's not the [person] I know" OBama. He thinks the Japanese started WW2 by 'dropping the bomb' on Pearl Harbor, Claims to have visited "about 57 [US] states so far" in the primary race, and he "was going to several more". He claimed to see dead war heroes in attendance at a memorial service. Ever hear him NOT on a teleprompter? SHEESH!
These guys make Dan Quayle seem smart.
And let's be clear: Barak's darker-skin means nothing to me; he's just the latest goofball offered.
_The Content is Different:_
Spewing hate and repeating lies doesn't sell. Case in point:
- Air America was a VERY well funded attempt to break into talk radio. It failed miserably. No one tuned in.
Liberals/Democrats constantly pushing towards Communism, though it too, has been disproved roundly.. They still keep trying to elect people who tell us what kinds of cars we can purchase, what kinds of light bulbs we're permitted to buy, and what kind of ingredients are in our food. (See: Transfats banned in NYC). Then they complain about the intrusion of government into our daily lives, and assuming the Republicans did it. (The media tells them this)
Liberals are constantly unhappy. They talk about what's wrong with the world. They intone discrimination where there is none, to open new lines of advance. It's all about enslaving free people because they're not living their life properly.
Meanwhile, Liberal voters are tuned to FM Music radio and can't be bothered by the news.
- Limbaugh's been growing a massive audience for TWO DECADES.
Now if you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, there are a number of things you don't know.
- He's not been a big, fat man for about a decade. Really.
- He's not a drug dealer/user/promoter. He did lose part of his hearing, though.
- He's probably the biggest civil-rights advocate you'll find.
- He's also not anti-gay or anti-Jew, or anti ANYTHING but stupid.
- He's completely wrong about Microsoft, but has a vision for seeing political trends unlike anyone I've seen.
Limbaugh talks in terms of optimism. He tells us about how it'll get better if we stay to our message:
- Smaller government
- Less intrusion
- Controlled immigration
- Term Limits
- People having more power than the government
Why would anyone want anything else?
_Conclusion:_
Understand that ONE media machine:
- Portrays fathers as ignorant boobs in TV commercials 20 years. Watch and see.
- Denies promotion of heros. I don't mean "fallen" or "broken" heroes.
- Cuts off all secondary information. What's Bolivia's beef with it's neighbors?
- Promot
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:2, Insightful)
Because "religious" and "liberal" are mutually exclusive.
If there's one thing Democrats royally screwed up on this century, it's allowing the Republicans to use abortion as the only True Test of religion. As opposed to "turn the other cheek" (anti-Iraqi-conflict), "do unto others" (pro-diplomacy-with-Iran), "love thy neighbor as thyself" (pro-gay-marriage), "Render unto Caesar" (maybe pro-taxes or pro-separation-of-church-and-state?), and to top it off environmentalism ought to be the most Christian of all issues (protecting God's creation, as we did get dominion over it in Genesis).