»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement
| The Alley |
|
Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
As the Democrats won the 2008 election, so they also think that they deserve a long cool drink at the entitlement trough. The Porn industry and various other marginal struggling entities are begging for cash bailouts. Amazing. But the first item on Pelosi's mind is not the economy: oh no. It is reinstallment of the Fairness Doctrine, which is neither Fair nor is it needed. It is the new Milennium's version of EEOC which mandated preferential treatment of minorities in the workplace, especially in job promotions. It attempted to level the playing field by being unfair to one group, the largest, and being a sycophant to the smaller groups. So, the first week of Obama's admin is coming up (even though he thinks he is the acting Commander-In-Chief.) He will be beholden to all the special interest groups that got him elected. If he is smart, he will temper his urges to pay them back. If he is not, he will let the Fairness Doctrine come back into force as one of the first laws passed in his administration. At least 4 different Democrats are assembling legislation right now that would bring the F.Doctrine back. Bahama somehow got a huge 300 Billion bailout thru even though he is not President. He did this for one reason: he wanted the 300 billion dollars to fall under Bush's spreadsheet, not his. It still is conjecture whether the Dems or Bahama will be the puppet in this new administration. In a startling revelation, the owner of the failed Liberal Talk Show Air America, Jon Sinton, even says Liberals don't need the fairness doctrine to compete. ****http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990390599425181.html?mod=googlenews_wsj*** |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He should tell that to Air America!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
http://airamerica.com/stations Dear Mike, You have been listening to conservative radio stations again. As a result, you seem to have gotten the idea that Air America is off the air. You've repeated this several times over that past six months or so, so I thought you might have a look at this list of Air America Affiliates. In looking up Air America on Google, I saw 22,000,000 references listed. Many of them will be people saying that there is no Air America, of course, but you will also note some places where you can tune right in and listen in your area should you choose. Much of what they say will probably not be to your taste; sometimes, I find almost everybody offensive, including myself, so I wouldn't be surprised. Sometimes I think that they have some things to say that are worth listening to, if only to hear what the other guy is saying. Anything without facts, of course, is probably a waste of your time, and Air America has it's fair share of that sort of thing. Randi Rhodes, while heavily sarcastic, is worth listening to because she does have a fair number of facts that you can check out. Rachael Maddow is also very good, if only to hear a well presented version of what the other guys are thinking. Thom Hartmann as well. If I'm going to be enough of a fool to suggest folks on the left that I think are good with their facts and opinions, I think it's only fair for me to ask you, Mike and/or Threadbare, who you think is solid on the right with facts and opinions. I think it's useful to see where we have common ground as well as where we disagree. We'll probably continue to disagree as well or better than we have in the past, but getting some common ground is at least as useful. I don't know Threadbear as well, but I'm clear that Mike is a guy who actually wants good stuff for our country, and is able at times to reach beyond partisanship. Like myself, he does this with difficulty much of the time. This seems worth building on as much as possible. Anyway, my best to everybody. Happy new year to all. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
FEBRUARY 7--Bankrupt and about to lose Al Franken, its marquee star, Air America Radio is set to change hands for the bargain price of $4.25 million, according to new court documents. The sales figure was disclosed in a purchase agreement filed yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. According to the agreement, the deal between Air America's owner, Piquant LLC, and a firm controlled by Stephen L. Green, a New York realtor, calls for Green's firm to repay up to $3.25 million in loans provided to Air America after the liberal radio network filed for Chapter 11 protection last October (the company listed debts of $20.2 million). Green's company will also give Piquant LLC $500,000 and pay off up to $500,000 in network debts (the bulk of which, $349,000, is owed to the network's Manhattan landlord). Green's bid topped by more than $1.25 million the nearest offer received by Air America, according to a motion filed along with the purchase agreement. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0207071airamerica1.html February, 2007 On March 14, 2007, the new owners of Air America announced[21] the hiring of long time radio veteran David Bernstein to be the new Vice President of Programming. Prior to joining Air America, he was best known as the program director at New York radio station WOR from 1995 to 2002.[22] In an interview with the New York Daily News,[23] Mr. Bernstein explained his vision of Air America's future as "I don't see our purpose as 'answering' conservative radio or Rush Limbaugh. There's no clear majority in this country today. We want to talk to everyone and help everyone make the right choice." On November 15th, 2007, industry news site Radio Online reported that Mr. Bernstein is exiting Air America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio Randi Rhodes, Bob? We know all about Randi down here in Florida...she didn't do very well here. After being suspended by Air America management for derogatory remarks toward Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton while off the air, the popular Randi Rhodes quit the network on April 9, 2008, citing a contract dispute.[25] Rhodes moved to Nova M Radio the next day.[26] The show is also aired in its former time slot on the Air America Left channel on XM Satellite Radio. Who is listening? In Arbitron's Winter 2008 ratings book, Air America stations carrying a majority AAR programming and in markets for which Arbitron reports results four times a year averaged a 1.2 share. The highest rated Air America affiliates were KPOJ in Portland, Oregon (3.7 share), WXXM in Madison, Wisconsin (3.5), and KABQ in Albuquerque, New Mexico (2.6). The lowest rated affiliates were WDTW and WLBY in Detroit, Michigan (unmeasurable), WOIC in Columbia, South Carolina (0.4), WTKG in Grand Rapids, Michigan (0.5), and flagship station WWRL in New York City (0.5). WXXM in Madison had announced in November 2006 that it would switch to all sports programming by the end of the year.[27][28] Following a very vocal backlash from the station's listeners[29] and syndicated hosts,[30] Clear Channel in Madison later backtracked, deciding to leave the progressive talk format on the station.[31] WWRL in New York recently dropped Thom Hartmann and now gets less than half of its programming from Air America. The flagship station in New York city with a 0.5 rating? I thinks Hints from Heloise can top that. Yes, Bob, Air America is still taxiing (flying would be too strong a term) but they cannor compete with the conservative stations and they know it. That is why congress will try to level the playing field with the Fairness Doctrine. They are not smart enough to know that screaming and sarcasm (ala Rhodes and Franken) does not attract listeners and they reason that forcing people to listen to them is the only way to do. It won't work, sir. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Bob, in answer to your question, my response is obvious. Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck ALL use verifiable data to back up their facts. That's one reason why they are so listened to. The other thing - and the BIG thing - is that their programs, along with other conservative talk shows are very UP on America. They are positive. They refer to the goodness of the country and it's citizens and military personnel. Hannity, for example, has a series of America tours, where millions of people have come to hear patriotic music and celebrate the good things about the United States. Can you name any liberal station, or even person, who does that? The few liberal shows I listened to (and there were a few) lacked this completely. Their presentations were all negative and sarcastic, as if screaming could take the place of information. Perhaps they are not all like that but the ones I have seen are. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I don't think Liberals are down on America; I think that Liberals are upset with policies and decisions that America takes at times; for example, torture. It isn't Un-American to be down on torture. It wasn't when we were criticizing the Japanese and Nazis for using it during World War II, when we criticized the North Koreans and the Chinese from using it during the Korean War, or when we criticized the North Vietnamese for using it during the Vietnam war. It was just plain wrong, period. That the same justifications that came from the mouths of the Germans, The Japanese, the North Koreans, The Chinese and the North Vietnamese have been flowing from the mouths of our leaders for eight years doesn't make them suddenly right. Sewage is sewage, no matter what color you try to paint it, even red, white and blue. Disagreement with policies is not dislike for the country. There are left wing idiots who dislike the country because of the policies in the same way that there are right wing idiots who love the policies because of the country. Idiocy is there for those who wish to achieve it. There is an idiot-ocracy in the same way that there is a meritocracy; unfortunately, like cream, sewage seems to float as well. It doesn't respect left or right in politics. Hannity and That Man Whose Name You Once Asked Me Nevermore To Mention have ideas and points of view. I have listened to both men. I am not sure they have facts, however. Randi Rhodes, much as you dislike her, did have The Downing Street memoranda months before anybody else, and she knew how important they were, and said so. Rush was still talking about torture as if it was okay, and as if there actually were weapons of mass destruction sitting around to be scooped up. Hannity sounded a lot like Rush. Glenn Beck I haven't seen, and will look for. I had been hoping for somebody like Gary Wills, conservative and thoughtful who's given a lot of thought to constitutional issues and has written some interesting history from a Conservative point of view on the Founding Fathers. He's also done some apparently fine translations of Latin Poetry, which I have yet to check into. If you have a chance to look at some of Gary Wills, please let me know. He is Conservative and very interesting, and I'd like to know what you think of him. Sincerely, Bob Kaven About the folks who are Liberal and yet celebrate the American Values and aren't sarcastic — I find that a puzzler, frankly. Most of all these people stay on the air because they're witty or sarcastic about something, whether they're Conservative or Liberal. Over the past eight years, they've been pretty sarcastic about the government of the country. I'd hope that you wouldn't find this un-American any more than I'd find Rush talking about "America Held Hostage!" for eight years un-American. If you want a Liberal who gets beyond all that stuff, I guess I'd go for Bill Moyers on Public Television, simply because he isn't a talk show host. Being critical of the country and its policies seems to me to be very American, and when the Republicans do it, they seem to think so too, as when we intervened in Kosovo. The Republican and Democratic sides of the debate over Iraq could well have been written by the same people, only with the parties switched in the delivery of the speeches. We are so much like each other at times I can't believe it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Much of what you say is true, Bob. Being against torture is certainly not being against the country and I am against it as much as the next man, to a point. Being critical of the country and its policies seems to me to be very American, Here we will disagree. Being critical of the country is not American to me. Members of the government, yes. Policies, yes. The country? The common ordinary people that inhabit this little piece of land? No. Perhaps it is only the semantics we disagree on but I have heard liberals speak of the "evilness" of America, the greed of America, etc, etc, etc....and I don't buy it. I've heard liberals claim that America should be ashamed of itself and I don't buy that, either. Politicians? Sure? political decisions? ok. The country? Nope. It is easy to say that, for the past eight years, liberals have had a lot to criticize and complain about but the fact is that they have had only one complaint....Bush. Every complaint of theirs has been aimed to bring him down...period. On the torture issue, they went straight at Bush. That is fairly unprecedented in American politics but Bush was the prize they wanted to bag. Want a little proof of what I am saying here? OK, this should be interesting. Over the past 8 years, constant attacks have been aimed at Bush by the liberals. Let's find out if they were sincere attacks or just trowing mud against the wall to see what might stick (1) Gitmo. They have demanded Gitmo be closed down immediately and occupants dealt with. Let's see how long it tales them. (2) wire-tapping. They filled newspapers with outrage over Bush's "illegal" wire-tapping which wasn't illegal. Little old ladies (and members here) displayed outraged indignation that their privacy could be violated by the Bush policies. Let's see how long it takes them to do away with these abominations. (3) The Bush tax rebates and breaks for the rich. When Bush gave rebate checks to citizens, Democrats went ballistic. Also, the liberal mantra was "Bush favors the rich!". Ok, let's see what happens now. There are many other cellophane attacks against Bush over the years, such as the foreign ownership of ports and others that, of course, were outrages of the moment with no substance. What makes it sad is that these pseudo-attacks were occurring while we had fighting men in the field. Democrats were willing to trash Bush at every opportunity with no regard to how it might damage us overseas. i can assure you they would not have acted that way had the president been Democrat. Be all that as it may (already overly-discussed on this board) Let's see what happens with the three topics I mentioned above. If the Democrats change them, they were valid. If they don't, then it was all a bunch of garbage. I'll keep you posted  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I don't have much time to respond now to you other than to thank you for giving me a reading. I am, of course, a Democrat. But if the Democrats fail to stop torture, I will say they are as rotten as the Republicans who instituted it; perhaps worse, because they know better. And it remains American Policy, then I will condemn the country for it, because the country knows better. And anybody who doesn't say so will be tainted by their failure, as the Germans were, despite the heros there who stood up. This I say not because I want it to be so, but because of how the world to this day looks at Germany and how the Germans —many of them— look at themselves. If you think we are immune I suggest you are being hopeful without reason. Being American gives us no more immunity to such things than it does to traffic tickets. Calling attention to reality isn't unpatriotic, it's a moral duty. More later, Mike. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hi, Bob, and thanks for the post. Nicely done. I'm not really sure I want to divulge my sources because people will think I'm a 'Limbaugh' man, if I list him, and I'm not. I think the top four conservative AM voices: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Neil Borst all have very salient points at times, but tend to be repetitious. Limbaugh is great at seeing the story between the lines. I ignore his bombastic nature and focus on the interp. Hannity's strength is his strength. He's gung-ho on protecting America at all costs. Glen Beck is a political prophet. He called into question: ACORN, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac 3 years before it was known to the public and demanded action then, almost weekly. Borst knows economics, and is a proponent and author of the Fair Tax details. I'm totally against the IRS method of collecting taxes, so a fair tax proposal is worth looking into. I try to take a Renaissance type approach to news & information. For instance, I look at Al Zaheerah's website as much as I do the Jerusalem Post. There is 'the news' and then there is the 'flavour of the news.' One is a surface approach to understanding events; the other takes a more 360degree look around, and attempts to get more into the affected people's mindset and how the news affects their region. It's the understanding of both sides that gives a journalist an edge on getting the whole picture. Whether they seek the 'edge' or not, is the difference between a success story like Limbaugh and a failure like Franken's talk show stint. It can be argued that neither is a journalist, and that is true, but Limbaugh has a finely honed journalists' perception that gives him a leg up on fellow Conservative talk radio hosts. While I don't always value his conclusions, I appreciate his effort to understand 'why' a specific news story happened. Air America generally only airs in liberal-based towns, and this is largely due to attrition. They originally setup in most every large city, and they've been down to only their base core audience now. Al Franken was unlistenable; Maddow is too snarky and is too much of an Olbermann puppet to be of value. She is a Rhodes Scholar (like Clinton, like Kris Kristofferson, like Senator Lugar) and to be honest, I expect more of her intellegect to eventually come out, especially since the Bush days are gone, and who the hell knows what Progressive Talk Show hosts will complain about now! Randi Rhodes is the liberall equivalent of Ann Coulter, and I ignore them both 100%. I don't like anyone who says "you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" and both women fit that mold. I have always had a great respect for Allen Colmes and look forward to his new show. Whenever I can listen at night, I try to listen to find Allen’s AM show. He has a logical thinking approach that seems to skip the over-abundance of emotion-only responses that I hear on Left-AM, at least from the caller’s standpoints. In general, what I heard before A.Amer left my city, was a constant barrage of I Hate Bush over and over and over again, with conspiracy theories, assumed conclusions, and name-calling. It was sophomoric at best, and really didn't have the chops that AM Conservative radio has. For one thing, the audience is tremendously younger, and they don't articulate or formulate opinion well. Then the DJ's never called BS on the bad callers with immaturity, and the reputation that Air America was full of naysayers and MoveOn.Org supporters stopped most new listeners from joining. My health has kept me from posting more to this, even though I started the thread, and I’m embarrassed a bit by not contributing more. Jeff |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That's Okay, Jeff. It's funny how the difference in political orientation makes such a difference in the way that various commentators come across. I agree with both you and Mike, for example, that Randi Rhodes really sounds self righteous and sarcastic a high percentage of the time. This makes her difficult for me to listen to, simply because I hate the attitude. On the other hand, I think she has a lot of her facts straight. I think I mentioned The Downing Street Memoes the other day. She was the only person reporting them and insisting on their importance months before they were picked up by other people. While BBC and the Christian Science Monitor (I think) were reporting on the falsifications by the Bush administration of data about Yellow Cake Uranium and Aluminum tubes before she did, she came shortly after. As far as I can tell, she is swollen with ego, as probably most of the talk show hosts are, but seems to have more facts at hand than most of the rest of them. The package, though, is not easy to take. Ann Coulter, has all the worst qualities of Randi Rhodes and a tendency to substitute personal attacks for facts in addition. It shifts the discussion from the issues to her manners and her lies. By the time you get one lie of hers pinned down, she's scattered half a dozen more. I think that she should be matched with Al Franken for a debate partner. He can be as nasty as she is, and he can supply source material on top of it, but who knows. In general, I think that talk show hosts are pretty much a waste of time. They are almost obligated to spend their time spreading heat rather than light, simply by the dynamics of the marketplace. In this country, for example, we are flooded with information about the pro-Israeli side of the Palestine/Israeli conflict. We have little information about the Palestinian side of things except for the little read Christian Science Monitor, which actually does try to give a genuinely unbiased view of that grim conflict. It turns out that with more balanced information, everybody looks worse, though perhaps the Israelis look a little worse than we are used to seeing them through our usual press outlets. Everybody has pimples and bad breath close up, surprise surprise. That's probably not interesting enough for a talk show, though. A talk show needs a really bleak villain. We want really bleak and cartoonish villains whose humanity we don't really have to deal with. I think the phrase is a translation from the French, "terrible simplifications." But it's something we all have a weakness for, and which talk shows feed with snack food. I'm very sorry you haven't been feeling so well, and hope you're feeling better. This thread seems interesting, though I find I can only chip away at answers the questions you and Mike (and hopefully others, soon) raise here. Myself, I'm not terribly concerned with equal time so much as I am with the fact that the actual issues aren't really getting any time at all. Why, for example, torture is even an issue in this country, and why we we even consider legislating away what freedoms we have in the interest of forming some security state when we're pretty much clear that security states strangle themselves and their people to death. Anyway, I'll try to pick this up later. My best to you. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Thanks for the well-wishes, Bob. That was really sweet. Been bedridden in pain for a couple of days; hurts like the begeezus. Sitting upright is nearly impossible at times when things get bad. Lots of people have something worse than me, so I shouldn't complain. Anyway, just wanted to say that Rhodes has the major character flaw that keeps most Liberal talk show hosts back: they seize unto some viable, like the Downing Street memos, report on it, initially provide good analysis....then it all goes downhill from there. They start the over-analysis, the over-speculation, allowing 'expert opionions' (like Scott McClennan) that also happen to be 100% wrong, and really streeeettttch to make their point weeks later. I think it's a subconcious effort to keep the story in the news as long as possible, and the only way that's possible is exaggerate the premise and effect. I've seen this time after time on Olbermann: he gets onto a topic and won't let it go. His obsession with O'Reilly borders upon the homophobic. Can we count all the times that Rhodes or Olbermann predicted jail for Bush and it never happened? They're great at predicting doom, but nobody ever holds them accountable for all the predictions they make that don't come true. I'm sure they drastically outweight the dire predictions that DO come true. Personally, I'm sick of tv or radio shows that say: The world has NEVER been worse...blah blah blah. Humbug. Try living 250 years ago in London, for instance. Famines, Black Death, 30 year old life expectancy. This is the BEST man has ever lived, and we don't even know HOW to enjoy it. Go figure. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But if the Democrats fail to stop torture, I will say they are as rotten as the Republicans who instituted it; Ah, the torture again. Thanks, Bob. I wasn't aware that torture (in whatever form you are trying to present) was a republican invention, unheard of until the republicans instituted it. And anybody who doesn't say so will be tainted by their failure, as the Germans were, despite the heros there who stood up. So easy for us to say, isn't it, Bob? Yep, the Germans should have overthrown Hitler. The Italians should have overthrown Moussolini. The citizens of Somalia and the other African countries being killed by the thousands show overthrow the dictators. How easy it is to pass judgement on them, when not in their shoes. Personally I have never held a grudge or thought less of any German, Italian or Japanese for the results of the war, nor have I ever thought less of the country, as a whole, especially for after having lived there for three years. If there IS any national condemnation of them, it comes from outside, not from the German people. If there is any condemnation of the United States as a country, it should also come from outside but, thanks to democratic leaders and liberal talk shows, it comes from inside to bolster the thoughts of outsiders and that's a sad commentary on them, not the country, |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Btw, threadbare is correct. We live in the worst time in history right now because the press and the liberals want to PRESENT it as the worst time in history. In a year or so I predict they will label the time then as one of the BEST in history. Both depictions will be ridiculous. Keep telling people how miserable they are, how unfortunate they are, how mistreated they are, and you will have a lot of miserable people. That seems to be the liberal talk show's main objective. Ellsworth Toohey live on...... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Interesting turn to the discussion. I don't recall having said this was the worst time in history. Calm down guys. Take a deep breath. Remember, this is something you're attributing to somebody else, I think Keith Obermann —whose work I do by and large enjoy, to be truthful. You're getting angry at me about it, though. I am me and he is he. Two different people. About Mike's comment about criticism of the country and how it should only come from overseas, I should beg to disagree. This is why: What a country does is a result of policy. Policy is not actually something the country itself does. Policy is something that attaches to the Government of the country, which is a separate thing. The Government of a country is something that is a matter that is contested between various parties, some of which will be in power, some of which will be out of power at any particular time. A citizen owes loyalty to his Country. If his party works against the interests of the country, he should also work against his party and the government that is running it at that particular time. I can understand that you believe that the neoconservatives that have been running this country for the past eight years have been doing everything or at least most things right for the country; hence your support. I would like you to understand that I think they emphatically have not. That they have damaged the country terribly, and that it is my duty as an American to make a fuss about that. I am loyal to the country and not this particular government, as I assume you, during the Clinton years, made a considerable fuss about the things you thought Clinton had done wrong and expected that you were doing your duty. I know that your party certainly did this and drew no such distinction about not criticizing the government in public. Both they, and you knew well where your duties lay. And even though I didn't happen to like what you were saying (I didn't know either of you specifically at the time; "you" in the sense of Republicans in general) and felt there were ulterior motives, it never crossed my mind that you were being un-American or disloyal for saying so. Were you? Worst time in History/Best time in history? Mike, when somebody makes a criticism, such as the difference between rich and poor in this society is extraordinarily large for and American society when we look back over what we know of American societies in the past, for people trained in formal writing, this is actually a fairly specific thing. In at least academic writing, you are supposed to be able to show what you mean with documentation. Perhaps you actually did hear somebody say This is The Worst Time in History, the questions are, Who said it and When? I think it might be very difficult to find somebody who actually said this is the worst of all possible worlds that I, for one, wouldn't think was nuts, as would probably most other people on the left. Whatever our criticisms, they tend to be more specific than that. As for telling me what the left will be saying in a year, you have no more chance of being right than anybody else. If anybody says that it's the best of all possible worlds, however, I will join with you in saying that they're crazy. Both statements are red herrings. As for trotting in one of your favorite Ayn Rand Villains, he is loathsome, isn't he? And he's meant to be. Simply because she writes good fiction doesn't make her a world class economist or philosopher, though perhaps many people believe it did, sort of like Hugh Heffner. I probably shouldn't have thrown in that line about the Heff, but at the moment it seemed funny to me. Maybe we can get back to this later. Best wishes to both of you, and better health especially to you, Jeff. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi -- I was watching a PBS show last night about the old Smothers Brothers program, and one part involved the satirical candidacy of Pat Paulsen for President. I thought it was pretty funny. Years later, Al Franken gets elected. I don't think that's funny. And I'm a Democrat. Ranks eight up there with the election of Sonny Bono. And I was a fan of Sonny and Cher. The cable tv and radio ranters are mainly in the business of self promotion, which is fine and, by gum, the American way. Not that it means one can't live an informed life without paying attention to any of them. Which is generally the case. No matter which set of "ratings," one chooses to look at or believe, the combined audience for all these folks amounts to next to next to nothing vs, say, American Idol. Now that I think of it, American Idol might be a good format for future Presidential elections. Lord knows they all sing for their supper and tap dance as well. Just a thought. Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, if you don't consider Rand a world class philosopher, I think you would be in a minority. Agree with her philosophical beliefs or not, she does deserve that distinction. By the way, she was not really a fiction writer. She was a reality writer who wrote it in a fiction format. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Maybe so, Mike, but READING Ayn Rand is like to trying to jog thru wet concrete. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Must be a lot of people who enjoy jogging through wet cement, Jeff. This changes every hour and likely won't last, but as of this particular moment, Atlas Shrugged is ranked number five on Amazon's Bestsellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
getting back on topic a bit, House Speaker Pelosi says she is pushing for fairness, but anytime you name the need for fairness and mention your worse vocal critics by name (Hannity, Limbaugh) the agenda becomes pretty obvious: silencing your critics. I think this ranks right up there with with Blagoyavich as worse abuses of power. When the Fairness Doctrine was implemented, I was in radio as a dj and a music director at the time. I saw firsthand what the effects of the legislation did to normal radio stations. All of a sudden, programming HAD to change, but no-one knew which direction to change to. All of a sudden programming was dictacted by EVERYONE's LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR: lawsuits. Yup... they could no longer put on the best program that would get the best ratings. They had to give EQUAL broadcasting time to dissenting opinion, or else the ACLU's attack dogs would descend like a plague. I had a late night radio talk show in a mid-sized college town. The PD (Program Director) and GM were constantly on me to make sure I balanced the phone calls for/against EVERY topic I brought up. Hell, we were lucky to get 1 dissenting phone call on some topics, yet there we were: doing everything right, yet STILL at the mercy of some misguided lawsuit. I remember distinctly how nutso Management was all the time. It literally bankrupted dozens of radio stations in compliance. Finally, the law was repealed and radio, which was already struggling for an audience, became viable and alive again. Many in the Civil Rights law areas have said that the Fairness Doctrine was perhaps one of the WORST and most INEFFECTIVE laws ever implemented upon private businesses. To this day, NO-ONE can claim that the old F.D. laws had any positive effect in any way. So why, good G*d, are we even TALKING about putting this hunk of junk law back into service UNLESS it is to silence critics? p.s. Atlas Shrugged is no more Sci-Fiction than Malcom In the Middle. ~a wink, a nod, and a shrug~ [This message has been edited by threadbear (01-21-2009 12:29 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Fairness Doctrine? I'd be interested in seeing how such a law might be set up, now that you mention it. If in fact I felt confident that the market was the deciding factor about which programming was presented, rather than the whim of the (generally right wing) owners of the radio stations and TV stations. I am not confident in this. I believe that virtual monopoly conditions rule in the media markets at this point, and the monopoly busting laws originally put in place by reform-minded republicans under Teddy Roosevelt have been eviscerated by the Modern Republican Party, more on the side of the Monopolists than of the people they originally undertook to protect. I am reasonably unclear that the electronic media are not maintaining the public trust under which they undertook to run their profit-making enterprises. If they can't do so in the public interest, they really have no business in making a profit from a publicly granted trust. Perhaps the current owners should make room for people who believe they actually can do both things instead of complaining that their profits are not maximized. Their authority to make profit at all was conditional on their willingness to do so specifically within the limits of the public good. Like driving, this sort of profit is not a right; it's a strictly regulated privilege. At least as far as I understand it. The public is not under an obligation to serve them; it's the other way around. I imagine cops get tired of speeders telling them that the speeders pay the salary of the cops, too. True, but arrogant and off the point; everybody pays the cops' salaries for protection from thugs and entitled and arrogant dorks. Or Broadcast media owners who aren't creative enough to do what they said they would do when they bid for the work in the first place: Guard the Public interest. How much equal time is needed would depend on how accurate your facts are in the first place, don't you think? You might consider a law written that way, at least, as one possibility. It would keep everybody honest, even if it would cut down on the entertainment value of the lies that now flood the airwaves. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I am not confident in this. I believe that virtual monopoly conditions rule in the media markets at this point, Interesting thought, Bob. It would certainly explain the left wing press and major news networks. I have to disagree, however. Perhaps monopoly conditions attempt to set the tone or guidelines but it is still the public that has the last say in the matter. That's why so many of the major newspapers are going under. If you want to buy the Miami Herald, you can have it for a song...but you better hurry. Fact is, the American public is not always stupid. They will take something so long and then turn it off, which is one reason why liberal talk shows just can't compete. Not enough of the public is interested in them and their style. If those evil right wingers set up a monopoly consisting of Linbaughs, Hannitys, Becks and Levins, they still would not make it without the public acceptance of them. The public would simply turn them off. Your comments are probably pretty right on with the ones liberals will use to re-introduce the Unfairness doctrine...break the monopolies, fair and equal for all and all of the balderdash they can come up with. It still won't work and Jeff explained exactly why not very well. The liberal plan is not to get their message on the air. it's to get the conservative message off....something that people don't understand yet. Let me explain it to you this way. If you enjoy listening to a station that plays classical music and, for some reason, that station is then required to play rap music (which you don't like) intermingled with the classical selections, what will you do? Many people would simply stop listening to that station. That, in my opinion, is what the liberals are aiming for. They have enough evidence that liberal talk shows just don't fare very well so their only other choice is to find some way to close down the conservative shows. They can't simply ban them (that little thing called the constitution stops them there) so they can just make them unattractive by diluting them with equal portions of what the public doesn't care for until the people just stop listening. Very sneaky little fellows...I'll give them credit for that. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hi, Bob, again, thanks for the reply. The problem, as I see it, is one of perception. People mistakenly think that the public own the radio stations and ergo have the right to either outright dictate programming or balance it. That’s totally wrong. Here’s why: the ONLY reason that radio and TV is federally regulated has to do with the broadcast band the stations broadcast on. The fear was that if the Feds didn’t enforce how many stations could operate on a bandwidth without stepping on the other’s signal, that people would not voluntarily agree to a finite number of stations within a broadcasting area. In an interesting footnote to history, radio stations in the 20's till mid 40's had wandering signals. That is, they were found on the radio dial in 'general area' but they'd constantly move it around for a clearer signal to avoid someone elses signal. So the Feds created the FCC which felt that the Movie Industry’s standards should also pertain to TV/Radio. When the FCC allocated the radio stations, 1000’s of owners spread the broadcasting diversity all over the nation. Fast forward 40 years: AM radio rules over TV in popularity & Top 40 is a daily part of people’s lives. As towns changed, markets changed and smaller radio stations were managed, in a co-op way, and grouped together in similar formats (like Country, Top 40). Owners were consolidated. People have a tendency to buy ‘like interests.’ FM radio came into fruition, forever dooming the music part of AM radio. So what could they do to survive? They needed to be able to broadcast a product that didn’t need ‘great fidelity.’ Everyone knows how scratchy AM Radio music sounds. So they went to almost exclusive to Talk formats. The rest of the AM stations went to religious broadcasting. The bottom line is that all this was based on evolution of an industry, a natural outgrowth. It adjusts itself and doesn’t need pampering by the government. AM-Talk has the smallest audiences in all broadcasting, yet Pelosi keeps advocating the ‘danger’ of these talk shows. ohhhhhhh very scarry! To be sure, however, Cable News Shows would ALSO be victimized by the Fairness Doctrine. Does anyone REALLY advocate that the government TELL us what should be broadcast? All this dumb law needs is an ‘aggrieved party.’ That’s it. Are we going to apply this standard to some controversial parody show, like South Park, for instance? And they’ll have to balance 5 minutes of anti-fat jokes with 5 minutes of anti-skinny jokes? Where would it end? Essentially ANY application of an idea would be fodder for an equal time complaint. Jeff Footnote: you know that new Analog to Digital conversion coming up? Everybody asks the same question: WHY are they doing this?? To increase bandwidth on AM FM and TV signals. They are opening up the Broadcast markets to an almost infinite number of competitors in each broadcasting area. STILL think we need the 'Fairness' Doctrine? |
||
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA |
Can anybody tell me: 1. Will the Fairness Act (FA) require ALL broadcast media to HIRE equally 50/50 conservitive and liberal employees? 2. Will Universities be required to have a 50/50 mix of professors? 3. Who will monitor the amount of time each view has, how will every media be regulated or fined? 4. Will the program "The View" have to fire some of the liberal view ladies and hire a few more Conservatives? 5. Will NBC have to project both liberal and conservative views or are they just concerned with FOX? 6. Will "WE THE PEOPLE" be forced to listen to both sides of the isle, or will common sense overcome the law makers and maybe they will realize that "WE THE PEOPLE" have the right to turn on or off what we want, and really don't need them to babysit our brains? I believe that we should have the right to honest media, fair media, and intellegent choices. I also, believe I am smart enough to make those choices by myself. (I may be wrong on that last one) WT. The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, The public doesn't own the radio or television stations, nor did I ever think they did. The public does own the airwaves, and station owners must earn the right to use them by paying money and obeying the laws that protect the public interest, making sure that the airwaves are used in the public interest and not purely for profit. The information about the wandering signals in the early days of radio was interesting. It was in the interest of the owners of the radio stations to have assigned frequencies so they could sell a guaranteed product and assure their advertisers a measurable audience impact. As far as I know, there are no bills in the offing to bring back the fairness doctrine, though personally I think it wouldn't be a bad idea and I have said so. I notice that you ignored my suggestion that equal time be written into some hypothetical law only for falsehoods or lies promulgated by broadcasters. I still think that would be an excellent basis for such a law, though I see no law of any sort in the works at this point. Pity. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/ Wow! Quite a feather in Limbaugh's cap, to be thought of as being so infuential and dangerous that he has to warn senators not to listen to him. If he is worried and warning about Limbaugh and partisan thinking now, you can rest assured the Unfairness Doctrine is not in the distant future. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Warning people not to listen to Rush Limbaugh is like warning them not to program in COBOL or not to sniff the wrong chemicals. There are simply certain things known to cause brain damage, you know. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cute, Ron. You're getting craftier now that you are older The US must lead the world in brain-damaged people, then, based on Limbaugh's listening audience. When's the last time you heard a president warn people not to listen to a specific radio announcer? That's shows weakness and defensiveness to me. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Mike & Ron- That was a transparent attempt by Obama to appease Pelosi and her Fairness Doctrine. I imagine they trolled the polling waters pretty deep after those speeches to gauge reaction. This was a test balloon. You're going to see alot of these in the comming months. What they ultimately do is confuse the hell out of voters. They hear one thing, but they hear the new Pres throw a monkey wrench just to create 'a way out.' Case in point: One of the first bills that Obama signed was one defining them specifically and outlawing torture EXCEPT unless it is really necessary. WHATTT??? Isn't that what we already have? Did this weird turn of phrase also puzzle any of you in Pip-Land, too? 2nd Case in point: not only did Obama propose a huge half-a-trillion bailout, he included in it, in his words no less, a TAX CUT. Color me confused. I thought he ran on TAX INCREASES espec. on the rich. As far as he specifically mentioning Limbaugh, they don't have much room to talk. One would be really hard pressed to glibly name just ONE DEMOCRAT known as a 'Deep Thinker.' I remember, just a year ago, Barney Franks was touted by the Dems as the Smartest Man on the Hill. Yeah, uh huh.... He WAS smart enough to appropriate 12 million to a bank from his state known for corruption...where did the money come from? From the bailout. Barney's explanation: it was NECESSARY because the Republicans let the banks fail. Yeah, uh huh....The Banking Queen Barney had nothing to do with it..... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, Jeff, but Democrats don't really want to think about that. Barney Frank would have been bar-b-qued as a Republican for the way he ignored Freddie and Fannie but, as a Democrat, he can simply point the finger elsewhere...nice work if you can get it. As far as Limbaugh is concerned, Obama feels threatened by him. There is no other reason to warn people against him personally. A president feeling threatened by a talk show host....boggles the mind. It IS understandable, though. Rush asks the questions the mainstream media doesn't ask. He demands specifics instead of the empty suit speeches Obama feeds the public and has since the beginning of his run for the White House. At least Obama is smart enough to know that someone like Limbaugh IS a threat to him....that's something. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Mike, Let's clarify something essential: Limbaugh is not the threat to Obama. Hannity is not the threat to Obama. FREE SPEECH, effective Free Speech, is the threat. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike and Jeff, I didn't catch the source on that; but if the source is accurate and it was done in context. which may or may not be true, depending on the source, then it was a silly thing to say. When Obama says silly or stupid things, and I can guarantee you he will, then I'm fortunate to have guys as vigilant as you are to point them out. I hope to learn from your watchfulness. I am unconvinced that Limbaugh's value as a commentator much exceeds that of Father Coughlin, personally, except that I believe Father Coughlin probably had a firmer moral base. But that remains personal opinion. I am more distraught that the President didn't take a firmer stand against torture in all its forms by anybody in the employ of this country. That would make our stance against torture abroad more forceful. My contention is that the President is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Liberal Democrat in many ways, and it has generally been that, though I believe there are many things that make Rockefeller Republicans decent. This is not a new contention of mine either. The upset that the two of you gentlemen show is that the President hasn't moved far enough away from the position that the two of you previously advocated, if I understand correctly. Why are you no longer advocating your previously held positions about the necessity of torture for all elements of the United States forces? I have held consistently that torture was wrong, and to the extent that the President doesn't commit himself to an outright ban on it, I'm willing to say that the President is wrong. I was willing to say the same about President Bush, though more vigorously because his position on torture was more outrageous by far, and was asserted through a series of lies and misdirections. I am glad to see you upset now; very glad. Where was it then? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Oh, man....i really DON'T want to get into another discussion on torture. Let's look at this legally: If the state wants to prosecute a criminal, they have to create a law on the book that makes a specific behavior illegal. The problem with most all laws are they are not specific enough. What Obama did, correctly, was to spell out for the first time exactly what IS torture, beyond the very obvious horric examples of mutaliation, death, etc. There was this grey area of undefined or unagreed-to definitions of specific torture. Ok...Obama spells these out, BUT says extreme methods of interrogation MAY be necessary to extract information. Do you not see the hypocrisy of this argument? It has nothing to do with Mike's or my position on torture: it has to do with convincing the mainstream public that specific act 'X" is illegal (ie, waterboarding, vicious dog threat, etc). I am against ANY politician, when revamping a law to become more clear, actually MUDDIES the water. In my opinion, this is what Democrats excel at in lawmaking....good intentions, terrible follow-through, unintended but forseen consequences. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jeff is exactly right, Bob. Torture is not the issue here. The issue is Obama's words, promises and actions. If he makes a grand statement that he is going to stop something and then SORTA stops something while allowing portions of it to continue, there is a character issue there. That same character issue has come out in his lobbyist qualifications and is now coming out in his supposed war against earmarks. That's where the beef is. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sorry, Jeff, but until it's resolved it's going to be around for a very long time. The United States thought Waterboarding was torture clearly enough to prosecute folks for doing it in Nurenberg in 1947. The charge was war crimes, and we thought it was torture then. The limits we felt were appropriate were pain or distress the equivalent of organ failure or death, and there are cases on record of those limits being exceeded. You can look them up yourself. It was very clear that torture was applied to many people with no information to give. Nobody at Abu Gharib knew anything about Al Qaeda, for example, for the very simple reason that at that point in time there was nobody from Al Qaeda there. Humiliating, beating, or torturing folks for information about Osama bib Laden, no matter how many times we have been reassured that torture was effective, couldn't have gotten information about that organization from people who actually had none to offer, could it? If you think you're sick and tired about talking about torture, think how sick and tired some of those folks must be. Me, I've been trying to talk about it for years with people who want to hear nothing about it, let alone acknowledge that the U.S. did any of it on purpose and that we have responsibility for making the damage right. To the extent that we can, if fact, make the damage right. And Mike, thinks for your comments as well. I just had a chance to have a look at that. You really might find some of these questions at least brought up in the npr link I offered. I don't think you will or should be fully satisfied there. I find myself somewhat less than fully interested about items of less visceral nature when we were trying to talk about torture here. I'm sure that the President is equipped with a fully articulated set of flaws about many things. I am upset at this point about his difficulty in being clear about forcing a stop to all torture as a matter of U.S. policy now. Without reservation. I was upset about the matter during the last administration for very good reason. I expect more from our current President in this matter. I was voicing my upset about the lies and failures of our last President in this matter. This doesn't mean I don't have room for upset if I feel that our current President falls short here. Should you wish me to feel upset that the President has fallen short of my expectations about torture now, you've got it. What about your expectations about Bush's policy about torture over the last eight years, Mike? I'm trying to be straightforward here. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
when we were trying to talk about torture here We WEREN'T trying to talk about torture here, Bob. You brought it up - again - as you have lately in every thread about any topic. Where exactly do the fairness doctrine and torture have their common ground? As far as Bush's doctrines over the past eight years, I could just follow the democrats pat answer whenever I brought up Clinton...THAT'S PAST HISTORY. MOVE ON! We are still paying for Clinton decisions and we will continue to pay for Bush's, also. Obama is the president...move on.I'll bring up Bush when Obama's changes of Bush policy lead to another attack on the US...which, in my mind, is not an unlikely scenario. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I agree with Mike: If you want to start a new Gitmo thread, that's cool. Let's remember one thing: These men detained at Guantanamo Bay are NOT soldiers. They don't wear uniforms, they don't adhere to the Geneva Convention. They use human shields, hide in cities, put women and children on rooftops of supposed air strike targets. They don't play within the rules of engagement, ever, and there are consequences to that if they are caught. The offenses of the guerillas that kill off their own people in order to discourage attacks on a specific area is a thousand times more despicable than waterboarding. This is not a Prisoner of War camp. They are not entitled to the rights granted a soldier. End of Story. All lines of logic end with that statement. and now.....back to our regularly scheduled show on the Fairness Doctrine..... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And therein lies the death of due process, presumption of innocence, and ultimately, justice. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Except when it is really necessary? I’ve read the executive order several times but couldn’t find that part - where does it say that? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Thanks for the link, Grinch. You're right, I saw nothing in the EO suggesting torture will be circumstantially allowed as some claimed. Having to read that Executive Order, however, might well be construed as mild torture. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Nor do Jeff or Mike fit those models. Simply because somebody off the street says that the two of you are terrorists, the last government felt and acted as though it had the right to treat you as one. Furthermore, it passed out $5000.00 bounties to anybody who was willing to say that you were one, or that had heard you were one. Then it was willing to torture you until you confirmed that story or proved to be an especially dangerous and resistant terrorist who wouldn't confess. When time came that international and domestic —U.S. — pressures became too much to resist, the conditions for "trials" were such that these "terrorists" were not allowed to know the nature of the charges against them, were not allowed to called witnesses, and were not even allowed to act as their own attorneys. JAG Attorneys who actually believed that these guys were basically guilty because the government said they were walked off the cases because of the gross violations of legal procedure, basically in agreement, despite their conservatism, with Amnesty International (which actually doesn't have a political left or right agenda, despite the idiot who's running it in this country). I'm sorry that Jeff and Mike feel this is not about the fairness doctrine, but I thought that this might actually be a case in point. How The conservative or liberal (for that matter) attempt to monopolize the use of media could be used to limit information and debate or, for that matter, encourage it. At this point, free speech seems to be working well, although it does seem to be under attack. I'm sorry that Jeff and Mike feel that I want to confine the debate to the past. I thought I was fairly clear in saying that if President Obama wasn't entirely against the use of torture, then I would join both Jeff and Mike in condemning President Obama as well and said, to the extent he doesn't do so, I condemn him now. I repeat that statement now. This is much more substantial than Republican or Democrat, guys. It's about, among other things, Habeas Corpus, which seems to suffered substantially and which may be repaired if we stay on to of it. It may be repaired. Maybe. It's pretty difficult to have torture happen unless Habeas Corpus has been seriously injured. And unless the Patriot Act has been substantially altered, just like the last President, the Current President has the right to declare anybody he wants to an enemy alien and to make they vanish. That happened a couple of times that we know about in the last administration. How many more times it happened, we do not and possibly may never know because the way the law reads is that the answer to that question is secret, and they can lie to us about it if they wish. Under the Freedom of Information Act, they may be able to redact the answer to that entirely. You, Jeff and Mike, felt that was fine under the last administration. I did not. I still feel, under an administration in which I have a great deal more trust that it is wrong and loathsome. This has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican, guys, this has to do with being willing to be a native of Disappear-ica or America. I would put it to you that there have been times in your lives that you would have stood up proudly and said, "This is not the way we do things in America," and that this might well be a time for saying that again. If this country has gone so far as to allow torture as an element of government policy, take a minute and consider what else it has to have allowed to allow us to get there. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
take a minute and consider what else it has to have allowed to allow us to get there. To get us where, Bob? I'm sorry that Jeff and Mike feel this is not about the fairness doctrine Don't apologize, Bob. Just point out where torture is mentioned in the fairness doctrine and I'll be happy to apologize for such an assumption. I'm afraid this melodrama of people vanishing in the night thanks to Bush is a little too much for me. I realize you will go to great lengths to paint Bush with the darkest possible brush available...but really. The last person I heard of a person disappearing that a president did not want around was Vince Foster. Oh, wait...that was an accident....right? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch... One of the orders requires the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual, ending President Bush's policy of permitting the agency to use secret methods that went beyond those allowed for military interrogators. However, the New York Times reports that White House counsel Gregory Craig privately told Congressional officials that "the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military," in the paper's paraphrase. The order closing Guantánamo assigns the Attorney General to lead a review of what should happen to the remaining detainees and does not rule out the possibility of trying some of them using military commissions, as has the Bush administration. Another order directed a high-level review of the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a suspected terrorist termed "dangerous" by Obama and currently being held in a military jail in South Carolina. But the WhoRunsGov blog finds that the order on "coercive interrogation methods" actually leaves "wiggle room" to allow torture. Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights pointed to the following lines in the executive order that he said provided a possible loophole by creating a Task Force to study the issue: The mission of the Special Task Force shall be: (1) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies... Ratner says the order appears to allow for an evaluation of "whether" the Army Field Manual techniques are sufficient to "protect the nation." This, said Ratner, "would allow the Task Force to go beyond the Army Field Manual." The administration could conclude that "based on the recommendations of this commission, we will allow certain techniques to be used in certain circumstances." While acknowledging that the CIA is likely to find the order too restrictive, Ratner said, "I don't like the fact that there’s any kind of loophole in an executive order that supposedly outlaws torture." http://www.ww4report.com/node/6711 Here is another interesting article... http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/_greg_craig_briefed_members.php There are, however, ambiguities in the orders regarding treatment of certain detainees that could either be the result of the swiftness with which these orders were issued or ambivalence within the Obama administration. We are hopeful that as the process unfolds and gets clarified, there will be no doubt that detainees must either be charged, prosecuted and convicted or they need to be released. That’s the American way; our legal system, while not always perfect, is the best in the world. Adherence to American legal principles requires unconditional action; there is no room for a middle-ground. It would be an enormous mistake for the Obama administration to allow for indefinite detention in any case, or to endeavor to create any system other than our centuries-old justice system for prosecuting detainees. If President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates hold on to any part of the Bush administration’s legal farce, they will soon end up in the very same legal morass that the prior president found himself in over the last eight years. http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/22/president-obama-orders-closure-of-gitmo-bans-torture/ Grinch, if you read this article, it may make a few questions clearer.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090123/pl_politico/17841 This entry is in response to your entry here and is all I will say about torture in this non-torturous (but soon becoming so) thread |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike and Jeff, The original posting by Jeff said that Liberals wanted to bring back the fairness doctrine. He them quoted some Air America folks, who denied it in the quote he picked to support his position. This somehow became proof of what liars liberals are since they didn't agree with his initial assertion and since he apparently couldn't find any Liberals who agreed with him. The two of you felt that this seemed like an excellent idea, though. Apparently it is a mark of incisive thinking to call people you are talking about by derisive nicknames. Bahama for Obama was something that I found really useful in furthering the sense of community in our discussion. I thought that the respect that it showed those of us who might disagree with you was somewhat less than helpful in enabling me to extend my respect as well in your direction. I do believe that both of you deserve it. Sometimes I have trouble extending it, for which I must apologize. When Mike said he felt that all the conservative talk show hosts researched their facts and presented them, and that the Liberals did not, I wondered if we were talking about the same planet. On my planet, people are vastly more fallible than that, and even the best of people have flaws, often large ones. I'm not the best of people, so I'm not the best of examples. I know for sure that I'm wrong a fair amount of the time. I don't thing Mike, good as Mike is, is about to consider himself one of the best of men; nor do I suspect that Jeff is either. They're both far too realistic for that. Seeking some sort of ground that was reasonably specific, and that I found of interest, I chose to bring up the subject of torture. I'm against it. I was against it before, I'm against it now, and it doesn't matter to me who does it; I'm against anybody torturing anybody. I have no Democratic or Republican favorites in the matter. As far as I'm concerned, I'd hate it if Bill Clinton, F.D.R., or J.F.K did it. I'm against it if President Obama does it or approves of it. And if Bush 43 did it, I'm against that too. I also decided that I'd say I was for Habeas Corpus. That's something that hasn't been too wildly left wing in English speaking countries, at least theoretically, since 1215 or so and the Magna Charta. I thought that this much would be something that we could get together on. This might be an example of how fairness Doctrine might or might not be used. Apparently, I find, that only Democrats are supposed to be against Torture and are supposed to be for Habeas Corpus. That Jeff and Mike are uncaring that it has been used against American citizens. And that they seem to think that a discussion of these things is out of place because talk of Torture is, if I understand the two gentlemen, boring, trivial, out of place and partisan. I believe you if that's what you say. I believe that I may have misunderstood you as well, I simply am not sure. I once again restate, that if our new President encourages or is less than scrupulous in getting rid of torture, I condemn his actions or lack of them. I restate that I believe torture has no place in a discussion of political party. Torture is about the practice of evil and not the practice of politics. We have a considerable job in front of us getting the matter of rights, including the Right of Habeas Corpus, back on track in this country, and the sooner we get started seriously, the better. We need to be working with each other and not art cross purposes. You should trust no government with the sort of power that we have given this one as a result of perhaps twenty years or more of inattention, Republican and Democratic, gentlemen. The Patriot Act doesn't say that only Democratic or only Democratic governments have a right to exercise the powers listed there. I for one, have no idea about what a lot of them are; and what I do know of some of them, I find frightening in the extreme. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven In addition to my grumbling, I do want to make a special point of thanking Mike for providing the interesting links, especially the ones to The Atlantic. That Magazine, while it's taken a turn to the right over recent years, is still a fine magazine and offers an interesting and insightful look at news. I'd lost touch with it for far too long, and I'd suggest that to the extent that we're working toward developing a list of magazines that offer a respectful and useful look at the world with more of an interest in truth than political slant, we might consider adding this one to the list. Thank you, Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Seeking some sort of ground that was reasonably specific, and that I found of interest, I chose to bring up the subject of torture. Nice try, Bob, but you have brought up torture on every recent alley post, regardless of the subject matter. This excuse rings hollow. That Jeff and Mike are uncaring that it has been used against American citizens. And that they seem to think that a discussion of these things is out of place because talk of Torture is, if I understand the two gentlemen, boring, trivial, out of place and partisan Bob, if I answered that comment the way I would face to face with you, I would be banned, not only from the Alley, but from the site and, quite frankly, you are not worth that result. Have a good life. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Mike, I certainly have. I also brought it up frequently beforehand. I have never needed any "excuse" to bring up this most repugnant of subjects. It suffers from an all too ready willingness of good people to avoid dealing with it. quote: Mike, the part you omitted when you quoted me was the part right afterward where I said, "I believe you if that's what you say. I believe that I may have misunderstood you as well, I simply am not sure." A simple, "Bob, you did misunderstand," would have worked as well if you were interested in replying to the facts of the matter, whether I understood your position correctly about torture. Since, as a search of your postings on the subject will show that you have in fact consistently come out in support of torture as a instrument of national policy during at least the past administration, your sudden indignation about the matter leaves me at a loss. What is it you are indignant about? That I suggest that we have used it? The facts are clear, and you have in fact supported it, though minimizing its effects. Or that I have suggested that we have used it against American Citizens? We have, again; including the case of the man who was widely touted as "The American Talliban." I, for one, would be interested to know how quickly counsel was provided. The guy who was arrested when he landed in O'Hare airport on the charges of planning to set off a "dirty Bomb" was denied access to a lawyer, placed in isolation and questioned. By the time a lawyer was able to get to him, almost two years later, he had been driven insane. These were American citizens. Anything that was done to them could have been done to you. If legal protections that were designed for all of us were put aside in his case were put aside to aid the prosecution, the same could be done for you if any over-enthusiastic prosecutor decided that it would be in his interests to do the same to you. As to whether I am worth Jack, I don't think it matters much. Probably not. The country, Habeas Corpus, and the rule of law, however do. I think that you may actually have the impression that if you can get rid of me, then these other questions will go away and that the good life in question will be had, not by me, but by you. The truth is that I hope that you're right. Affectionately yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
See this is what sticks in my craw: first, people don't know that the Terrorists are not soldiers. They are not. They're considered murderers by every court in the land, and prosecuted as such. They are also not entitled to Habeas Corpus, and this gets my goat every time I hear an uninformed liberal talking head or even Congressmen spout this nonsense. Even in the Civil War times, the United States has held 'combatants of war' until the war was over. Why? Because 90% of the time when released they go right back and bear arms. The Japanese held during WWII were not released until AFTER the war: the German prisoners captured were not released until AFTER the war. Also the trials did not take during the war- they never do. They come when the war is over. Too bad so sad for the terrorists that the war is stretching out. Those are the known rules of war, and they knew exactly that when they were captured,they wouldn't be released until AFTER the Iraq war is concluded. Obama is major-league jumping the gun on the release date, for no other reasons than to appease liberals. Great. The nation be damned, but got to please those liberals who still call murderers 'freedom fighters.' Enemy combatants can be held legally by ANY country until the war ends. So stop already with the 'aw...the poor rights of the suspected terrorists.' If they want to play 'war', then, by G*d, make them wear uniforms, and quit using human shields, then we'll talk about what kind of 'fairness' they are entitled to. The very first thing Saddam's men did when Bagdhad was about to be overrun, was to run out in the streets, strip off their uniforms and hide in civilian homes. Pansies, cowards. Then they have the nerve to strap bombs to CHILDREN and make them fight the war for them. Real admirable. Oh, by the way, roadside bombs are ILLEGAL by Geneva standards also since they kill innocents, but you NEVER EVER hear liberals talk about how unfair these are. There are still millions of unexploded mines in Afghanistan that daily blow the crap out of civilians. Where is the outrage over this? Even in North Vietnam, there are whole areas that are inhabitable, to this day, due to undetected mines in rice paddies. Justice, to me, would be making them defuse all roadside bombs and Muslim-planted mines in Afghanistan. They planted them...let them defuse them. If they survive, they can go home. THAT's Justice!! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Bob, had I come in here earlier I would probably have deleted your last three posts. They stand now only because others replied to them before I got here. You just don't seem to get it. And, frankly, I'm getting tired of explaining it to you. Every single time you talk about Mike and Jeff, every single time you talk about their feelings or try to put words in their mouth, every single time you crawl back into your armchair psychoanalysis, you STOP talking about the topic. You seem to be intrinsically incapable of talking about any subject in here without making it personal. Please discuss the post, not the posters. If there's some part of that you still don't understand, please, by all means, let me know. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: Which way do you want to play that card, Jeff? Either they're alleged murderers or they're combatants of war. You don't get to straddle that fence. Terrorists are criminals. They should be treated no differently than Charles Manson and Ted Bundy. You know, the part where we prove they actually are criminals before we punish them? Then and only then can we smack it to 'em. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, certainly I'm no legal expert, and not trying to straddle the fence, although i could see why you would say that. Not my words: these are the words of legal experts, military ones that say that terrorists need their own designation: they are neither soldiers nor civilians. The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of the time), so they were considered soldiers. The whole crux of the biscuit is WHAT classification these men are exactly: if they are combatants, they are eligible to held accountable by a Military Tribunal. They can also be tried for crimes against humanity as civilians, but again the grey area comes when they are seen firing at US soldiers, they can be defended, poorly i might add, as potential soldiers. The law needs to distinguish between them, and doesn't. That's why Gitmo was created. They are off shore for a reason, and legal reasons are a biggie. They can't legally even be tried for War Crimes, if you can believe that, since only soldiers can. They CAN, however, be brought to justice under specific charges of 'attempted murder.' See how sticky this is? This is one of the reasons they haven't been tried yet. No-one is really quite sure what to classify them as, and what penalities are to be used. Some legal experts have gone as far as to suggest that they ALL are shipped back to Iraq for prosecution as 'murderers' in non-military courts. Be aware also that military courts do not have the same jurisprudence requirements that US civil courts have. In a murder trial, for instance, a military tribunal does not have to have all members in concordance. They only have to convict them on a majority of evidence. This whole trial will be a madhouse of lawyers, conjecture, and precedent setting. The United States has said they are not going to prosecute simple gun toting combatants as murderers. These men that are left, are mass murderers, who either succeeded in multiple deaths, or attempted to. I remember Chaney saying once that they are not interested in throwing the whole Iraqi terrorist regime in prison simply because they opposed takeover. They will, however, go after the major offenders and planners of bombing attacks against civilians, roadside bombs, Al-Q and other terrorists Leaders, 9-11 planning, and other OVERTLY terrorist only activities. To sum up: they could be called 'enemy combatants' in a legal or detention context. They could be called 'terrorists' when they are on the field of war. They could always be called 'murderers' since they are not soldiers. [This message has been edited by threadbear (01-27-2009 02:46 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, I am sad to hear you would have deleted my last three posts. Near as I can tell, when I talk about Mike I am responding to actual statements he has made in this or in other threads that have said the things I say he has said. I have made nothing up as far as I can see. If something has gotten by me, nobody is more upset about it than I am. I am not interested in putting words into people's mouths or distorting things that people have said. I think it's a waste of time. Why bother? I can talk to myself on my own time. What you mean by armchair psychoanalysis, I don't know. I understand Psychoanalysis well enough, and understand it is a highly specific set of procedures that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm doing here. If you suggest that I am imputing psychological motivation of some sort of unconscious type to either Jeff or Mike or anybody else, I would suggest that that is not so. And to suggest that I crawl when I do so is basically insulting for no reason that I can understand. If I want to interpret somebody's motivations, there is a fairly specific way of going about that. One of the necessities for doing so is that there is a formal agreement on a therapeutic relationship, which I have and wish to have with nobody here. Only under those conditions is is possible to make an interpretation that is anything other than a highly unwelcome invasion of personal psychological space. An interpretation would involve current behavior, defenses and past behavior and needs to have 1) overwhelming evidence; and 2) the client working with you; and 3) the client having almost gotten there on his own. My interest here is not in changing anybody's personality. Mike and Jeff and even you are fine with me the way you are, bright and funny and thorny and thoughtful, all of you. My conversations here are about social issues and political issues. Sometimes we agree and sometimes not, and I do my best to disagree with as much respect as I can muster. I do not believe I have said anything disrespectful to anybody here; not to Mike, whom I enjoy and whom I respect, and not to Jeffery, whom I have become fond of, and not to you, whom I like a great deal and whose point of view on social issues I find endlessly informative and entertaining as well. I certainly do have significant thoughts about everybody's motivations, most of all my own, and I make a point of keeping those to myself. I understand that they are likely to be wrong, that they are untestable, and that they say more about me than they do about the other parties. Not only do I wish to stay reasonably polite with others, I have no wish to show others as much of myself as sharing those thoughts would entail. The verb "to crawl" to my mind suggests an infant, a bug, a snake or something other than an adult making an adult comment. If I have ever been less than an adult in talking with you or anybody else here, I am sorry for that. I do I think your comment about what you consider my armchair analysis was ill considered and insulting. The ball is yours, and there's a limited amount I can do about this except to remind you that I have no wish at all to be nasty to anybody and that I am making no attempt to be so. If you feel that I went out of my way to give somebody a hard time, I am absolutely ready to listen to you. If you think I've insulted somebody, or actually hurt somebody's feelings by distorting the truth or speaking the truth in an unnecessarily blunt a fashion, I'm with you. If you feel that I've changed the subject for no decent reason, let me know. In this case, I don't feel that I've done any of these things. If I did think so, I'd say I thought that I'd done so and I'd quietly back off. I've done that in the past when I've felt I was at fault, and if I felt that way now I would do it again in a heartbeat, but because what you're saying to me simply doesn't make sense to me in this case, I don't have any feeling sense of what I'd be agreeing to. I don't mind admitting being wrong and changing. I do need to know and have a clear feeling of what it is I've just agreed to, and what it is that seems so wrong about it. Near as I can tell, I made no personal attacks at all, nor did I intend any. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, This document is from a Liberal source, so you will need to do some checking of your own to see how accurate it is. It does fit in with what I understand to be the general situation, and I believe it to be worth looking at. It's under 500 words, and it's about the composition of the detainees at Gitmo. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/02/08/744/57892 I understand from your postings that your feelings are different, but I'd be interested in your response should you feel like sharing it. I hope you're feeling better. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
First blush: the link you post is over 3 years OUT OF DATE! At one time, Gitmo had over 750 prisoners. The total now is 250. Most of the non-prosecutable inmates have actually been let loose, which you don't hear ONE mainstream liberal say. Over 400 of them. The terrorists captured in Iraq STAY in Iraq for trial. You don't hear that on national news either. These terrorists rounded up were also organizers, leaders, and funding people for terrorist organizations. So this website calls them non-violent, or whatever. Totally bogus. Some of the best busts of Al Q have come from Pakistani support, and they ARE in Gitmo. Awaiting deposition. If they were detained for information purposes and their folders state that, they were interrogated, cross referenced answers for congruity, then released. Only the 'non-violent' ones that may have still-pertinent info are still in custody, along with the blatant terrorists whose murderous cases still need justice. I've heard at least three talking heads recently, all Liberals, use these same out of date numbers to justify closing Gitmo. This is kind of like using the early war casualties in Iraq to today say we lost. It just ain't so. Look, I'm a pretty easy going guy, I hold no grudges against people I meet. That said, I would prefer it, not demand it, that you be more careful in the future not to characterize Pip-Sters or label them with what you 'think' they think.' No-one is inside another person's head. Now, if you want to say, that you know of a Libertarian that believes such and such, LOL, I can get behind that! Dig? I still think you should start your own thread on Gitmo with a summary premise statement. It's worth discussing, but by constantly changing topics in mid-thread could be perceived by some, perhaps, as poisoning a thread. I think you're a nice guy. You're a good thinker, and I have respect for you. I'm sure we could all down a few Heinekens or Guinesses, fire up a cigar and enjoy a round-table bar discussion if we were all in the same town. Some of my best adversaries are friends; and some of my best friends are adversaries. Jeff |
||
|
wranx Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689Moved from a shack to a barn |
I dunno....The fairness doctrine always seemed to me a slap at both the 1st amendment AND capitalism Not very American in any case Plus,*laughing* we've seen what happens when "toxic" products are bundled with healthy products, yes? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: We call those quotations, Bob. Except you weren't quoting Mike, of course. You were talking about Mike, and what you think Mike said and feels. Instead of talking about the Fairness Doctrine? I thought about going back through your last few posts and highlighting everything that is not about the topic (or, at least A topic). But I don't have an hour to spend on it and, heck, you're a big boy who should be able to do it himself. This isn't about being accurate, this isn't about being respectful, this isn't about truth or insults or personal attacks. The minute you tell us that Mr. X is a nice guy, you've stopped talking about the post and starting talking about the posters. I could live with that. I know it's a blurry line and one not easily walked in what is essentially a social situation. But you rarely leave it there. You have to push it and tell us Mr. X is a nice guy even if he does beat his wife once in a while. No thread in these fora is about Mr. X, even if you keep trying to take it in that direction. Talk about the post, not the poster. quote: I apologize if you took the word "crawl" to mean anything other getting into a chair, Bob. If you prefer to plunk, dive, or bound, feel free to insert the verb of you choice. In any case, it's still psychobabble and it's still not appropriate here. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Jeff, quote: The quotation is three years old. It is not three years out of date. quote: 770 detainees were brought to Gitmo; 500 were released, many of them under pressure. I mentioned that non-prosecutable detainees, by the way, had been released. I confess to being further left than most mainstream Liberals, so whether that confirms or disconfirms your point I can't say. quote: The people arrested in Iraq stayed in Iraq for trial. Even that is something of a misdirection. The army as opposed to the administration had very different things to say about those people in Abu Gharib. These should not be confused with the detainees in Gitmo, who were arrested in Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan, as far as I understand it, where there as at least an outside chance that they might be distantly related to Al Qaeda folks and where, in fact, some percentage of them were. Even Liberals will go so far as to acknowledge 10% to 30% may have been related to Al Qaeda or the Taliban; both organizations having been getting US backing, as I understand it, when they were anti-Soviet only a few years before. The original accusation against the inmates of Abu Gharib was that they were dangerous Al Qaeda operatives. At the time, there were essentially no Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and the population of Abu Gharib was being tortured to gain information about a non-existent organization and to get knowledge of weapons of mass destruction that had been destroyed years before. Whatever the people in Abu Gharib were, outside the occasional Sadam Hussein era official that was being kept there, it is unlikely that there was any information at all. Even with these folks taken into account, the amount of useful and current intelligence gathered by the people who were convicted of the abuses there was not even remotely considered as a possible defense, not even right up through the General commanding the Prison. And the army investigation was harsh. quote: If these were "busts" there would be a semblance of legality involved. There would be formal charges that a prisoner might contest. The prisoner would be able to call witnesses, would have access to counsel of his or her choice, would have the right to defend himself and would be safe from torture. They would also have the right not to be held incommunicado and in isolation for periods of time up to years in length. They would have the right of Habeas Corpus. Torture would not be a factor in any interrogation. These were not "busts." The cases of most of the people who were detained have been dealt with in such a way that they are unavailable to review behind the screen of "national Security." If such a thing as a non-political court could be found, I'd be willing to have these cases reviewed there to see how necessary this sudden grip of National Security has been, and to what extent it is something that is a basic damage to the country and has been inappropriately applied. I feel it's possible that it's been inappropriately applied here, and needs objective review. I'm willing to say that it's possible I'm wrong, and to place the review into hands that all hands would find reasonably a-political. This degree of secrecy is inappropriate for a democracy. How "murderous" these cases are, or how benign, if we are looking at them judiciously — in either sense — is certainly not something that can be pre-determined. Nor should it be pre-determined by a monopoly of the presentation by one side of Judicial process, the prosecution, which has already succeeded in skewing the legal rules out of recognition in its favor. This is one of the things we fought a revolution to protect ourselves against, and we made a point of writing due process and no cruel and unusual punishment into the constitution. quote: Old is not the same as out of date. The fact that these people were arrested or kidnapped up to six years ago doesn't mean that their imprisonment is ended. For some, it continues. That is not out of date. The "release" of some of these prisoners has been to what places? Often it has been to jails, which begs the question of their guilt or innocence, doesn't it? The nature of the countries which own these jails has been what? Syria, for some of them? Egypt for some of them? We may have gotten them away from the scrutiny of the American Public, but exactly where have we put them, Jeff? I sure don't know. These are people who have never had any guilt proven. quote: Won or lost about events in Iraq makes so little sense to me that the whole concept seems slightly off base. If there was a war, we won it in six weeks. We've been wearing out our troops, our economy and our welcome ever since. Our troops have done all that we could have asked them and much much more, and I think that what I see of the way they've been treated with stop loss orders and worn out equipment and "You fight the war with the equipment you have," is far less than they deserve. We did lose a lot, however, including the faith of the world in American leadership, and this needs to be rebuilt. I believe we lost a lot in terms of civil liberties as well, and that the Legislative branch lost a lot to the Executive branch, and that the balance of powers has gotten out of wack. I would like, for example, the business of signing statements to end, and I'd like to see legislation on the matter and judicial review of it. We may not have lost the war, but we haven't emerged yet, entirely, and we won't emerge unscathed. Sincerely, Bob Kaven This link is more recent, should you wish a more recent link, and it deals with the issue of recidivism. I would have thought differently, myself, given the radicalizing nature of the experience. http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
This seems like a fair edit, Ron. It says everything I'd want to say. Not having kept a copy of the original, I can say that everything that isn't there remains unnoticed in its absence. Obviously it's better than I could have done. Thank you. [This message has been edited by Bob K (01-27-2009 08:09 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
