You are a terrorist helper

[Nyairj]

Our friends overseas may have noticed that half our country is out of its mind. One reason may be the lack of a genuinely free press in America. Simply put, millions of Americans are not only ignorant but happily misinformed. Most of the big news organizations have surrendered to the Bush administration out of fear of getting Rathered. Then there are other news organizations, like the Republican Pravda, Fox News, the most watched "news channel" in America right now (beating out even CNN). This is not a news channel so much as a propaganda operation. People watch Fox News not because they want to hear the truth but because they want their preconceived notions confirmed, and people like Fox's Bill O'Reilly (their most popular talk show host) are all too happy to oblige.

For an example of the low to which American "journalism" has sunk, Bill O'Reilly has now begun to label people and organizations he doesn't like "terrorist helpers". It's important to keep in mind that the Constitution defines treason as aiding and abetting an enemy during a time of war, and it is punishable by death. In other words, if you disagree with the president, you are a traitor and should be shot. For the fascists watching this (or listening to Republican hate radio) at home, it isn't just "news" or "opinion", it's something more like 1984's Two Minutes Hate.

From here (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/25/oreilly_names_terrorist_helpers_traitors.php):



Bill O'Reilly announced tonight that he will be exposing and naming all the people and organizations he considers to be helping the terrorists on his show each night. He then offered all the accused a chance to come on to defend themselves because he realizes that it's a serious charge. O'Reilly appeared to be sincere in his belief that he is entitled to make these accusations.

The first installment of BOR finger pointing included the ACLU for their belief that the Geneva Conventions should be respected. Also their concern about Abu Ghraib and request for the release of more incriminating pictures,makes them helpers of terrorism.

Then the first individual, Bob Herbert, recieved the O'Reilly branding. According to O'Reilly, Herbert's writing enables the terrorists but the real problem is his refusal to condemn the ACLU . O'Reilly gave Herbert a slight pass claiming that he is blinded by his hatred of President Bush.

That was not enough for Bill who brought on Stephen Hayes and Robert Pollack, Wall Street Journal, to point their fingers at people. Hayes chose Michael Moore, Al Jazeera, Cynthia McKinney, and Jim McDermott for his list of "terrorist helpers". Robert Pollack chose Dick Durbin, BBC,and the UN for his list. O'Reilly accepted these choices respectfully as if it was a perfectly sane thing to do.

(etc.)

[Claverhouse]

Commie-lovin' raghead traitor. They know where you live.



'Those who are not for us, are against us'

Either V. I. Lenin or G. G. Bush quoting Jesus Christ.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[kendoiwan]

Living in an SJ world, with one of our own (Karl Rove) helping them do it. :mad: :rant:

[Hypnos]

There's still a free press (for the most part), and the majority have never been that interested in the truth. It's mostly for the benefit of agitators, so they can "fight the power" on a level field and organize.

[coffeezombie]

The press will write about whatever they think will get them viewers or readers. If they withhold some of the news, it is only because they have determined that the idiots in this country would not care about that piece of news. Certain news outlets have become much more negative about the war in Iraq ever since they have realized that public opinion seems to be swinging that way. Of course, Fox News is not one of those as they have established their niche among conservative viewers and don't wish to alienate them.

[Nyairj]

I say that the American press isn't genuinely free because either the press is another arm of the government (Fox News) or it might as well be (MSNBC). The Bushists are also working on making PBS "fair and balanced". If you don't like stenography to power, tough shit; there's nothing you can do about it. While you can start up a new paper or television station in theory, in practice your odds of ever seriously competing with the giant media corporations is extremely small no matter how innovative or aggressive you are.

In the past couple of decades, the government has sided with large corporate conglomerates at the expense of independent media, allowing greater and greater consolidation until today the media is controlled by a handful of corporations that are largely the same. Ted Turner (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html) wrote an article about this a while back:


This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger. Big media companies want to eliminate all ownership limits. With the removal of these limits, immense media power will pass into the hands of a very few corporations and individuals.

What will programming be like when it's produced for no other purpose than profit? What will news be like when there are no independent news organizations to go after stories the big corporations avoid? Who really wants to find out? Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of a large publicly traded media company. Its job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a way that encourages the entry into the market of entrepreneurs--men and women with big dreams, new ideas, and a willingness to take long-term risks--the economy will be stronger, and the country will be better off.

I freely admit: When I was in the media business, especially after the federal government changed the rules to favor large companies, I tried to sweep the board, and I came within one move of owning every link up and down the media chain. Yet I felt then, as I do now, that the government was not doing its job. The role of the government ought to be like the role of a referee in boxing, keeping the big guys from killing the little guys. If the little guy gets knocked down, the referee should send the big guy to his corner, count the little guy out, and then help him back up. But today the government has cast down its duty, and media competition is less like boxing and more like professional wrestling: The wrestler and the referee are both kicking the guy on the canvas.

At this late stage, media companies have grown so large and powerful, and their dominance has become so detrimental to the survival of small, emerging companies, that there remains only one alternative: bust up the big conglomerates. We've done this before: to the railroad trusts in the first part of the 20th century, to Ma Bell more recently. Indeed, big media itself was cut down to size in the 1970s, and a period of staggering innovation and growth followed. Breaking up the reconstituted media conglomerates may seem like an impossible task when their grip on the policy-making process in Washington seems so sure. But the public's broad and bipartisan rebellion against the FCC's pro-consolidation decisions suggests something different. Politically, big media may again be on the wrong side of history--and up against a country unwilling to lose its independents.

[Hypnos]

Pfft. There's this little thing called the Internet, and independent newspapers flourish.

[Claverhouse]

Of course, Fox News is not one of those as they have established their niche among conservative viewers and don't wish to alienate them.
The sweetest commercial lock: catering for idiots.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[meshou]

Last I heard, Fox News is a business. They will do what sells. Yes, they peddle bullshit, yep, it might be pushed by Senior Monkey himself. But no one holds a gun to the head of the people that watch it.

The press isn't free. It's controlled by the almighty dollar, and they will pander to the dollar with everything they have.

The problem isn't that we're being lied to. We like it enough to make lies far more profitable than the truth, don't we?

[Hypnos]

The press isn't free. It's controlled by the almighty dollar, and they will pander to the dollar with everything they have.

The problem isn't that we're being lied to. We like it enough to make lies far more profitable than the truth, don't we?
It's a matter of legitimacy. There are legitimate news sources, even profit-making ones, that are perfectly truthful -- you just have to know which ones.

[meshou]

It's a matter of legitimacy. There are legitimate news sources, even profit-making ones, that are perfectly truthful -- you just have to know which ones.Nah. All have some bias, I think. I already know the less biased ones.

Just pointing out that Fox isn't controlled by the governement, but by the people. Got problems with the press, find fault with your neighbors. Silly to rage against something that gives people what they want, get mad at the people who want it.

[Nyairj]

Turner also talks about the internet:


Second, the decision cites the "diversity-enhancing value of the Internet." The FCC is confusing diversity with variety. The top 20 Internet news sites are owned by the same media conglomerates that control the broadcast and cable networks. Sure, a hundred-person choir gives you a choice of voices, but they're all singing the same song.

There's no doubt that you can find truly independent news sources on the internet. It's how I get my news. However, people tend not to go to these sites as often as they go to the TV for the news, and when they use the internet, they usually go to the big conglomerates. You could try to get people to get their news from independent web sites more often, but you'd fail. I don't think having the ability to reach a small number of people is enough to call it a free press, even if it isn't as bad as China or North Korea where they censor you outright.

From what I have seen, newspapers tend not to be as bad as TV news, but even they have been intimidated by the Bush administration and its followers. They bury stories that would be damaging to the administration where people are unlikely to see them, or drop the ball (if we're being generous) on important stories (recently, the Downing Street memos which put the lie to the Bush administration's pre-war claims were a big one), or they print front page stories on nonsense like the Michael Jackson case when more important things are going on, or they subtly use passive voice or exclude important information in order to stack the cards in the administration's favor. Before the war, even the "liberal" New York Times was printing specious "information" on its front pages supporting the call to war. Cursor (www.cursor.org), Media Matters (www.mediamatters.org), and others follow this closely.

Edit: corrected url

[SheepDog]

Who does Bill O'Reilly think he is? Joseph McCarthy?

[Claverhouse]

Last I heard, Fox News is a business. They will do what sells. Yes, they peddle bullshit, yep, it might be pushed by Senior Monkey himself. But no one holds a gun to the head of the people that watch it.
Don't think anyone has suggested they do. Dope-peddlers don't hold guns to force the stuff on their clientele.


The press isn't free. It's controlled by the almighty dollar, and they will pander to the dollar with everything they have.

The problem isn't that we're being lied to. We like it enough to make lies far more profitable than the truth, don't we?
Be extremely careful with your use of pronouns.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nyairj]

I don't accept the assumption that things are the way they are because people want it this way. When did we vote for media consolidation? Who even knows anything about this issue? It's not like the big conglomerates are going to volunteer that information.

[Hypnos]

I don't accept the assumption that things are the way they are because people want it this way. When did we vote for media consolidation? Who even knows anything about this issue? It's not like the big conglomerates are going to volunteer that information.
Vote with your dollars. If you don't like their crap, don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives.

[Claverhouse]

Who does Bill O'Reilly think he is? Joseph McCarthy?
Trouble was McCarthy was generally right: these clowns are generally wrong.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nyairj]

Vote with your dollars. If you don't like their crap, don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives.

There aren't plenty of alternatives because the media giants continue to grow and keep independents out. Although there are independent news sources out there, people may not be aware of them. Also, I'd imagine that there are still some people out there that believe in journalistic objectivity. They don't know when they are being spoonfed bullshit because they don't know enough to be able to judge one way or the other.

[coffeezombie]

Trouble was McCarthy was generally right

Right about who was a communist, at least. Not about his excessively negative attitudes towards them. :P

[Claverhouse]

Dunno, they've have made America a proper little hell if Stalin had won.

Naturlich I distinguish between Americans who believed in communist dreams, like some of the Wobblies, say; and those who supported the Comintern. The first is a legitimate struggle for social justice; the second were agents of a bestial system.

Yanks had suffered starvation through the capitalist system/( can't think of the word, but dustbowls come to mind ) farming land to death in the 30s, without needing to starve again through communist inefficiency and be exterminated as kulaks if they protested.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[joft]

Holding a gun to someone's head isn't the only way to influence their decisions/opinions

You could also, I dunno, situate an entire culture and economy and mandatory educational system, things of that nature, or little things like hire only attractve female anchors, cake them in as much make-up as possible, strap them in a tight short skirt and have the camera far back enough to get their legs into the picture, the whole throwing-professionalism-to-the-wind-and-going-for-actors-and-drama type of thing. which also works great because the whole culture and education thing might also give people a taste for the whole fastfood/diet pill/soundbyte type of information (as opposed to anything that would require more "attention" or time)

[meshou]

Don't think anyone has suggested they do. Dope-peddlers don't hold guns to force the stuff on their clientele.Yep. They give people what they want, and I find no fault in drug dealers either. The evils of prohibiting people from making their own choices are far worse than the evils resulting from free choice.
Be extremely careful with your use of pronouns.*shrug* The economy can only be talked about in terms of we.

[meshou]

I don't accept the assumption that things are the way they are because people want it this way. When did we vote for media consolidation?Money is the most effective voting system out there. When more people watched right wings news sources more than the left wing ones, they voted for a right wing media.
Who even knows anything about this issue? It's not like the big conglomerates are going to volunteer that information.Big conglomerates are out to make money. That's it. Think of it in those terms and its obvious.

[Zero Angel]

I've seen that happen often in local politics. Present one side of the story, and let people 'vote' without realizing the drawbacks. Of course they will vote yes if all they see is benefits.

True, but the same evils might also be attributed to giving the people wrong/one-sided information that allows them to make dumb choices. Because they are not concerned enough to look it up objectively or can't even if they wanted to.

When free-choice is used as that, then it's an insult to the people because they are fooled into going wherever (whoever has the information) wants them to go. You might as well be taking their choice away from them if that is the case.

I see some politicians talking about 'unity' and that 'we shouldnt argue', but they only say that because any oppositon to their plans stops them from benefitting from it, not to support the actual ideal. Same with patriotism. Conflict (debate as opposed to name calling) has its place in ensuring that the best choices are made because people must fight for them.

[SheepDog]

I just watched this video, it's quite relevant, and equally frightening. It's about corporate media in the US:

http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/

[SheepDog]

The fight over the "free" internet has begun:

The fight over Community Internet has reached Capitol Hill. A bill in the House would prevent cities and towns anywhere from providing high-speed Internet access. (Send a letter now to help stop this disastrous bill.) A similar measure is expected soon in the Senate.
http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/

[mgb]

The fight over the "free" internet has begun:

http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/

I love that stuff. It's probably tacked on to a bill about buying bulletproof vest for soldiers in Iraq.

You can't blame the media for everything.

[Nyairj]

I'm not convinced that the demand for right wing news is greater. The reason for the rightward shift in the news is probably mostly political.

The American right is much more organized and better funded than Democrats, and that they are very good at bending the media to its will. They make use of something called the "echo chamber" through the use of talking points in order to augment their ability to get their message across and also to gain ground in corporate media sources they don't control. People may not realize that they are in the middle of a right wing coup because Republicans are good at projecting the image of right-wing, pro-Bush, pro-war religious primitives being the norm, statistics be damned, and making normal people feel isolated in their views through effective manipulation of the media.

When you hear only one pundit on the news saying something ("John Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy", for example), you aren't inclined to believe him, although he could be right. But when you hear a whole bunch of pundits saying the same thing, the average person is more likely to believe it because it is coming from many sources (usually with the word "expert" under his/her name, just like the Daily Show). It's human nature to look around and see what others are doing and saying if you are unsure what's going on. Doubly so if the other people seem to know what they are doing. If two dozen "experts" tell you that John Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, you're going to believe it if you're the average Joe or Jane. They have everyone repeat these talking points on every media outlet they control, and they also send their people to the ones they don't control as "guests" to spread it as far as possible for maximum effect. This is a handy shortcut normally, but Republicans have taken advantage of it for political gain. This is the "echo chamber".

The echo chamber's other purpose is to gain ground in the corporate media. What they do and what they incite their followers to do with their agit-prop is kick and scream and cry "liberal bias!" until the corporate media makes concessions. "Look!" they say as they point to the media outlets they control, which are all pandering the same bullshit, as planned. "They are all covering the 'Kerry isn't a real hero' angle of the Swiftboat controversy, and you're not. Liberals! All of you! This is an outrage!"

The corporate conglomerates are very sensitive to these things. Being objective is highly valued in journalism, or it used to be, and corporations don't want to alienate a large number of consumers who, rightly or not, believe there is a liberal bias in their coverage. Right-wing consumers can switch to Fox News if they perceive liberal bias as being too great. Apoliticals, independents, and Democrats are not subjected in large doses to left-wing agit-prop, and there is no left-wing equivalent to Fox News anyway, so they don't have to worry about those people choosing another network.

... getting late, so I'll have to finish this up later.

[SheepDog]

I love that stuff. It's probably tacked on to a bill about buying bulletproof vest for soldiers in Iraq.

You can't blame the media for everything.
The handful of media corporations want to control the internet access, too. I think it's safe to say where the motivation for this came from.

[coffeezombie]

All the Fox News propaganda in the world can't keep people from hearing about soldiers dying in Iraq. Despite their extensive coverage of terrorism in the UK as a justification for the continuance of the occupation of Iraq, people are still beginning to realize in greater numbers what nonsense this war is. As long as there is competition in the news industry, people can always switch off Fox News and go with somebody who tells things more to how they feel personally, which in this case is anti-needless death. The media do not influence people's minds as much as some people on this board seem to think they do.

[mgb]

The handful of media corporations want to control the internet access, too. I think it's safe to say where the motivation for this came from.

Teddy, Teddy, Teddy, when will you own enough. Here it's all telecom companies. And I'm really glad they are heavily regulated by the government. They can't even increase prices for basic services without government approval. Mostly, because they all used to be crown corporations.

[mgb]

All the Fox News propaganda in the world can't keep people from hearing about soldiers dying in Iraq. Despite their extensive coverage of terrorism in the UK as a justification for the continuance of the occupation of Iraq, people are still beginning to realize in greater numbers what nonsense this war is. As long as there is competition in the news industry, people can always switch off Fox News and go with somebody who tells things more to how they feel personally, which in this case is anti-needless death. The media do not influence people's minds as much as some people on this board seem to think they do.

I think the real problem is that the news isn't that much different from channel to channel. In the big picture CNN isn't drastically different than Fox. If it bleeds it leads, and if you get it first you get the advertising dollars. I think it's crazy how intensely things like ratings are watched and how fickle the advertisers are, not to mention the people watching all the ads.

What's amazing is how many people still think that the war in Iraq is a good idea given the bad press, not how many people that don't. I think that is a truer gage of the media's power.

[cathmc]

In the intercultural studies arena, U.S. culture is considered to be 'melodramatic', as opposed to European culture which is 'tragic'. What this means in a nutshell is that Americans have more of a tendency to see things in black and white, good guys and bad guys - think of Bush's statement that everyone who is not for us is against us.
I think this is very true, and a lot of Americans have diffuculty absorbing complex points of view. People don't want to oppose the war in their minds because they see it as a betrayal of Joe and Jane soldier over there getting blown up. It's more palatable to say 'our soldiers are over there fighting to protect our freedom!' (And, therefore, are NOT dying in vain).
Meanwhile, the media tend to give news in small bits that only allow for just this kind of simplistic viewpoint. If you are really motivated, you can indeed find better, more nuanced, coverage, but the average American can easily just consume the simplistic bits that least conflict with the worldview they already hold. This is what troubles me the most, personally. We can all completely avoid having our worldview challenged.

[PsiKik]

I think the concept that if you don't like a news source you can just change to another is wrong because I believe
there is a concerted conservative campaign to control all the media. The large media corporations are all controlled
by people who are either conservative or have found it convenient to ally themeselves with this conservative tsunami that threatens to overwhelm us.
Perhaps there is hope in the internet spawning some sort of new alternative independent news dissemination.

I noted with interest Murdochs purchase of Myplaces.com.
It is one thing to say a media company simply seeks to make profit, but when the heads of a media organisation
have a clearly identifiable right wing ideology it's time to get worried.

[Claverhouse]

The evils of prohibiting people from making their own choices are far worse than the evils resulting from free choice.
Not necessarily.

Verdict on 65 members of 23 families in Angers:

Investigators said 45 children between the ages of six months and 14 years were abused by their parents or acquaintances in the western French town Angers from 1999 to 2002 - at times in exchange for small amounts of money, food, alcohol or cigarettes.
With the mothers taking part or watching.

Times verdicts (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1711274,00.html)

Prosecutor (http://www.recorder.ca/cp/World/050630/w063087A.html)


Freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[kuranes]

I don't like the idea of communities not being able to set up their own networks and used Sheepdog's link to write a letter opposing it.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the Sessions bill was put together in an attempt to remove balkanization hurdles preventing IP v6 or something like that from taking place. Is there any excuse for this request to limit things to big telecom?

An article I just read said that the audience most polarized in the USA is that of radio listeners, vs. the other media. Interesting.

[sbw]

Living in an SJ world, with one of our own (Karl Rove) helping them do it. :mad: :rant:

ha! also, CNN is a propaganda organization on the other end. and as someone stated, the only people that take this stuff seriously are those that are already somewhat far to the fringes. although yes, it does seem the fringes are growing.

Scott

[SheepDog]

The media do not influence people's minds as much as some people on this board seem to think they do.
What kind of evidence would you like to see, that could persuade you otherwise?

For starters, find the coverage of "The Telecommunications Act of 1996" in the mainstream media. There is essentially no discussion of this act, which has the effect of removing competition and consolidating power, by any of the mainstream US media. They did not want you to know that they were consolidating power, so they didn't report it.

This is just one example, a very blatant one.

[SheepDog]

Not necessarily.

Verdict on 65 members of 23 families in Angers:

With the mothers taking part or watching.

Times verdicts (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1711274,00.html)

Prosecutor (http://www.recorder.ca/cp/World/050630/w063087A.html)


Freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be.

What freedom are you disputing? The freedom to sexually assault children? This is particularly a weak attempt to dispute meshou's assertion. I can only guess you're assuming something of a "devil's advocate" role here, but I know you're capable of better than this.

[SheepDog]

To get an idea of the scope of media consolidation, check out these lists of the top 6 media holders (they are too long to post here):

Advance Publications (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/advance.asp)
Disney (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/disney.asp)
General Electric (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ge.asp)
News Corporation (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp)
Time Warner (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/timewarner.asp)
Viacom (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp)

For an alternate, graphical view, go here:
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml#chart

[Claverhouse]

What freedom are you disputing? The freedom to sexually assault children? This is particularly a weak attempt to dispute meshou's assertion. I can only guess you're assuming something of a "devil's advocate" role here, but I know you're capable of better than this.
No, an absolute belief in 'freedom', the primacy of the individual, and free choice unfettered by government or imposed morality, as in 'The evils of prohibiting people from making their own choices are far worse than the evils resulting from free choice.', --- which is as absolute a statement as can be imagined --- means that you have to accept that others will make their individual free choices which conflict with your values. That being so, you cannot invoke any third party including government or morality to regulate those actions because you personally disagree with them. There are no exceptions.

For those who believe in some over-riding moral purpose --- God, Law, Governance, Community, State, Religion, whatever --- it is more simple: for those who --- like the free-market individualist nuts, say --- believe that people should be limitlessly free to do what they will, they just have to suck it up. Even if, eventually, it destroys them.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ And I believe that druggies should be able to take exactly what they want ( under supervision for the heavy stuff ). But not because they have this abstract freedom to ingest, but because there is no ethical reason to stop people doing stuff that harms only themselves*. Besides, it kills off the weak, for those into social darwinism. ]

[ * Not quite always though: people who wish to mutilate themselves as by having limbs amputated for sexual pleasure ought to be stopped. Even there I'm thinking more of aesthetics than morals... ]

[SheepDog]

Claverhouse, I understand that you're saying that some controls on freedom are necessary. I just happen to think that the example you stated is at best obscure, because it is a situation where protections were give to people (children) who are arguably much less able to protect themselves. This is clearly a case where it is protecting freedom of children as much as limiting it in their guardians.

Somewhat analogous, limits on slavery in the US were opposed with the claim that they infringed on slaveowners' rights to property. I wouldn't call anti-slavery laws as limits so much as an assertion of the rights of the enslaved. This is, of course, not an identical analogy, but I used it to emphasize the common point related to prohibition of freedom vs. guarantees of freedoms.

[meshou]

Claverhouse, I understand that you're saying that some controls on freedom are necessary. I just happen to think that the example you stated is at best obscure, because it is a situation where protections were give to people (children) who are arguably much less able to protect themselves. This is clearly a case where it is protecting freedom of children as much as limiting it in their guardians.

Somewhat analogous, limits on slavery in the US were opposed with the claim that they infringed on slaveowners' rights to property. I wouldn't call anti-slavery laws as limits so much as an assertion of the rights of the enslaved. This is, of course, not an identical analogy, but I used it to emphasize the common point related to prohibition of freedom vs. guarantees of freedoms.Yes. What is most moral is the decision that allows most choice. Mollested children lose choices-- the choice to have the sexuality and relationships they want as adults. Imprisioning a child molestor takes away his choice, but frees up lifetimes of choice for his future victims.

[Claverhouse]

Who makes the choices, except government ? And the imposition of government is a coercive giving up of free choice.

Anyway, any action impinges on the choices of others: abortion removes the future choices of the child; but that's not a common argument against the practice. Life and law is not a question of weighing up the validities of different individual's choices against each other, but in striving for ideal justice.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


The abusers in Angers ( great castle of the Lionheart there... ) had been abused as children: they still exercised 'the choice to have the sexuality and relationships they want as adults'.

[SheepDog]

Who makes the choices, except government ? And the imposition of government is a coercive giving up of free choice.

Anyway, any action impinges on the choices of others: abortion removes the future choices of the child; but that's not a common argument against the practice. Life and law is not a question of weighing up the validities of different individual's choices against each other, but in striving for ideal justice.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


The abusers in Angers ( great castle of the Lionheart there... ) had been abused as children: they still exercised 'the choice to have the sexuality and relationships they want as adults'.

'The evils of prohibiting people from making their own choices are far worse than the evils resulting from free choice.'

Getting sexually abused was almost certainly not the children's own choice.

I continue to assert that your example IS 'a question of weighing up the validities of different individual's choices against each other'.

[Claverhouse]

Somewhat analogous, limits on slavery in the US were opposed with the claim that they infringed on slaveowners' rights to property. I wouldn't call anti-slavery laws as limits so much as an assertion of the rights of the enslaved. This is, of course, not an identical analogy, but I used it to emphasize the common point related to prohibition of freedom vs. guarantees of freedoms.
Actually, Lincoln is one of the Big Devils to libertarians: quite apart from launching a civil war to coerce the states, and inter alia freeing the property of the slave-holders, he issued greenbacks or something and that annoys them.

Still, a libertarian/free choice approach to slavery is to blame the slaves: it is not up to anyone else, let alone a government to free you, but you should do it yourself. No-one else can make these choices for you. If you are weak, poor or old, that's your responsibility --- you should have worked harder and made better choices beforehand --- and only the free choice of charity should relieve you. If anyone feels charitable enough in time... The old Puritans still rule !

But there is hope for anyone wanting a libertarian place in the sun:

Democracy for $ale (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Democracy-For-$ale20feb05.htm)


Nevertheless, with services being slashed, infra-structure crumbling and deficits soaring, demands continue for smaller government and lower taxes. A key player in this process is arch-libertarian Grover Norquist—the most powerful man you never heard of in Washington. He runs the well-funded Americans for Tax Reform, and his goal is to shrink government to the point "you can drown it in a bathtub." Norquist's ideal citizen is "the self-employed, home schooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit because that per-son doesn't need the goddamn government for any-thing.'"

...

Well, I've done some research and have great news for Grover and his followers. I actually found a place where the government has already been "drowned in a bathtub—"a tax-free paradise awaiting any libertarian who cares to travel a little: Somalia! That's right! Located in picturesque East Africa, caressed by the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, Somalia has no functioning government, so there's no one to steal your hard-earned dollars.

...


Arrhh, matey, if you are kidnapped, the closest U.S. Embassy is in Nairobi, Kenya! But who cares? Since embassies are another symptom of bloated tax-hungry governments, self-respecting libertarians will gladly walk the plank before submitting to any such official meddling. That may not become a problem, anyway, because you can hit the beach heavily armed (remember, no gun laws). In fact, no laws at all! No patronizing, nosey officials to keep you from doing absolutely anything you want to do.



...



So there you are: a country about the size of Texas where you can roam free. Free from the Nanny-State, un-mined highways, laws, police, paramedics, telephones, museums, schools, clean water, libraries, hospitals, sanitation, old-age and most of all—free from taxes!






Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

'The evils of prohibiting people from making their own choices are far worse than the evils resulting from free choice.'

Getting sexually abused was almost certainly not the children's own choice.

I continue to assert that your example IS 'a question of weighing up the validities of different individual's choices against each other'.
If you are in favour of individuals making their own unfettered choices then the consequences upon others are irrelevant. You may need reminding that I do not subscribe to individuals having that right.

You cannot say that this unlimited right, as opposed to governments deciding what choices are allowable, can be circumscribed by any moral views that others including yourself and the victims may hold. Since I believe that law rather than individual choice should take precedence I am not weighing anyone's choice against anyone else's.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

For a while there, I thought we were having a dialog. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jacque]

Free enterprise wouldn't exist without anti-trust laws. We understood this before, but now it's losing that familiarity.


Today's WB Morning News particluarly upset me. The newscasters displayed outrage at the $40 million the U.S. gives to Brazil for providing prostitutes with condoms. It never mentions that the money was for AIDS/HIV prevention or the effectiveness (http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2002/RE020532.html) of the program (http://www.aegis.com/news/ct/2003/CT030601.html), but that it was just for Brazilian prostitutes to have a free supply of condoms. And then they proceed to ridicule Brazil for not condeming prostitution - cease the distribution - as though the government is operated brothels.

Then comes the kicker. Rattling off this conservative punditry, their motives seem misinformed as they suggest the money instead go to helping America's poor, the United Welfare State of America! [Sigh] Forgive them Father for they know not what they read. How? It's insane. Where are the journalists?

[Dman]

When wondering "Why?" about anything, just remember that 9 out of 10 times the answer boils down to "Money".



The other one time the answer is "horny".

[Burble]

So Bill O'reilly is embarking upon a terrorist witch hunt, kind of like Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunts? Oh shit, am I going to get "Rathered" now?? LOL. Sounds like a ratings ploy...

This whole media thread reminds me of an episode of "That 70's Show," where Hyde says "The three branches of government are the military, corporations, and Hollywood."

[Architectonic]

I would suggest that the problems with the media is a cultural issue, government involvement doesn't necessarily have to bias the media. Ironically enough, tomorrow night on SBS (an Australian broadcasting station which is funded ~90% by the government) is showing a documentary entitled 'Media Image', which is described as:

CUTTING EDGE - ENEMY IMAGE
Modern television has the technical means to take us anywhere and show us anything. It can bring us the physical experience of war, with all its horrors, like no other medium. And yet the image of American war on television is increasingly disembodied, bloodless, and unreal. This film traces the development of the image of war on American television from Vietnam to the present day to understand why we see what we see when we look at war on television. It tells the story of how the perception of war has become as important as war itself. And it asks how democracy can be served if citizens are denied a true understanding of the daily consequences of the wars their nations fight. (From France, in English, French and Arabic, English subtitles)

The other government funded station (ABC) even has some shows (Glasshouse for example) that are dedicated to mocking (among other people) politicians and the host of big brother. ;)