Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
It seems that a troll here thinks we commies want to "socialize" the cable companies, while every fine American knows that the proper way to do business is to hand out unaccountable monopolies to bloated and corrupt campaign contributors like Comcast. That's the free market at work.
From the same addled brain comes the notion that Air America no longer airs in New York, which is false, of course, but has more to do with other bloated monopolies squeezing it out than anything else. Its affiliate in my home town beats all the right wing blatherers in every time slot. Of course, it's owner, Clear Channel, calls its propaganda arms "News Talk," and lets the "progressive" station subsidize them. More free market at work.
I think the right's greatest "success" is how it has convinced its followers to believe such nonsense so confidently that they spout it, mindlessly, at every opportunity, as we see in this case.
Since the campaign is in large part about his corrupt actions in supporting his campaign contributors and enabling their illegal actions, this Comcast incident should be retroactively added as a facet of the campaign and an example of the corruption he represents. Carney cares nothing for the law, and corporations donate to him because they know he will protect them no matter the legality of his actions. Comcast, one of his corrupt donors, is now protecting him, a perfect illustration of the corruption the ads are intended to bring to people's attention. Why not make this incident part of the ads campaign in the newspapers and on radio? Embarass Carney further, and embarass Comcast while you're at it.
Reading the lawyer's response, he's doing exactly the sort of hyper-vetting that reporters endure whenever they write a story that makes a newspaper editor nervous.
Basically, he's trying to check the boxes.
Defamatory accusations? Check (saying someone broke the law).
Conviction or verdict in favor of accusations? No check, therefore no accusation publicized.
This is absolutely routine legalistic practice whenever news management encounters something it wishes to avoid publicizing whether it's fearful of defending itself in a defamation lawsuit or whether it's just trying to wear down an enterprising reporter whose stories disrupt the publisher's lunch table options at Rotary.
Basically, the Comcast lawyer is exploiting journalistic conventions to keep this ad off the air. But ... every single news executive I've ever worked for would find the rationalization acceptable and has probably exploited the conventions as well to kill or dilute a solid story on behalf of management.
Where a cable company does not hold a monopoly, there should be no state interference.
So, where two cable companies exist in a market, and both refuse lawful political speech, that's OK? How about when three companies own every media outlet in a given market--print, cable, broadcast--everything. It's OK for them to collectively refuse to carry lawful political speech, and the public can be muzzled with impunity?
When private companies block lawful public political speech--interfering with local, state, or national political discourse(which forms the bedrock or our democratic government), that is fine. But when the public insists on its right of political speech, that is "interference".
As you condescendingly said in your comment--how romantic.
A majority of the world's largest oil companies are state-owned, national oil companies.
Good point, Duderino. Perhaps the second round of ads could show a picture of Carney hiding behind Comcast along with details of this story. What image do you think would best represent Comcast? Darth Vader maybe?
And a question: Did I miss something, or is it no longer true, at least in principle, that the airwaves belong to the public and the public permits companies to use them as long as the companies behave in whatever the public defines as its interest? The public unfortunately being represented by the federal government we have now, which makes this more theoretical than practical, but isn't the principle still valid? Or did I miss another decision by an activist court that changed that?
Adnoc is the state-owned company of the United Arab Emigrates
CNOOC is a 71% state-owned company of China
INOC is the state-owned company of Iraq
KPC is the state-owned company of Kuwait
Libya NOC is the state-owned company of Libya
NIOC is the state-owned company of Iran
NNPC is the state-owned company of Nigeria
ONGC is the 71.4% state-owned company of India
PDVSA is the state-owned company of Venezuela
Pemex is the state-owned company of Mexico
Pertamina is the state-owned company of Indonesia
PetroChina is the 90% state-owned company of China
Petronas is the state-owned company of Malaysia
QP is the state-owned company of Qatar
Rosneft is the 75.16% state-owned company of Russia
Saudi Aramco is the state-owned company of Saudi Arabia
Sonatrach is the state-owned company of Algeria
Statoil is the 70.9% state oil company of Norway
Member Countries' National Oil Companies
Algeria:
Sonatrach: [www.sonatrach.dz]
Angola:
Sonangol: [www.sonangol.co]
Ecuador:
Petroecuador:[www.petroecuador.com.ec]
Indonesia:
Pertamina: [www.pertamina.co.id]
Iran:
NIOC: [www.nioc.com]
Kuwait:
Ministry of Oil:[www.moo.gov.kw]
KPC: [www.kpc.com.kw]
Libya:
NOC of Libya: [http://en.noclibya.com]
Nigeria:
NNPC: [www.nnpc-nigeria.com]
Qatar:
Ministry of Energy & Industry:[www.mei.gov.qa]
Qatar Petroleum: [www.qp.com.qa]
Saudi Arabia:
Ministry of Petroleum & Mineral Resources:[www.mopm.gov.sa]
Aramco: [www.saudiaramco.com]
United Arab Emirates:
ADNOC: [www.adnoc.com]
Venezuela:
PDVSA: [http://www.pdv.com]
http://www.opec.org/home/links/links.htm
PDVSA the state-owned company of Venezuela is bad.
Saudi Aramco the state-owned company of Saudi Arabia is good.
I'm confused. Help me figure this out, Shooter, you pimp.
No need to explain to shooter that he has no idea himself how to run a business, let alone a government, now that you've taken him to the woodshed in such fine style.
The trouble is, of course, that neither do the people he seems to admire. It's amazing to me that they're no more competent than he is, but the limits to their competence are visible all around us. For example:
General Motors. (When the fenders fall off, increase the advertising budget. When the marginal utility of increased advertising begins to diminish, hire lots of lawyers and lobbyists, and character assassins to go after Ralph Nader. Blame the unions for shoddy attention to detail. Thirty years later, wake up astonished to find that the Japanese have already eaten your lunch.)
R. J. Reynolds. (When the pesky government and its scientists discover that tobacco is killing people, and that you've known about it for some time, hire lots and LOTS of lawyers and lobbyists. Hire even more cowboy actors to claim that smoking is the last remnant of the free range, as threatened as the bald eagle. Hire your own scientists, too, and pay them well when they conclude that the evidence everywhere around them is inconclusive. Deny everything. When that all starts to go south, diversify.)
Enron. Hang around a lot. Talk smack to everyone and lay a fog of enthusiastically technical bullshit on the rubes -- hell, it sounds so good, why not believe it yourself -- and lay money, lots of it, on the Republicans. When it seems likely that somebody downstream is about to start asking too many questions, stop answering the phones, pull down the shades, and sell your own shares. Your reputation for philanthropy will keep the wolves at bay just long enough, right? No Republican would dare haul you into court, right?)
And I haven't even gotten started on the defense industry, or mentioned outright bribery. Impolite as it may be, one does have to ask how all this has worked out for the aforementioned geniuses and titans of industry. Is shooter really all they have left? As my hillbilly grandmother used to say, that's pitiful, just pitiful.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
