Posted on 08/03/2002 12:05:41 PM PDT by SamBees
Rush always says "words mean things". We know that very well in this electronic forum. Words can inspire others to act in a physical response to the emotions brought about by reading the thoughts of another person.
So, Rush is right, words are powerful, and it is because they have power that Hillary once said that something was going to have to be done about the excessive freedom the net offers those who are engauged in anti-government free speech.
In the political realm, free speech is most vital, so said our founding fathers. We must be able to talk about our elected officials even if they don't like it, and you know that they do not want us spreading around information about them, their votes, or their adulterous lifestyles, in the case of Comrade Clinton.
Since 9/11/02, government has been having a party. Never before in the history of America has government be given such a free reign over the country. The Patriot Act, and other similar pieces of legislation have allowed government officials to spy on US citizens. It is very likely that every word you say on the telephone, and ever word you type in an email, or anywhere else is being processed by some alphabet agency that is looking for certain phrases, or key words.
We are living in a time where we've placed incredible trust in our federal government. We are told that thought they've been given all kinds of new power, we can trust them not to abuse it. But, that is today, or right now, maybe they've already begun to misuse that power, we have no idea.
Your words mean things, rmemeber? You have power because you can say what you think. That kind of power is a threat. You could easily inpire others to turn against a government program, or official. You, a single person in a country of many millions, could bring down a president. Ask Matt Drudge about how its done. The clinton admin. wanted to open up the Internet, formerly a communications medium used for research between Universities, scientists, and government agencies. It was this very medium combined with Free Speech, and one Mr. Matt Drudge that began the process that led to the eventual impeachment of bill clinton.
As we drift away from liberty-no one really talks about increasing our freedoms, nor is there serious conversation about limiting the power of government to those contraints listed in our wonderful Constitution, won't we someday accept the following words, "For the good of the country....Free Speech can no longer be as free"?
We've empowered government in ways government only dreamed of in decades past. Government officials can and probably already do monitor your every word in any electronic medium in which you speak. Maybe it won't be this administration, and maybe we are not far enough down the brainwash road to accept the above statement, but the day is coming when, "For the good of the country", your speech will be limited by government.
Many of you here are not at all surprised by this suggestion. You see where we are headed as a country. You know that liberty is an anathema to government, and the government has gained the upper hand over "We the People". Yes, we live in the era of not big government, but Monsterous Government power. Words are powerful. Government wants all power.
I 've read that it currently does this for free, so I proposed the auction of renewals to at least get something back for the citizens.
But as for the one way communication, I don't have a clear solution I like. Anti-trust limitations, one share per citizen, no licensing at all and let anarchy prevail...different solutions, but none of them grab me.
One of the things I dislike least is the idea of requiring a one-week tape delay for everything except the weather, traffic, and sports reports. And, of course, legal authorities in response to a public-safety crisis such as major storm threat or civil unrest.That would, at least, take away the advantage of broadcast speed from journalism. The problem with journalism is its rush to judgement, and its implicit excuse-making for the fact that its hip-shots are so consistently wrong. And that the government de facto (de jure, in McCain-Feingold) backs its claims of objectivity.
My delay would reduce broadcast journalism to a newsweekly format. But then, Time and Newsweek are no bargain, so it might be of marginal benefit . . .
If there were some way of making the journalists take randomly selected listener calls, that would inject talk-radio sanity into the equation, just like C-Span used to have before it started rationing the sane callers in favor of liberals and "moderates." But journalists are hit-and-run artists, generally.
Lack of competition in the market is the result of government meddling. It always is. The FCC needs to be shut down and government needs to get to get out of the way.
Monopolies only exist when they have the force of government behind them. Anti-trust is a sham.
Perhaps it would help if we said no individual, corporate or human, could own more than one tv or radio station.
Two rules to keep in mind when you begin to think, "there oughta be a law."
I recommend these articles on the sham that is anti-trust:
Anti-trust, Anti-truth
Trustbusting
How History Repeats Itself: The IBM Antitrust Case of 1972
. . . but then, they don't need to compare notes in real time. The cooperation is at a deeper level than that; these people are competing to entertain--and superficiality and negativity towards we-the-people and the institutions upon which we actually depend sells papers/gets ratings. They compete, but not in terms of accuracy and perspective. Their collusion is in terms of who they oppose--namely, anyone who undermines the profession's business model by committing conservatism (neither superficial nor negative). Such people are condemned as "not a journalist." Precisely why the author of a book is inherently less objective than a hipshooting journalist, they never say.We can get more objectivity out of the system by figuring out how to get more competition from its components - the different owners of radio and tv stations. Hence my mentioning anti-trust action.
Perhaps it would help if we said no individual, corporate or human, could own more than one tv or radio station.
I doubt it. The rules of the competitive game have to change, not just the numbers on the backs of the players.What distinguishes talk radio from other formats? Rush suggests that it is "the long form." If you don't understand Rush Limbaugh, and have a clear read on his character, it's simply because you don't want to. Being on the air unscripted for 3 hr/day, 5 days a week, for a decade is no way to hide your character. If your intellectual positions are not internally consistent it's bound to come out pretty quick--and that seems to be the foreordained destiny of liberal talk-show hosts.
The idea of the time delay is that Rush can play a "best of" show and have it make sense; 200-proof liberal journalism, otoh, depends critically on control of the agenda. If your show won't air for a week, you can easily be overtaken by events. You can't change the subject for a week. You are at risk of bragging how smart someone is for a week after he has made an utter fool of himself. That should make you a little more conservative.
And of course election day would be no big deal; you are not announcing the winner to the world but recording your reaction to events that your listeners already know.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate.
I don't understand how we can know for a fact that the F.B.I. used the little "Prefered Customer" card hanging off your key chain to track certain purchases and go so far as to look people up and question them, and that the Patriot Act has already been used on the WOD, yet are suppose to assume that future abuse is not possible. Or are you saying that such abuse is survivable by a free society? That America is strong enough to snap back from such thing?
He complained about hypothetical government abuse. Yes, I asked him for a specific so that we actually know just what the heck we are all complaining about. Wouldn't that be helpful?
In addition, a large part of his complaint had to do with government restrictions of free speech. My problem with that was not that I disagreed with him but that he seemed to think that restrictions on free speech were something new (ushered in somehow by the Patriot Act, not that the poster explained how, exactly). Restrictions on free speech have been with us for some time, and one example (the one I listed) was the existence of so-called "hate speech" and "hate crimes". Therefore, since the poster seemed concerned about restrictions on free speech, I suggested that he direct his attention to actual examples of free speech restrictions rather than hypothetical ones. I hope you understand a little better now.
I don't understand how we can know for a fact that the F.B.I. used the little "Prefered Customer" card hanging off your key chain to track certain purchases and go so far as to look people up and question them,
They did? That's pretty scary all right. I don't even have a "Prefered Customer" card hanging off my key chain so I don't know how they did this. Nor do I remember being questioned.
Oh I see, you're saying this happened to someone. Ok then, well, who did it happen to? And of course this was very bad, because it violated the right to... uh... which right did it violate again?
Look, I'm all for complaining about the government and keeping a sharp eye on them and stuff. I just don't go in much for fear-mongering and exaggerated horror stories. Whether or not I decide to get Up In Arms about the "Prefered Customer" scandal depends just a little bit on whether the FBI decided to track fertilizer purchases, or whether they just decided that they knew which type of deodorant is preferred by terrorists.... In other words, I need more data before I decide to get Up In Arms, I just do... I know that frustrates some people and I'm sorry, but that's the way I am.
and that the Patriot Act has already been used on the WOD,
The Patriot Act has been used on the WOD? The Patriot Act has been used on the WOD???? Oh horror of horrors! Yes, you guys are right, this is "unprecedented", the Japanese internment camps were nothin' compared to this.
Look, in principle I'm opposed to the "WOD" to begin with. Therefore, my problem with the WOD is the WOD, not the Patriot Act.
yet are suppose to assume that future abuse is not possible.
No, you are not supposed to assume this. In fact, please don't assume this. I never said that "future abuse is not possible". Just that I prefer to talk about specifics. "The Patriot Act was used in the WOD!" is not all that a specific statement.
Or are you saying that such abuse is survivable by a free society?
I think abuse of power is survivable, yes. Call me crazy or just an optimist, but abuse of power has been (and will always be) with us, but I still believe in the resilience of this country and its people.
Again, on occasions where actual (not hypothetical, future) abuse of power is known and exposed, let's throw the book at 'em. But really, I'm still just not sure what you guys are complaining about. "The Patriot Act"? I'll agree that it has a lousy name and I probably wouldn't have signed it. But none of us have actually read it (or have you?) so we're having an almost completely imaginary discussion about something none of us really knows anything about, it seems to me.
I have a hard time using such discussions as a springboard to start panicking, I guess. Maybe this is a mistake on my part, and it really is time to start panicking based on hypothetical worst-case-scenarios. You tell me.
That America is strong enough to snap back from such thing?
What "thing"? You haven't even mentioned what specific "thing" you are complaining about.
Regardless, though, the answer is Yes, absolutely. America is strong enough. If you disagree, that saddens me. But there we are. Best,
"Buying Trouble - Your Grocery List Could Spark a Terror Probe"
I'm throwing this other article in free of charge.
"Feds seek comments on Patriot Act: Agency developing means for 'information sharing' among banks"
This upsets some people, other's it doesn't. I know that America has regained it's equilibrium after some pretty bad government decisions, hope it does in the future as well.
The current spectra territories depend on intimate and constant government involvement, and so I find the idea of simply abolishing the FCC intriguing. It seems at first to lead to anarchy of the airwaves, with no reliable reception of any station since all would have the freedom to broadcast willy nilly. Please address this point.
The market will find a solution.
Millions of people talk on cell-phones every day and calls don't overlap.
I'm sure you've heard of XM Radio.
From a Google search:
XM Radio obtained one of two Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses during an auction in 1997 to provide an Continental US (CONUS) wide digital audio broadcasting service via satellite in S-Band (2332.5 to 2345.0 MHz). The service will provide up to 100 different channels with music, news and audio entertainment. The receivers will be available as car receivers, portable receivers and home receivers. The launch of the system is expected for late 2000.
On the technical side the XM Radio system will consist of two geostationary satellites positioned on either side of the United States. The satellites will be equipped with transparent payloads receiving the signal from the XM Radio studios in the Washington D.C. area. The satellite system will be supplemented by a terrestrial repeater network which will fill gaps of the satellite coverage in urban areas caused by blockage and shadowing by tall buildings.
So they still got a license from the FCC, one of only two. I don't know the tech or the politics here, so I don't know why just two licenses. Wouldn't surprise me if "XM Radio" lobbied for the restriction!
Perhaps they could have issued a million licenses, or just let everyone start a business who wanted to. Great if this technology allows that, which then begs the question: why involve the FCC at all?
Perhaps they could have issued a million licenses . . .
One thing I think you can take to the bank: each broadcast TV station takes up enough bandwidth to carry the whole FM Spectrum. Rush 24/7 is to me an interesting pioneer . . . it carries the audio of his program but also, sometimes, webcam TV. He could easily, over the Internet, send still images of charts and graphs to augment his verbal description of statistics--without using nearly the bandwidth of TV. I don't subscribe yet, but I'm rooting for 24/7 to become a smash commercial success--as a real time audio venue independent of FCC licensure. Given that there are wireless internet services, that would seem to establish the principle that anyone who wants to "broadcast" can do so--without a by-your-leave to the federal government.The idea that "the news" in print and in broadcast form is objective is embedded in McCain-Feingold, which now is (untested) law. That idea is utterly foreign to the First Amendment, contradictory to its principle.
The idea that only establishment journalists can decide who is "a journalist"--thus who is objective--is prototyrannical claptrap, tending to actual tyranny when the government backs up the establishment journalist not only with broadcast licenses but with gag orders on any but establishment reporters during the last 2 weeks of an election campaign. The thought of extending journalism's establishment status immediately after the 2000 "Gore Wins Florida" fiasco is rich irony indeed.
And you have to know that the Internet is the next target; it cannot possibly be allowed to flourish while pollitical advertising is muzzled.
"It wasn't a case of law enforcement being egregiously intrusive or an evil agency planting a bug or wiretap. It was a marketing person saying, 'Maybe this will help you catch a bad guy,' " Ponemon says.
Damn that evil abusive government!!! Wait... this doesn't quite fit the template, does it?
Hmm. But I speak too soon. I should still be Up In Arms. After all, there were all those people arrested, persecuted, imprisoned, flogged as a result of this grocery-list thing. Right? What were there names, remind me. It's on the tip of my tongue.
Look, the article reinforces my point: what it mainly talks about is that a bunch of algorithms are being used to sift the data and try to find something interesting. There are even tons of quotes in it about how using algorithms to do this is a flawed approach. The specific case cited (a grocery chain employee handing over lists without even being requested to) is obviously wrong, and the grocery chain knows it (and is scared of prosecution/lawsuits). Meanwhile, there's not even any indication that anything harmful resulted from it. So I'm supposed to start panicking? Sorry to disappoint, but I still need an actual reason.
If you wanna panic, though, go right ahead. Best,
Actually the USA is rumored (confirmed?) to have a massive intelligence gathering network called eshelon which is supposed to be monitoring all faxes, IP comunications and voice. I've read that this network has at least a keyword search for all these forms of communication. This network is not supposed to be used on american citizens. However, I think I read that, because eschelon is shared between countrys, the US has been sharing what we know about "them" and what they know about "us". This essentially made it possible for the US to spy on the US.. And this happed way before 9/11....
This is all nebulus and frighting, but really hard to determine a speciffic threat, to at least my own freedom. What would be a speciffic thing I might as well worry about? [Lets assume that eschelon is real]
The entire AM band, OTOH, spans only about 1.1 MHz, again broken into over a hundred channels, spaced only .01 MHz apart.
That implies that if only 5 of the 100 FM channels were sacrificed, the number of AM stations could be doubled.
But, IMHO, part of the design criteria of the band allocations was to produce scarce and valuable broadcast licenses--initially for AM radio, then for FM radio, then for TV. And, when you consider it, the move to HDTV is of a cloth . . . few valuable, wide channels in preference to very many narrow, less-valuable ones.
IOW, a monopoly production model--gain the most clout by having the biggest goodies under your control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.