November 17, 2009
I received the following this morning from a friend and it got me to rambling. Thought I’d share…..
“Tragedy at Ft Hood”
“Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)
This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.
My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing.
A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units.
A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.
On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.
There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.
We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is unconscionable.
This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.
We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.
What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.
What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids.
Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.
However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.
We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar”, same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation.
No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the American people”.
The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don’t have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded.
We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United States, one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach. Are we building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Are “Kaffirs” and “Infidels” allowed travel to Mecca?
So much for peaceful coexistence.
Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools.
We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and if done by an American treason.
There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.
When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.
I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.
Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack. Stop the denial, and realize a simple point.
The reality of your enemy must become your own.
Steadfast and Loyal,
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)”
To which, I replied:
And, yet, it is easy to understand how these words from Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) ring so true to so many people, isn't it?
There are those among us who see the United States as being under siege and threatened by evil forces from outside, wanting to destroy us. Now, this could be some mass paranoia, or it could be a vast right wing conspiracy to misdirect the attention of people away from what the right wing/radical Christians are trying to accomplish in this country, i.e., imposing their beliefs and views on everyone "Because they are the right beliefs and views", or, I suppose, it could be a simple statement of fact.
More likely, there is some truth in each of the above. (Have you noticed how success usually breeds contempt from the unsuccessful?)
Anyway, in the case of Major Nidal Hasan and his actions at Ft. Hood, it is hard to see in retrospect just how this managed to happen. There were so many clues, and so many people aware of his thoughts and beliefs. How did this go unaddressed by the authorities? A simple screw up? An excess of political correctness? Some twisted liberal agenda? You know, there will be a big investigation and -- maybe -- some definitive answers. I don't know. But, I do think we must, as a country and a people, be careful not to cut our nose off to spite our face.
And what do I mean by that?
Well, we are a country of principals and beliefs, which are contained in our Founding Documents and Supporting Works, such as the Federalist Papers, etc. I believe we must be true to those. I'm speaking of things like freedom of religion, press, speech, right to assemble -- you know, the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of citizens. We also have to be vigilant, so that we protect those things. Among all those things is the concept found in our law, and in English Common Law from which much of our law derives, that a person -- and by extension, a group of persons -- is innocent until proven guilty. We know that there is a Jihadist movement of Islam out there that does not like this country. We know that because they say so at every opportunity, and demonstrate it on a fairly frequent basis. But -- and it's a big "but" -- we have to be careful that we do not see all Muslims, all Imams, as having these same views. It might be easy or tempting, but we have to resist that temptation. The good Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) sounds a bit too ready to treat every person of the Islamic faith as a radical Jihadists bent on our destruction. (It’s possible that I have misunderstood the good Lieutenant Colonel, but I don’t think so.)
From what I know now -- and that's what I've read in the papers and seen on the television -- it looks like Major Hasan did plan what he did, and that he did intentionally and with forethought carry out his plan. If a court finds him guilty -- and you gotta wonder where this man is going to get a really fair trial? -- then he should be punished accordingly. But we cannot apply his guilt to every person in the world who is a follower of Islam. And we cannot see every person walking the streets of this country who looks "Muslim" and apply Hasan's intentions and guilt to them as well.
Should we think that all liberals see Major Nidal Hasan as the victim here.? Or that all conservatives are Neo-Nazi Christian theo-crats?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Death Threats & Racism
I heard on the ABC news last night that death threats directed at President Obama are up 400% from those directed at any other president since they started keeping stats. This was in a story about racism and that was thought to be the primary cause for this. That's scary. Here I thought racism had died down to a managable ember. Guess I was wrong.
If you ask yourself, though, what other reason there could be, and you look at this whole situation honestly and without the blinders of political preference, maybe you, like me, would come to that same conclusion. Mr. Obama's political philosophy, his actions, his legistative programs are not 400% more offensive to the "American Way" than anyone else's have been. Could it just be the contrast between this guy and the last one? Is it too much, too quick?
The polarization in our country is reaching a point that you have to wonder if the whole thing won't just shatter from the build up of internal stresses. Many people are not willing or able to open their minds and consider anything other than what they already believe. The courage on one's convictions is great -- and we should all have that -- but those convictions need to be arrived at as a conscious act, after consideration of all the related facts you can get, and not based on the insane -- but oh, so entertaining -- ravings of a radio lunatic or the pontifications of some ivory tower air-head. I know too many people who will take whatever such men and women say without ever bothering to actually look up the info on what is being said. Trust no one: make up your own mind. Your OWN mind...
Oh, well...maybe it's just the weather. It has been raining a lot.....
If you ask yourself, though, what other reason there could be, and you look at this whole situation honestly and without the blinders of political preference, maybe you, like me, would come to that same conclusion. Mr. Obama's political philosophy, his actions, his legistative programs are not 400% more offensive to the "American Way" than anyone else's have been. Could it just be the contrast between this guy and the last one? Is it too much, too quick?
The polarization in our country is reaching a point that you have to wonder if the whole thing won't just shatter from the build up of internal stresses. Many people are not willing or able to open their minds and consider anything other than what they already believe. The courage on one's convictions is great -- and we should all have that -- but those convictions need to be arrived at as a conscious act, after consideration of all the related facts you can get, and not based on the insane -- but oh, so entertaining -- ravings of a radio lunatic or the pontifications of some ivory tower air-head. I know too many people who will take whatever such men and women say without ever bothering to actually look up the info on what is being said. Trust no one: make up your own mind. Your OWN mind...
Oh, well...maybe it's just the weather. It has been raining a lot.....
Friday, September 11, 2009
Robert Reich on THE PUBLIC OPTION
Check out what Robert Reich -- former Secretary of the Treasury and currently a professor at the University of California, Berkley -- has to say. It's only a couple of minutes of your time and tells it like I think it is.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
A couple of things...
Eight years ago – or so – we invaded Afghanistan for the stated purpose of capturing Osama Bin Laden and destroying his little gang of fanatics. It seems our reason for going there got away, is probably over next door in Pakistan. It seems to me our reason for being in Afghanistan no longer applies. I say we come on home.
Now, I do understand the concern about the Taliban, that they may gain the upper hand in Pakistan, getting access to their nuclear weapons stockpile in the process, or that if we leave Bin Laden will come back across the border, set up shop again, and start blowing people up in Dallas. I had a very reasonable, well educated woman explain all that to me in some detail at the grocery store yesterday. My answer was to maintain bases in the area – not combat – and if he sticks his head up, well, that’s what those little drones are for. They work. I don’t think the cost of staying in Afghanistan – the lives of our young men and women, the billions of dollars, are worth it.
The other thing…
I have satellite and that wonderful little box that records stuff, pauses, backs up, and all that. So, on Fridays, after we’ve gone to bed, it records Bill Maher’s show on HBO. I got around to watching last Friday’s episode Sunday. It was a special edition and instead of having a panel to discuss a range of issues, he had only two guests and spend 30 minutes with each one. One of his guests was Bill Moyers. If there is any way you can go back and watch that part of his show I strongly suggest you do so. Mr. Moyers spoke eloquently and in very easily understood terms about Afghanistan and health care. He made the point that health care for everyone is not a political issue, it’s a moral one. He asked what was moral or ethical about a system that decides who gets well – and sometimes, who dies – based on how much money they have? And I so agree with that. I don’t have an answer to the question of how to fix things – other than to point out that it would help is we were not spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq and Afghanistan – but there are many people smarter than I am who should be able to come up with something. Neither party in Congress is serving the best interest of the people at the moment.
So, until the next time…
Now, I do understand the concern about the Taliban, that they may gain the upper hand in Pakistan, getting access to their nuclear weapons stockpile in the process, or that if we leave Bin Laden will come back across the border, set up shop again, and start blowing people up in Dallas. I had a very reasonable, well educated woman explain all that to me in some detail at the grocery store yesterday. My answer was to maintain bases in the area – not combat – and if he sticks his head up, well, that’s what those little drones are for. They work. I don’t think the cost of staying in Afghanistan – the lives of our young men and women, the billions of dollars, are worth it.
The other thing…
I have satellite and that wonderful little box that records stuff, pauses, backs up, and all that. So, on Fridays, after we’ve gone to bed, it records Bill Maher’s show on HBO. I got around to watching last Friday’s episode Sunday. It was a special edition and instead of having a panel to discuss a range of issues, he had only two guests and spend 30 minutes with each one. One of his guests was Bill Moyers. If there is any way you can go back and watch that part of his show I strongly suggest you do so. Mr. Moyers spoke eloquently and in very easily understood terms about Afghanistan and health care. He made the point that health care for everyone is not a political issue, it’s a moral one. He asked what was moral or ethical about a system that decides who gets well – and sometimes, who dies – based on how much money they have? And I so agree with that. I don’t have an answer to the question of how to fix things – other than to point out that it would help is we were not spending billions of dollars a month in Iraq and Afghanistan – but there are many people smarter than I am who should be able to come up with something. Neither party in Congress is serving the best interest of the people at the moment.
So, until the next time…
Friday, September 4, 2009
The President wants to talk to your kids....
Good morning…
Yesterday afternoon the news summary on my home page had a story from the STAR-TELEGRAM, a newspaper in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area about parents, grandparents, and some school districts objecting to a speech President Obama would make next Tuesday to America’s school children. Then, they covered it on the ABC Evening News last night, noting that there were also objections from Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin. This morning, the Associated Press reports that this is blowing up into a BIG DEAL. So, naturally, I have some thoughts and comments…
The Secretary of Education, Ann Duncan, sent a letter out to all schools saying the President would talk to students about the need to study and work hard to get a good education. Sounds like a pep-talk to students, doesn’t it? Here’s what one politico had to say: “As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq." (AP article) One has to wonder what they are putting in the coffee in Oklahoma these days.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously." Then along comes Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer who said in a statement he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." (AP) Socialist ideology? Really? Is that what getting a good education is? Is that what parental responsibility and a student’s individual responsibility is all about? Socialist ideology?
“Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Governor Rick Perry of Texas said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?" (AP) Well, there was that letter from the Secretary of Education, and lesson plans were distributed, and it sounds to me like the people who needed the information got it.
Now, back in 1991 President George H. W. Bush also made a little talk to the nation’s school children. At that time there was not outrage from parents, grandparents, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all that bunch, but Democrats did complain that the President had made his talk a thinly veiled campaign commercial. Is this just payback, well orchestrated and organized by Limbaugh – Beck – et. al?
Come on…has everyone gone nuts?
Plano, Texas PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn worried that the President was cutting out the parent by speaking to the kids when parents were not present. She wondered why he couldn’t make his speech in the evening when parents could sit down with their kids and they could watch it together. I suppose he could, but I wonder how many parents would take the time or make the effort. My wife taught 3rd grade in our local schools for 36 years. I have reason to believe that quite a large number would not.
Anyway, since when do we have to fear a speech by the President of the United States? Any of them? Do anyone honestly believe that in 15 minutes he will totally corrupt the nation’s school children? That he would want to? I’m appalled at this kind of reaction, even from the lunatic fringes.
Today, shortly after 8:00 AM I will call our local school superintendent’s office to say how much I, as a tax paying citizen, and a grandparent of two boys who attend these schools, support the showing of the President’s speech, and some meaningful discussion of why an education is important, setting and working towards personal goals, and how the teachers and the system can help students to achieve.
Sanity has to prevail. It just has to. Doesn’t it?
Yesterday afternoon the news summary on my home page had a story from the STAR-TELEGRAM, a newspaper in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area about parents, grandparents, and some school districts objecting to a speech President Obama would make next Tuesday to America’s school children. Then, they covered it on the ABC Evening News last night, noting that there were also objections from Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin. This morning, the Associated Press reports that this is blowing up into a BIG DEAL. So, naturally, I have some thoughts and comments…
The Secretary of Education, Ann Duncan, sent a letter out to all schools saying the President would talk to students about the need to study and work hard to get a good education. Sounds like a pep-talk to students, doesn’t it? Here’s what one politico had to say: “As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq." (AP article) One has to wonder what they are putting in the coffee in Oklahoma these days.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously." Then along comes Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer who said in a statement he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." (AP) Socialist ideology? Really? Is that what getting a good education is? Is that what parental responsibility and a student’s individual responsibility is all about? Socialist ideology?
“Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Governor Rick Perry of Texas said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?" (AP) Well, there was that letter from the Secretary of Education, and lesson plans were distributed, and it sounds to me like the people who needed the information got it.
Now, back in 1991 President George H. W. Bush also made a little talk to the nation’s school children. At that time there was not outrage from parents, grandparents, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all that bunch, but Democrats did complain that the President had made his talk a thinly veiled campaign commercial. Is this just payback, well orchestrated and organized by Limbaugh – Beck – et. al?
Come on…has everyone gone nuts?
Plano, Texas PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn worried that the President was cutting out the parent by speaking to the kids when parents were not present. She wondered why he couldn’t make his speech in the evening when parents could sit down with their kids and they could watch it together. I suppose he could, but I wonder how many parents would take the time or make the effort. My wife taught 3rd grade in our local schools for 36 years. I have reason to believe that quite a large number would not.
Anyway, since when do we have to fear a speech by the President of the United States? Any of them? Do anyone honestly believe that in 15 minutes he will totally corrupt the nation’s school children? That he would want to? I’m appalled at this kind of reaction, even from the lunatic fringes.
Today, shortly after 8:00 AM I will call our local school superintendent’s office to say how much I, as a tax paying citizen, and a grandparent of two boys who attend these schools, support the showing of the President’s speech, and some meaningful discussion of why an education is important, setting and working towards personal goals, and how the teachers and the system can help students to achieve.
Sanity has to prevail. It just has to. Doesn’t it?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Officer & The First Admendment
About leaving comments -- some people have contacted me to say they were unable to leave a comment. In the comments pop-up, where it says "choose and identity" it should work if you check "other". If not, please refer to the Help link......
This was in my email inbox this morning and just begs a reply. It would be fun to go through it line by line, adding my comments and corrections, but space and time is limited. By the way, The Investors Business Daily is a mouthpiece of the right wing, not at all an impartial, fair, or balanced source of news. Their article is crammed full of editorial slight-of-hand. To the friend who sent it, thanks…..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all should be afraid, very afraid of the unchecked power of ALL the appointed Czar's. Diversity Czar Threatens Free Speech By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, August 31, 2009 4:30 PM PT 1st Amendment: Mark Lloyd, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and fan of Hugo Chavez, wants to destroy talk radio and says free speech is a distraction. The new FCC diversity "czar" says Venezuela is an example we should follow. When Mark Lloyd was appointed July 29 as the chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission, a nation focused on ObamaCare and a deteriorating economy took little notice. But as angry constituents flood town hall meetings and call in to talk radio, a man dedicated to silencing them sits at the right hand of the president. They share a common hero - Saul Alinsky - who wrote the community organizer's bible, "Rules for Radicals." It speaks of confrontation or, as candidate Obama put it, of "getting in their faces" as a way to obtain power, not from the people or for the people, but over the people. Lloyd has written that we make too much of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press - for "the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance." We thought we were democratically governed. We thought we could vote as we choose after a vigorous and open debate. Once the major networks served as information gatekeepers controlling what we saw and heard. Now talk radio, the Internet and cable news have enhanced democracy by promoting the free flow of information and discourse. Lloyd wants to stop all that. Fox News host Glenn Beck has done yeoman work in exposing this threat posed by Mr. Lloyd. He points out that in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America," Lloyd wrote: "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. . . . This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. . . . At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." Lloyd wants to restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations and ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. The kicker is he would also require owners who refuse to give up profitable air time in the name of "localism" to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. He proposes using the existing FCC "localism" requirement, which can mean anything from running more public service announcements to putting Janeane Garofalo on after Rush Limbaugh. Local community organizers would be encouraged to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. He essentially proposes extorting money from broadcasters who have the audacity to air the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, all of whom have competed in the marketplace of ideas and won in the ratings, and use it to fund those outfits nobody wants to listen to - like NPR and Air America. As Lloyd writes, the "part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (Rush Limbaugh fans) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay." Or worse. The FCC could then say they had enough justification to revoke a station's license if they didn't comply or pay a fee. In true Alinsky style, shut them up by shutting them down. Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez's "incredible revolution" in Venezuela and the way "Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country" by imposing restraints on cable TV and revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations" that insufficiently toed the Chavez party line. Lloyd long ago declared war on unbridled talk radio and cable news. He wrote that "our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic and morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters." When Mark Lloyd talks about diversity, it is not diversity of opinion. As in the '60s sci-fi series, "Outer Limits," his advice is to "sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thoughts….. First, don’t you just love the way that very last sentence, while citing the origin of the quote, really makes it sound like it came from Mr. Lloyd? And, I don't like the term 'czar', with its connotation of 'absolute ruler'. No one in our government has the kind of power a 'czar' had, or anything approaching it. The system is designed to make that impossible and has worked pretty well.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Lloyd, his views, or with what an FCC DIVERSITY OFFICER is supposed to do. I remember hearing something several months ago about someone who wanted to bring back The Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters. Was that him? You may remember that, The Fairness Doctrine. It was an FCC ruling that said anyone using the public broadcast frequencies and getting a license from the FCC to operate had to provide "equal time for opposing views". The FCC abolished the rule in 1987, during Ronal Regan's tenure as president. I always thought The Fairness Doctrine made a lot of sense if you buy the notion that broadcast radio and television have a duty to present all sides of an issue honestly and non-judgmentally so that a person can make better decisions. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) That idea is based on the fact that broadcast frequencies are a finite resource. There are only so many of them, fewer than there are people and entities wanting to use them. So, when those frequencies are entrusted to an entity, they come with some responsibilities attached, and the government has a right to some control “in the public good”. The Supreme Court has upheld that idea, by the way. You might also want to read an article entitled: THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE; HOW WE LOST IT, AND WHY WE NEED IT BACK by Steve Rendall at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm. It is well worth the time it takes to read and explains the issue in some detail. A short quote explains what happened to the doctrine, the how and why of it.
"The 80s brought the Reagan Revolution, with its army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance—it’s a toaster with pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.”
I’m thinking Mr. Lloyd would like a return to something like The Fairness Doctrine, but he is coming at it from the direction of "broadcasters as marketplace participants". (I also think it interesting, as an aside, that Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, et al, are so opposed.) At any rate, it seems to me that all this flack is based on something Mr. Lloyd wrote and said during his tenure in previous positions. I can’t support him in thinking that Mr. Chavez is a good idea, but then I don’t know if he said that, when, or under what circumstances. A lot of people thought Mr. Chavez was a good idea at the beginning. I'm not at all sure that Mr. Lloyd’s current position puts him in a place where he has any official say in the matter.
But, I will dig a little deeper. Until then, keep thinking.......
This was in my email inbox this morning and just begs a reply. It would be fun to go through it line by line, adding my comments and corrections, but space and time is limited. By the way, The Investors Business Daily is a mouthpiece of the right wing, not at all an impartial, fair, or balanced source of news. Their article is crammed full of editorial slight-of-hand. To the friend who sent it, thanks…..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all should be afraid, very afraid of the unchecked power of ALL the appointed Czar's. Diversity Czar Threatens Free Speech By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, August 31, 2009 4:30 PM PT 1st Amendment: Mark Lloyd, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and fan of Hugo Chavez, wants to destroy talk radio and says free speech is a distraction. The new FCC diversity "czar" says Venezuela is an example we should follow. When Mark Lloyd was appointed July 29 as the chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission, a nation focused on ObamaCare and a deteriorating economy took little notice. But as angry constituents flood town hall meetings and call in to talk radio, a man dedicated to silencing them sits at the right hand of the president. They share a common hero - Saul Alinsky - who wrote the community organizer's bible, "Rules for Radicals." It speaks of confrontation or, as candidate Obama put it, of "getting in their faces" as a way to obtain power, not from the people or for the people, but over the people. Lloyd has written that we make too much of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press - for "the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance." We thought we were democratically governed. We thought we could vote as we choose after a vigorous and open debate. Once the major networks served as information gatekeepers controlling what we saw and heard. Now talk radio, the Internet and cable news have enhanced democracy by promoting the free flow of information and discourse. Lloyd wants to stop all that. Fox News host Glenn Beck has done yeoman work in exposing this threat posed by Mr. Lloyd. He points out that in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America," Lloyd wrote: "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. . . . This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. . . . At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." Lloyd wants to restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations and ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. The kicker is he would also require owners who refuse to give up profitable air time in the name of "localism" to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. He proposes using the existing FCC "localism" requirement, which can mean anything from running more public service announcements to putting Janeane Garofalo on after Rush Limbaugh. Local community organizers would be encouraged to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. He essentially proposes extorting money from broadcasters who have the audacity to air the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, all of whom have competed in the marketplace of ideas and won in the ratings, and use it to fund those outfits nobody wants to listen to - like NPR and Air America. As Lloyd writes, the "part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (Rush Limbaugh fans) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay." Or worse. The FCC could then say they had enough justification to revoke a station's license if they didn't comply or pay a fee. In true Alinsky style, shut them up by shutting them down. Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez's "incredible revolution" in Venezuela and the way "Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country" by imposing restraints on cable TV and revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations" that insufficiently toed the Chavez party line. Lloyd long ago declared war on unbridled talk radio and cable news. He wrote that "our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic and morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters." When Mark Lloyd talks about diversity, it is not diversity of opinion. As in the '60s sci-fi series, "Outer Limits," his advice is to "sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thoughts….. First, don’t you just love the way that very last sentence, while citing the origin of the quote, really makes it sound like it came from Mr. Lloyd? And, I don't like the term 'czar', with its connotation of 'absolute ruler'. No one in our government has the kind of power a 'czar' had, or anything approaching it. The system is designed to make that impossible and has worked pretty well.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Lloyd, his views, or with what an FCC DIVERSITY OFFICER is supposed to do. I remember hearing something several months ago about someone who wanted to bring back The Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters. Was that him? You may remember that, The Fairness Doctrine. It was an FCC ruling that said anyone using the public broadcast frequencies and getting a license from the FCC to operate had to provide "equal time for opposing views". The FCC abolished the rule in 1987, during Ronal Regan's tenure as president. I always thought The Fairness Doctrine made a lot of sense if you buy the notion that broadcast radio and television have a duty to present all sides of an issue honestly and non-judgmentally so that a person can make better decisions. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) That idea is based on the fact that broadcast frequencies are a finite resource. There are only so many of them, fewer than there are people and entities wanting to use them. So, when those frequencies are entrusted to an entity, they come with some responsibilities attached, and the government has a right to some control “in the public good”. The Supreme Court has upheld that idea, by the way. You might also want to read an article entitled: THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE; HOW WE LOST IT, AND WHY WE NEED IT BACK by Steve Rendall at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm. It is well worth the time it takes to read and explains the issue in some detail. A short quote explains what happened to the doctrine, the how and why of it.
"The 80s brought the Reagan Revolution, with its army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance—it’s a toaster with pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.”
I’m thinking Mr. Lloyd would like a return to something like The Fairness Doctrine, but he is coming at it from the direction of "broadcasters as marketplace participants". (I also think it interesting, as an aside, that Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, et al, are so opposed.) At any rate, it seems to me that all this flack is based on something Mr. Lloyd wrote and said during his tenure in previous positions. I can’t support him in thinking that Mr. Chavez is a good idea, but then I don’t know if he said that, when, or under what circumstances. A lot of people thought Mr. Chavez was a good idea at the beginning. I'm not at all sure that Mr. Lloyd’s current position puts him in a place where he has any official say in the matter.
But, I will dig a little deeper. Until then, keep thinking.......
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Cap and Tax
Yesterday (8-31-09) there was an editorial in the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE titled "Cap and Trade". Well, I had some thoughts.....
There is a man, Claiborne Deming, who is chairman of Murphy Oil's executive committee, was speaking at the Clinton Library in Little Rock very recently and the writer of the editorial went to hear what he had to say. I didn't, but did hear him on a couple of local NPR radio shows. Since he said the same thing of both of those, I think he probably said about the same thing at the Clinton Library. Things mentioned in the editorial indicate that. Mr. Deming does not like "cap and trade" and the energy bill currently making its way through the congress. Now when you see 'chairman of the executive committee' of Murphy Oil, Arkansas' biggest entry into the oil brotherhood, you just know he's not going to be in favor of any bill that will change the picture on energy. It could cost his company. And him. But I have to give the man credit, what I heard on the radio did make some sense.
One thing Mr. Deming said was that, suppose the country did get very serious about about cutting back on carbon emissions? Then the editorial writer babbles about going back to covered wagons, no electricity. Were those his words or Mr. Deming's? Mr. Deming, on the radio, did not impress me as a man who would say something so silly. Anyway, the point was that just because we did it did not mean the whole world would, especially the developing countries like China and India. Mr. Deming seems to believe that any move to limit carbon emissions would mean a significant loss of economic resources and power for us. He points out the the U. S. is pretty much post-industrial and that our carbon footprint is fairly flat-lined, and wonders what good it would do world air quality for us to start limiting carbon emissions when the rest of the world does not? That's a fair question, I think, with a fairly obvious answer. But, I thought that we, as a country, prided ourselves on being that 'shining city on the hill', and example -- a good example. We certainly have not standing to ask -- or demand -- such limits from other countries if we're not willing to limit ourselves.
Mr. Deming would prefer that instead of calling it cap and trade we all refer to it as 'cap and tax' and I hear this a lot from those opposed to the whole idea. "Cap and trade" has a reasonable sound to it, would appear to be fair, easy, something workable without much, if any, additional cost. However, "Cap and tax" is an alarm bell. Now, truth to tell, I don't understand the whole thing enough to say which is the more accurate. But I am cautious when people start using phrases designed to create fear and loathing. Then, he went on to say that if we're to cut fuel emissions by 83 percent over the next 40 years, people in Arkansas would have to cut the miles driven yearly from 12,500 to 6,700 or about 50 percent. Of course what he did not say -- nor did the editorial writer -- is that that is true only if we make no progress over the next 40 years in fuel economy or even -- heaven forbid -- quit using oil/gasoline/diesel as our primary transportation fuel. You know, there's a lot of R&D going on aimed at just that goal. And much of it appears promising. At any rate, the cost of gasoline over the next 40 years is going to go up, probably very significantly. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. If we continue to depend on gasoline and diesel to power our cars and trucks, most of us will have to cut back on miles driven anyway. We won't be able to afford the gasoline any more. (Remember last year? $4.00+ per gallon. You think those days are not coming back?)
Mr. Deming says that this cap and trade bill -- HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009 -- is going to change our lifestyles significantly over the next 50 years, in ways we won't like, but that it does not tell the American people about those changes. In fact, he suggest, and the editorial writer just fans the fire here, "They" are hiding it all from the people because "they" know the people would not stand for those changes. Come on, our lifestyles are going to change over the next 50 years no matter what we do or do not do. The question is do we want changes brought about by radical attempts to maintain the status quo, or by research and development, by PROGRESS. He makes a plea for tax incentives for companies to purchase new diesel engines for their cars and trucks because the technology has improved so much since the last fleet re-do. What about tax incentives for individuals who add solar or wind power technology to power their homes. That technology has improved a lot over the last several years too. Investing in that will lead to even more improvement in the future, open up all kinds of new jobs and careers.
Then, we trot out nuclear energy. Folks, I'm of mixed feelings about nuclear energy. Sure, other countries have invested in a big way and now get significant amounts of their energy from nuclear power. And yes, there have been only two significant "accidents" that we know of, and only one of those was really serious. Do you want to be living next door to the next really serious one? What to do with all that spent fuel laying around. It's extremely hazardous -- and a potential target of terrorists. No one wants this stuff stored in their back yard! And the promise of cheap energy from nuclear power has never materialized, has it? Did your electrical cost go down when Arkansas 1 and 2 came on line? I didn't notice it if it did. I can't find any real figures from the US or other places to back up the claim to cheap nuclear energy.
I think Mr. Deming's take on this issue is heavily influenced by both his current and former positions in the oil industry and the determination of that industry to make sure it stays on top, that nothing else comes along that is better, cheaper, cleaner, more desirable. And I think the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is afraid of progress, determined to prevent anything good from coming out of the current administration.
I'm going to read up some more about HR2454. I would suggest that we all do so. You can't have a viable democracy without an informed public and a lot of the people that are trying to inform you have private agendas. Be careful.
Just my thoughts...........
There is a man, Claiborne Deming, who is chairman of Murphy Oil's executive committee, was speaking at the Clinton Library in Little Rock very recently and the writer of the editorial went to hear what he had to say. I didn't, but did hear him on a couple of local NPR radio shows. Since he said the same thing of both of those, I think he probably said about the same thing at the Clinton Library. Things mentioned in the editorial indicate that. Mr. Deming does not like "cap and trade" and the energy bill currently making its way through the congress. Now when you see 'chairman of the executive committee' of Murphy Oil, Arkansas' biggest entry into the oil brotherhood, you just know he's not going to be in favor of any bill that will change the picture on energy. It could cost his company. And him. But I have to give the man credit, what I heard on the radio did make some sense.
One thing Mr. Deming said was that, suppose the country did get very serious about about cutting back on carbon emissions? Then the editorial writer babbles about going back to covered wagons, no electricity. Were those his words or Mr. Deming's? Mr. Deming, on the radio, did not impress me as a man who would say something so silly. Anyway, the point was that just because we did it did not mean the whole world would, especially the developing countries like China and India. Mr. Deming seems to believe that any move to limit carbon emissions would mean a significant loss of economic resources and power for us. He points out the the U. S. is pretty much post-industrial and that our carbon footprint is fairly flat-lined, and wonders what good it would do world air quality for us to start limiting carbon emissions when the rest of the world does not? That's a fair question, I think, with a fairly obvious answer. But, I thought that we, as a country, prided ourselves on being that 'shining city on the hill', and example -- a good example. We certainly have not standing to ask -- or demand -- such limits from other countries if we're not willing to limit ourselves.
Mr. Deming would prefer that instead of calling it cap and trade we all refer to it as 'cap and tax' and I hear this a lot from those opposed to the whole idea. "Cap and trade" has a reasonable sound to it, would appear to be fair, easy, something workable without much, if any, additional cost. However, "Cap and tax" is an alarm bell. Now, truth to tell, I don't understand the whole thing enough to say which is the more accurate. But I am cautious when people start using phrases designed to create fear and loathing. Then, he went on to say that if we're to cut fuel emissions by 83 percent over the next 40 years, people in Arkansas would have to cut the miles driven yearly from 12,500 to 6,700 or about 50 percent. Of course what he did not say -- nor did the editorial writer -- is that that is true only if we make no progress over the next 40 years in fuel economy or even -- heaven forbid -- quit using oil/gasoline/diesel as our primary transportation fuel. You know, there's a lot of R&D going on aimed at just that goal. And much of it appears promising. At any rate, the cost of gasoline over the next 40 years is going to go up, probably very significantly. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. If we continue to depend on gasoline and diesel to power our cars and trucks, most of us will have to cut back on miles driven anyway. We won't be able to afford the gasoline any more. (Remember last year? $4.00+ per gallon. You think those days are not coming back?)
Mr. Deming says that this cap and trade bill -- HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009 -- is going to change our lifestyles significantly over the next 50 years, in ways we won't like, but that it does not tell the American people about those changes. In fact, he suggest, and the editorial writer just fans the fire here, "They" are hiding it all from the people because "they" know the people would not stand for those changes. Come on, our lifestyles are going to change over the next 50 years no matter what we do or do not do. The question is do we want changes brought about by radical attempts to maintain the status quo, or by research and development, by PROGRESS. He makes a plea for tax incentives for companies to purchase new diesel engines for their cars and trucks because the technology has improved so much since the last fleet re-do. What about tax incentives for individuals who add solar or wind power technology to power their homes. That technology has improved a lot over the last several years too. Investing in that will lead to even more improvement in the future, open up all kinds of new jobs and careers.
Then, we trot out nuclear energy. Folks, I'm of mixed feelings about nuclear energy. Sure, other countries have invested in a big way and now get significant amounts of their energy from nuclear power. And yes, there have been only two significant "accidents" that we know of, and only one of those was really serious. Do you want to be living next door to the next really serious one? What to do with all that spent fuel laying around. It's extremely hazardous -- and a potential target of terrorists. No one wants this stuff stored in their back yard! And the promise of cheap energy from nuclear power has never materialized, has it? Did your electrical cost go down when Arkansas 1 and 2 came on line? I didn't notice it if it did. I can't find any real figures from the US or other places to back up the claim to cheap nuclear energy.
I think Mr. Deming's take on this issue is heavily influenced by both his current and former positions in the oil industry and the determination of that industry to make sure it stays on top, that nothing else comes along that is better, cheaper, cleaner, more desirable. And I think the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is afraid of progress, determined to prevent anything good from coming out of the current administration.
I'm going to read up some more about HR2454. I would suggest that we all do so. You can't have a viable democracy without an informed public and a lot of the people that are trying to inform you have private agendas. Be careful.
Just my thoughts...........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)