Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
bdop4
Published Letters: 355 Editor's Choice: 12
Nothing will ever change until the advertisers are booted out of the political system. I never did understand the rationale that free speech in politics extended to a person's right to raise and spend millions of dollars to broadcast 30-second soundbites which are supposed to substitute for an informed decision.
Why can't voters demand that all election information and debate be disseminated through state-run websites and debates, which would be broadcast on dedicated network and cable channels? Candidates could express their views on an equal footing, and voters could post queries on issues that each candidate could then either respond to or ignore at their peril.
Some people will protest that certain free speech rights are being infringed upon, but who are we really talking about? It's those unaffiliated party organizations, who are the ones doing the "dirty work" for the party or a candidate by spreading misleading negative campaign ads that noone wants to be associated with.
I know this sounds simplistic, but sometimes its the obvious solutions that get overlooked. Until Madison Avenue is banned from the political process, money will always rule the lives of our politicians.
I wish Russ Feingold would run if just to maintain focus during the upcoming election debates. True, the proposed legislation is not perfect from a progressive standpoint, but such is the art of politics and any stronger language would most likely be DOA at this point in time. The fact is that both the House and Senate bills provide more immediate support to the troops NOW than anything the Bush administration has suggested.
The analogy with Somalia is also perfect, although that situation (also foisted upon us by a Bush) was less aggregious than the current dilemma we are facing. Typically, the Republicans are completely contravening their past assertions, but when has that ever stopped them? This analogy should continued to be used in the debate and the Republicans should be forced to explain how these circumstances warrant a completely different response than what they advocated in 1992.
The U.S. cannot possibly "fix" this problem unless a complete "about-face" is made in foreign policy. That means holding a Mideast summit of ALL countries in the region and communicating to them that despite our role in this mess, the problem and solution are theirs and they will need to collaborate or suffer the consequences. That's not going to happen until 1/09 at the earliest. In the interim, all we can do is repeatedly send up legislation that forces a veto and wait until Republicans start acting out of self-interest (which has always been the only true motivating factor for them). As the continued lack of progress becomes even more obvious, they will sign onto the bill despite their rhetoric.
Commercial, as in "relating to commerce." I've never listened to Imus, and never will, which makes this an interesting decision by MSNBC as what he said probably would not cause any significant percentage of his audience to change the channel.
What it does signify is that MSNBC is perceiving a significant amount of collateral damage to markets outside of Imus' sphere of influence. This is encouraging as hopefully this perception will lead to less commercial sponsorship of ignorant and intolerant speech (including demeaning rap music lyrics). But let's not kid ourselves: no meaningful change will happen if the execs think there is a market and money to be made.
As to the free speech "issues," Joan is right: it only protects the government intruding on your right to speak freely. It doesn't extend to someone's perceived guarantee to lucrative media deals. I'm not privy to the details, but I would imagine that if he had signed a contract, he breached one of its provisions. Otherwise, he's toast whenever one of his clients feels he's more of a liability than an asset.
Totally devastasting (to Bush & Co.) analysis, Glenn.
Remember DARPA's Total Information Awareness (TIA) Project? It was basically a huge (and completely unconstitutional) DoD data mining effort that would collect information on EVERYONE from every conceivable source available. I remember there was a chilling flow chart on the TIA website that showed how an individual's medical records and bills could be tapped to build a profile on anyone.
But then Congress got wind of it and the DoD promised to suspend the project. Except they didn't, of course. They broke up the project into separate projects administered by different agencies. I have no doubt that at the right moment, these various databases could be combined in a single keystroke.
I can't help but believe that a similar program was being indiscriminately used as part of the NSA protocols. The fact that Ashcroft, one of the most zealous enforcement figures to hold the AG office, found the program completely over-the-line speaks volumes.
Everyone should direct their congressional representatives to Glenn's post and DEMAND an immediate investigation.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
