Search This Site

Loading

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Say No To Hillary

4 comments:

  1. your right wing friendJuly 5, 2007 at 10:54 PM

    Yeah, that's brilliant Petrol, let's make sure that the leader of the free world is an economic moron. What is wrong, in a capitalist society, of having a President (male, female, black, white, conservative, liberal) who knows, and likes business. I'm going to assume the fact that Mitt Romney is a successful businessman immediately rules him out, and by that thinking, doesn't it mean you would've supported Shrub, since he clearly was maybe the worst businessman of all time (when you can't make money on oil and/or baseball, isn't there something terribly terribly wrong)? I miss the good old days when people were judged by their, you know, ideas and not their cover stories. There are probably seven legitimate candidates on both sides of the aisle (and I'm not counting Bloomberg since you so clearly hate those who make money hand over fist) and each and every one of them has been successful at something. How about that...successful people trying to lead the free world...what a novel concept you lefty pot smoking hippie...take a shower.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personal philosophy aside, for the social contract I have no problem with people becoming fabulously rich in the private sector. I just maintain that there are areas that should be carved out solely for public interest, outside of the competition for profit. Media giants have cable, OK - fine. But the networks are public airwaves, and they can be, at the behest of Congress (the people), be regulated as we see fit. I repeat, there's plenty of opportunity for profit elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. your right wing friendJuly 6, 2007 at 7:37 AM

    Sure there is plenty of profit to be had in a variety of sectors, but, and I am asking, not telling (this time), is telling the moguls that they need to leave the public airwaves alone any different than telling the painter he can't display his work on the street? Where is the line? What is 'acceptable' for someone to make a profit on, and what isn't, and who is it that gets to make that call?

    Now I'll go back to being the lucid, truth telling right winger you libbies love to hate. They are already making a profit! The commercials aren't just paying for the transformer, they're paying the salaries of all the on and off camera talent, all the infrastructure that has been created. Outside of PBS is there another channel out there that is 'non-profit'? Even the religious channels are raising millions through their television ministries! Move into the real world and accept that, as Fall Out Boy said, This Ain't A Scene, It's a Goddamned Arms Race (see, and now I appear young and relavent too!)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sure there is plenty of profit to be had in a variety of sectors, but, and I am asking, not telling (this time), is telling the moguls that they need to leave the public airwaves alone any different than telling the painter he can't display his work on the street? Where is the line? What is 'acceptable' for someone to make a profit on, and what isn't, and who is it that gets to make that call?

    OK - I'm going to leave that mogul/painter analogy alone - it implodes all by itself solely by virtue of being in the same sentence, kinda like matter, meet antimatter.

    I never said for anyone to "leave the public airwaves alone." I said to remove the profit motive out of the general operations of the public airwaves. Of course, whoeever licenses public bandwidth is free to make a profit, just within regulated guidelines. For example - opposing viewpoints, requiring time for free Public Service Announcements, and restoring news gathering and reporting as a loss leader, a true public service. Abandoning them to purely corporate interests, who are beholden only to shareholders and profit completely ignores the interests of the public whom, as it is exquisitely evident, these corporations view as useful only as consumers.

    I know it's hard to believe for someone who has been educated in the modern Western culture (which pretty much dominates the world at the moment), but there is actually a space in humanity which is not primarily interested in profit. Sure, they need to "get by," but the idea of service to fellow human beings is a higher calling for some (check your favorite spiritual thinker for source.) It is this aspect of humanity which can only be cultivated by a community-based recognition and respect for such sentiments - it cannot and will not emerge in a Gordon Gecko, "Greed is good" milieu. Which is but a tiny (and need I say, mean) part of the human heart. Just as conscientous merchants cannot compete with the rapacious black market piracy (which is deologically-pure in the Gordon Gecko sense of the word) without community pushback (read "government"), so it is that the softer sides of our nature, our "better angels," as it were (ironically invoked by trickle-down Reaganites in a different context), require a community-supported space in which to flourish.

    Just to be clear - there is plenty of room for folks to make a living providing goods and services under the constraint of public oversight and regulation. Are you one of those "invisible hand" libertarians who would argue that the market would eventually have gotten rid of flammable pajamas all by itself? Oh, yeah - after the civil lawsuits became too burdensome they woulda eventually "come to Jesus" all by themselves, right? This idealism ignores a lot of things, like how many crispy babies get to be sacrificed before they garner the attention of the manufacturer, or the all-too-real phenomenon of companies going "out of business" and cropping up under a different charter to continue with business as usual.

    Now I'll go back to being the lucid, truth telling right winger you libbies love to hate.

    Um, while I can't speak for all "libbies," I can assure you that there is no hatred here. The very phrase "love to hate" is a noxious one, and as far as I can tell is only celebrated on the right.

    They are already making a profit!... Even the religious channels are raising millions through their television ministries!

    Great rhetorical choice. Pick one of the more obvious exploitive evils on the airwaves to make your point. Good show!

    Move into the real world and accept that, as Fall Out Boy said, This Ain't A Scene, It's a Goddamned Arms Race (see, and now I appear young and relavent too!)

    Aside from the fact that you obviously have no idea what that lyric is about (I assume you are implying that there is some sort of competition going on for scarce resources), then I can only point out an obvious fact which seems to escape the greedheads. We are all in this together, and if we don't support each other, it is no different than eating your own limbs to satisfy hunger. This should be obvious in these dire times to anyone who would look, and I leave this truth for you to contemplate (as I quoted Joe Bageant in this post:

    Take direct action to eliminate human suffering, and likewise to eliminate our own comfort.

    Take some time with that. I know it's counterintuitive.

    ReplyDelete

I welcome all reactions and points of view, so comments here are not moderated. Cheerfully "colorful" language is great. I'll even tolerate some ad hominem directed against me... each other, not so much. Racist or excessively abusive comments (or spam) will be deleted at my discretion.