"Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it....."
It is interesting to me that the current bailout is calling for $700 billion for wall street. I find that number rather striking in that is approxamately the same amount of cash that we are sending overseas to unfriendly foreign Governments for our energy needs.
It seems to me that if both republican and democratic administrations in the 70's had paid attention to the energy crisis then, we probably wouldn't be were we are now!
Creating our own energy resources would have provided the needed financial wealth to our citizens to pay for everything from mortgages to stock purchases and perhaps we would have averted the current mess.
While this current crisis is reflective of the stark realization that some people bought homes on credit who should have never been allowed too: And the greed of Wall Street: And the drawback associated with the invention of computer technology which makes it too easy to refinance homes: And the greed and lack of discipline in our banking institutions it is ever bit just as reflective of POLITICIANS who didn't do there job then and certianly haven't done their job since then (1970's)!
Where was/is our leadership!??????
Where is the common sense?
Does anyone on Capitol Hill care anymore?
While it must be the roll of the American free market to produce new forms of energy the departments and congress of our federal government should have understood the delimma in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, and given us leadership on the issue. Ecouraging our business and educational sectors to create new forms of energy would have eliminated our dependence on foreign powers, provided new jobs and fertilized the technological infrastructure to our universities and secondary schools calling upon young people to concentrate on mathematics, science and advancing technology to lead America in this new Century.
They did not! And now all the areas of our nation, financial, science, employment and housing sectors are suffering from this lack of vision.
Obviously, if you haven't noticed already, I am totally opposed to the bail out!
I know that may be harsh and I do not want to be insensitive. But the lesson we must now learn can only be accomplished through enduring the pain so that if we are to remain consistant and loyal to our economic system and our traditional way of life we WILL (must!) learn through this mess so that our children and grand-children will not have to put up with anything like it again.
While in the short term it may stablize markets a bit in the long run it will be detrimental. If we bail out Wall Street here are the dire consquences:
1. Government intervention though providing some immediate relief will cause the dollar to plunge even lower. Imports, and especially, oil, will become more expensive. Just look back at the 70's with the long gas lines, etc. (Then, we dealt with another problem that has rarely been mentioned during this economic downturn over the last year--that nasty virus of all economies: Inflation.) A lower dollar means higher prices and American's buying power will deminish sharply.
2. Government infusion into this problem can only serve to further corrupt the entities involved and puts us on a "slippery slope" that will continue to erode independence of the free market system. In laymen's terms. Government "bailing out" these previously independent organization means more government in the future. Government regulation will lead to "socialization" of the most viable, lucrative, area of our free economy with a "trinkle down" effect on other businesses large and small in American. And when the recovery does occur there will be too much "red-tape" getting in the way of potential, economic, growth.
3. Many of those who are about to lose their home will probably do so anyway. I know that may sound mean. But just because we "bailout" the banks doesn't mean American's will be bailed out. If amendments to the currently discussed plan (helping those facing foreclosure) are allowed to go thru then we will only be putting a "band aide" on the problem. And not solving a deeper issue: Job creation and the sustainment of growth and competition in the ever expanding, global, marketplace.
4. If we go into debt to bail out these companies it will eventually lead to the US borrowing more money from nations who do not like us in order to keep our government going: China, Russia, Middle Eastern nations especially. And if we bail out the banks...who do you think will wind up buying all these empty houses? Foreign governments and foreign businesses, that's who!! Not unlike what we are seeing right now in Florida and California. Yes, we will erode our national sovereignty to nations that for one reason or another do not like us!
Last night I was listening as Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrinch talking with Greta Van Susteren. He pointed out some significant history that all of us should keep in mind: (I hope all of you can watch that interview)
(to parapharse)
In 1989, after running over with economic opulence in the mid to late 1980;s the Japaneese found themselves in a similar situation. According to Mr. Gingrinch it took the Japaneese fourteen (14) years to face their own reality. For 14 years the Japanese stayed in a relative "recession" that took them away from their economic prowess; And caused them to dwell upon the "saving" themselves and withdrawing from their influence in the rest of the world.
While Japan is still a significant player on the world economic stage most of us realize that it no longer carries the influence it did only 20 years ago.
Will we make the same mistake? I hope the decision is made not for immediate relif but for future generations to come. And if so America will continue to grow. If not the alternative is determential.
The politicians in Washington need to grow a back-bone, stand-up and say "no" to this bailout! Let America be America! Let the greatest economic entity ever devised by human's do its thing. Heal itself for the long-term, best, interest of our nation as a whole!!!
Gritsfed
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
An American Election 101
"Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, measures in which the lives and liberties of millions, born and unborn are most essentially interested are now before us. We are in the midst of a revolution, the most complete, unexpected, and remarkable of any in the history of the world." (John Adams speaking to delegates in writing the Declaration of Independence: Philadelphia, July, 1776)
I have been spending time with some old friends recently. Very old friends. They are so old that though their spirits have moved forward to the next life their counsel is invaluable. And during this hotly contested American election once again their ideals and principles call out to each of us from the printed page as loudly as from the platforms of the current presidential candidates & parties.
Please allow me to reintroduce these two dear friends.
Two who have had a profound impact upon American governing history and principles. Tragically, most Americans have scant heard of them or remember them. However these two loom so enormous in what America has become their architectural diagramming not only served, indirectly, in the writing of our American Constitution (though their names are never mentioned) but frankly, their input had become a catalyst of the "American way of thinking" for over two hundred years. And since it is once again "election season" I think it is high-time we ALL pay them a visit. They must be heard!
I am speaking of Adam Smith and John Locke.
Smith authored a text in the 18Th century entitled, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations." It was the first and foremost informative and ingenious attestations to the importance and maintenance in the growth of political economies. John Locke's work, "Essay's on Human Understanding," published approximately 80 years before the writing of our Constitution, stood out as a philosophical treatise of such importance it is said to have had a profound impact on the founding fathers --especially Adams and Madison--and is reported to have had a notable influence upon their opinions on the construction and content of our US Constitution.
As today we sometimes need a "Locksmith" to get us through the front door, Smith and Locke gave us the treasured maxims of free market economic growth, and personal responsibility that would become the cornerstone of our governing principles. (Forgive me but I just couldn't resist playing with the juxtaposition of those names) In effect, both Smith and Locke's writing serve as a clarion call for a free people to govern themselves and pursue opportunity without government control or encumbrances.
Together, in a nutshell, their work could be called a handbook on how to (or how not to) govern.
It would do well for many of our young people (in fact, ALL Americans) to turn to these two legends from our past--just as I have over these last weeks--to reinforce the principles as laid out by the founding fathers in America. To be reminded of who we are supposed to be; Where we came from and if America is to continue to be great, where we should be heading. Only then can we reach the zenith within the framework of American governance as it should be!!!
Someone has stated that in this election we have a choice:
"A choice between a man who has shot missiles to protect America, and another, as a community organizer, who has only shot staples into a telephone poll." Good point!
With one party you have an over-arching bureaucratic mandate that involves, in effect, "buying" votes with governmental programs that will bankrupt the American people and create more excessive government interference into all areas. Senator's Obama and Biden offer no more than "cash cows" to the American electorate that resemble more from an episode of "Deal or No Deal" than creative, innovative, American solutions that require all of us, as Americans, working together, with our shoulder to the wheel, to achieve the common good. And unfortunately, Sen. Obama, like Deal or No Deal offers us what amounts to no more than a game of "chance" in telling us if we turn in the "lucky case" our dreams will be put into the hands of someone else (Government) and all of our problems will be solved and we'll all live happily ever after.
Not so fast!
What they don't tell you is that each of us; Yes, each of us, in turning our stuff over to government give up more control of our destiny. Yes, it is exactly like that!!! Government calls the shots!
All we need to do is act like we are in a Greyhound bus. Remember that commercial?
"Go Greyhound and leave the driving to us!" Right! Just jump on DC train to Washington and all of our problems will be solved. Not on your life, friend!
Isn't it interesting?
We spent decades working to tear down the "Berlin Wall"...the ultimate symbol of government control! And here we have the democrats spending millions of dollars, and making emotionally charged speeches overtly telling us they want to re-erect it in our American government. Of course, they'll never call it what it is, socialism, but you don't have to look to hard to recognize it for what it truly is!
Yeap, just give 'em the keys and they'll drive each of us into the "happily-ever-after" land and all of our problems are solved.
Which brings me back to why Mr. Locke and Mr. Smith's works were so important. The system of government control in their day, of course, was called a "monarchy:" The next century it was to become "Marxism." During the cold war it was called "communism;" Today it should be called what it is: The Democratic National Platform
Obviously, at this point I would like to direct your attention toward the other direction.
Senator McCain and Governor Palin:
Let me start off by saying that anyone who is/has been Governor of Alaska gets my vote! If you have never been there...you need to go! It is the most wide-open, uncontrolled range in the western hemisphere. It is absolutely breathe-taking...and as open as the Alaskan frontier is, the challenges are eclipsed no less by the exceptional opportunities it offers! In other words as folks have conquered the great north country, (Alaskan frontier), with all its obvious difficulties in doing so their individual and collective reward greatly outweighed difficulty in meeting the challenges.
And just like the new, American frontier over 200 years ago, and even today, Alaska is an example of confronting challenges and reaping the rewards of doing so. And over the years though the challenges up there and even down here have been tough, most Americans didn't just throw up their collective hands and look to someone else (like the government) for a bail out of the problems they encountered!!!
...back to the subject........
Sen. McCain's candidacy though not necessarily a perfect fit, more closely models the ideology of Smith and Locke; And, furthermore, the governing philosophies of Adams and Madison. The near perfect view with a clear, unmistakable, mandate:
Less Government is Better Government!!! And personal responsibility, in the U.S. anyway, must always trump any desire to put the government (especially Federal Government) muddling around in the affairs of our individual lives!
So, if you find yourself with some free time over the next few weeks take a trip to the public library and look up my old buddies, Adam Smith and John Locke; you'll be glad you did.
Better hurry though Novemeber 4th is right around the corner!
Tell 'em there old buddy "Gritsfed" told you to pay 'em a visit.
Go "ramblin wreck"!
I have been spending time with some old friends recently. Very old friends. They are so old that though their spirits have moved forward to the next life their counsel is invaluable. And during this hotly contested American election once again their ideals and principles call out to each of us from the printed page as loudly as from the platforms of the current presidential candidates & parties.
Please allow me to reintroduce these two dear friends.
Two who have had a profound impact upon American governing history and principles. Tragically, most Americans have scant heard of them or remember them. However these two loom so enormous in what America has become their architectural diagramming not only served, indirectly, in the writing of our American Constitution (though their names are never mentioned) but frankly, their input had become a catalyst of the "American way of thinking" for over two hundred years. And since it is once again "election season" I think it is high-time we ALL pay them a visit. They must be heard!
I am speaking of Adam Smith and John Locke.
Smith authored a text in the 18Th century entitled, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations." It was the first and foremost informative and ingenious attestations to the importance and maintenance in the growth of political economies. John Locke's work, "Essay's on Human Understanding," published approximately 80 years before the writing of our Constitution, stood out as a philosophical treatise of such importance it is said to have had a profound impact on the founding fathers --especially Adams and Madison--and is reported to have had a notable influence upon their opinions on the construction and content of our US Constitution.
As today we sometimes need a "Locksmith" to get us through the front door, Smith and Locke gave us the treasured maxims of free market economic growth, and personal responsibility that would become the cornerstone of our governing principles. (Forgive me but I just couldn't resist playing with the juxtaposition of those names) In effect, both Smith and Locke's writing serve as a clarion call for a free people to govern themselves and pursue opportunity without government control or encumbrances.
Together, in a nutshell, their work could be called a handbook on how to (or how not to) govern.
It would do well for many of our young people (in fact, ALL Americans) to turn to these two legends from our past--just as I have over these last weeks--to reinforce the principles as laid out by the founding fathers in America. To be reminded of who we are supposed to be; Where we came from and if America is to continue to be great, where we should be heading. Only then can we reach the zenith within the framework of American governance as it should be!!!
Someone has stated that in this election we have a choice:
"A choice between a man who has shot missiles to protect America, and another, as a community organizer, who has only shot staples into a telephone poll." Good point!
With one party you have an over-arching bureaucratic mandate that involves, in effect, "buying" votes with governmental programs that will bankrupt the American people and create more excessive government interference into all areas. Senator's Obama and Biden offer no more than "cash cows" to the American electorate that resemble more from an episode of "Deal or No Deal" than creative, innovative, American solutions that require all of us, as Americans, working together, with our shoulder to the wheel, to achieve the common good. And unfortunately, Sen. Obama, like Deal or No Deal offers us what amounts to no more than a game of "chance" in telling us if we turn in the "lucky case" our dreams will be put into the hands of someone else (Government) and all of our problems will be solved and we'll all live happily ever after.
Not so fast!
What they don't tell you is that each of us; Yes, each of us, in turning our stuff over to government give up more control of our destiny. Yes, it is exactly like that!!! Government calls the shots!
All we need to do is act like we are in a Greyhound bus. Remember that commercial?
"Go Greyhound and leave the driving to us!" Right! Just jump on DC train to Washington and all of our problems will be solved. Not on your life, friend!
Isn't it interesting?
We spent decades working to tear down the "Berlin Wall"...the ultimate symbol of government control! And here we have the democrats spending millions of dollars, and making emotionally charged speeches overtly telling us they want to re-erect it in our American government. Of course, they'll never call it what it is, socialism, but you don't have to look to hard to recognize it for what it truly is!
Yeap, just give 'em the keys and they'll drive each of us into the "happily-ever-after" land and all of our problems are solved.
Which brings me back to why Mr. Locke and Mr. Smith's works were so important. The system of government control in their day, of course, was called a "monarchy:" The next century it was to become "Marxism." During the cold war it was called "communism;" Today it should be called what it is: The Democratic National Platform
Obviously, at this point I would like to direct your attention toward the other direction.
Senator McCain and Governor Palin:
Let me start off by saying that anyone who is/has been Governor of Alaska gets my vote! If you have never been there...you need to go! It is the most wide-open, uncontrolled range in the western hemisphere. It is absolutely breathe-taking...and as open as the Alaskan frontier is, the challenges are eclipsed no less by the exceptional opportunities it offers! In other words as folks have conquered the great north country, (Alaskan frontier), with all its obvious difficulties in doing so their individual and collective reward greatly outweighed difficulty in meeting the challenges.
And just like the new, American frontier over 200 years ago, and even today, Alaska is an example of confronting challenges and reaping the rewards of doing so. And over the years though the challenges up there and even down here have been tough, most Americans didn't just throw up their collective hands and look to someone else (like the government) for a bail out of the problems they encountered!!!
...back to the subject........
Sen. McCain's candidacy though not necessarily a perfect fit, more closely models the ideology of Smith and Locke; And, furthermore, the governing philosophies of Adams and Madison. The near perfect view with a clear, unmistakable, mandate:
Less Government is Better Government!!! And personal responsibility, in the U.S. anyway, must always trump any desire to put the government (especially Federal Government) muddling around in the affairs of our individual lives!
So, if you find yourself with some free time over the next few weeks take a trip to the public library and look up my old buddies, Adam Smith and John Locke; you'll be glad you did.
Better hurry though Novemeber 4th is right around the corner!
Tell 'em there old buddy "Gritsfed" told you to pay 'em a visit.
Go "ramblin wreck"!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A Memo to Fareed Zakaria: You got it wrong, Sir!
In his new book, "The Post American World, "Mr Fareed Zakaria, an analyst in the past on ABC and currently with CNN, says his book isn't about the decline of America but about the rise of everyone else. He talks about a new era we are entering, a post American age, where the US will no longer have preeminence in geopolitical politics, dominate the global economy nor overwhelm cultures. He sees places like China, Brazil, Russia, India and others as the great story of our time. He says those nations will reshape the way the world thinks and does business. The tallest buildings, the biggest dams, the largest selling movies and the most advanced cell phones are being built outside the United States.
The economic growth and political influence of these other nations will create difficulty and diminish America's position in the world according to Mr. Zakaria.
The economic growth and political influence of these other nations will create difficulty and diminish America's position in the world according to Mr. Zakaria.
Now let me say up front that Mr. Zakaria is probably smarter than I am. He was raised as the son of an Islamic scholar in his native India and has attended Yale and Harvard Universities. So he is no doubt better educated than I am.
But, I believe, he misses the point of what America is really about.
While money and prosperity are important, America isn't the "city on a hill" to the rest of the world just because of economic capability and opulent wealth. Furthermore, in the truest since of the grand historical narrative, America isn't replete with time and time again reaching out to help others in need just because we, in the past or present, happen to build the most quality products. America is who she is because of where she has come from and what she represents to a world as the very essence of liberty and dignity that is the foundation, the hallmark if you will, of our American way of life.
Additionally, I will say The Constitution of the United States remains that very instrument where not only Americans but others from around the world look too for guidance and hope in an otherwise depleted human condition.
Allow me to say at this point that my mom and dad didn't have a whole lot. But both of them, especially my mother, pointed me in the direction of the foundation of life. That foundation was the Christian faith. And as integral as that foundation of faith has been in my own life it has likewise served the United States for 233 years. Mr. Zakaria and others from a background not dissimilar to his, perhaps can't grasp that concept.
Again, what we have here is a stark contrast in cultures and values.
Now, I am not saying that the Divine Perspective is always pro-American. America and American leaders certianly have made their (our) share of mistakes. And closer to home I am not saying God (or Jesus) is Republican or Democrat, for that matter, either.
But what I am saying is that unlike Mr Zakaria's native India, and most other countries around the globe, the US was founded by God fearing men and women who took their directions from the Judeo-Christian ethos as the core of their being. We see it transmitted to us in practically every public document and many architectural structures from that era. And contrary to what the revisionist historians may try to write the fact is that the founding fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others clearly understood where our source of life and authority came from. In later years, other Americans, Lincoln and Reagan for example, got hold of these facts also.
They were all liberators:
Liberating ourselves from the over-arching despots (i.e., the King of England) over 200 years ago; Have you read the third section of the Declaration of Independence?
Liberating those very souls who we held in slavery simply because of their skin color: Have you ever read the "Gettysburg Address"?
Liberating those around the world oppressed by totalitarianism: Does, "Mr Gorbachev, please tear down this wall!" ring a bell?
Bigger than any paycheck or any technological/engineering masterpiece comes the most basic human need--freedom. Freedom to express himself or herself, "....with certian inalienable rights as endowed by their creator," as He designed each to do.
Perhaps the American leaders mentioned above were also students of the biblical comments of the Apostle Paul who wrote:
"It was for freedom that Christ came so do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery"(Galatians 5:1)
In speaking with Sean Hannity last week Mr. Zakaria arrogantly stated,
" I am an American because I chose to be, you are an American by accident."
Well, Mr. Zakria, welcome to America, sir!
But we weren't born here by accident.
In fact, if being "accidentally" born in America wasn't all that it is cracked up to be why did the founding fathers require that the President of the United States had to be a "natural born American citizen?"(US Constitution Article II Section 1)
Privilege? Maybe?
But I think it was something more common sense and even more basic than that! I believe that Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the others knew what the rest of the world was like. And how they think! And I really believe they knew to be born here imbibes one with a voracious loyalty unlike any other place a person may eventually find themselves living. Certainly, I am not saying those who have moved here can't love America as I can. I believe they can. I have met several who do!
However, Mr. Zakaria's sanctimonious "choice" speaks to the arrogance of the heart it comes from!
He and others like him really hold a deep contempt against this nation. They think that many Americans are naive, don't know what the rest of the world is like, and think we should come to reality. Well, frankly, reality--the world as it was was what the founders were trying to avoid--to get away from. They came to this country originally to escape religious persecution from "reality." So their sons, daughters, grand children and great grand children didn't grow up in a world worrying about where the next government "reality" was coming from.
And while I take issue with the comments of Mr. Zakria and others who purport his view, I will, in the same breathe, acknowledge that he has the right to say it. And only in a free America--consecrated in blood, sweat and the ardours of the American Ideologues who framed these concepts over 200 years ago--that freedom of speech is still the reality, even today!
And that is the memo!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Ultimate Deception: "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" & Silencing the American Media
On Sunday evening (06/16/08)I was watching the program, "Strategy Room," on Foxnews. There were the usual participants of political pundancy, Bret Baier (moderator/host), Kate Obenshein, Bob Beckel, and two faces that I had previously not seen on the program--one Democratic; one Republican.
About half-way through the program Bob Beckle questioned the legitimacy of reporters asking questions of political candidates concerning perspective rumors surrounding them in the midst of a campaign. This point arose out of the necessity of the Presidential campaign of Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-Ill.) to set up his own web-site (http://www.fightthesmears.com/) to stop the rumor mongering that had circulated during and after the democratic primary season.
Mr. Beckel had said, to paraphrase, ...
......that if reporters do not have any facts or evidence to support a question then those members of the press should NOT ask the question.
All I could do was gulp, and ask myself, "huh? Did Bob Beckel say what I thought he just said?"
I watched the program twice last Sunday evening to make sure that what I heard was correct; It was.
While I sometimes appreciate and enjoy Mr. Beckel's long political experience and his rather home-spun, down-to-earth humor, the fact that he would make such a declaratory statement requiring members of a free and open press to have "facts" before asking the question defeats the purpose for asking it, doesn't it?
I had always thought it was advantageous for reporters to ask candidates questions so that the person running for office would have the opportunity to set the record straight on an issue. Either deny it flat out, do a song 'n dance, put a spin on it, etc; Or simply say "no comment" and lets move on....If you disagree with me please feel free to let me know (Gritsfed@gmail.com).
Regrettably in this day and age of "gotcha politics" I can understand how political opportunists do not appreciate being confronted with the truth; While simultaneously recognizing that some unscrupulous reporters with a hidden cause might ask a "gotcha" question to just create a "buzz" while possibly diminishing a perspective office holder's reputation in doing so. In other words, a reporter with a murky agenda bringing something up to just create an illusion of improprioty.
(Does the attempted smear job against an honorable man like John McCain (R-Az) by the New York Times for wrongful allegation concerning a Washington lobbyist a few months ago ring a bell here?)
Senator McCain that very day was given the opportunity to stand before the press (and the nation) and clarify the record. He took some questions from the reporters which helped to straighten out a matter where, frankly, there was no matter or issue to begin with.
Along with the relief that many, including myself, enjoyed that Mr. McCain's reputation was still intact; There should have been a louder, collective, hallajuah!! in that only in an open society such as ours the freeworkings of the press worked in helping to clear his name and reputation.
Chalk up another one to our founding Fathers who knew exactly what they were doing where in the first amendment to our constitution they made it very clear that we MUST have a free press. (see below)
Realistically for those in the press the professionalism of the institution itself should weed out those who may be bent on an agenda to smear otherwise good people's names. Furthermore, the perspective candidate or individual should ignore that particular person or group who simply want to make a stir by asking stupid questions that do not even deserve a response. And leave it up to the rest of us, either individually or as a whole, to determine whether a response should have been warranted.
However, as the "unofficial" fourth branch of our government (free press) reporters should be given perfect leeway to ask a reasonable question they may not have all the answers to so that hopefully they'll be able to report the facts fairly. Likewise I believe that political figures, those running for office or anyone who has a question to arise concerning themselves and their character should be given the opportunity (as Senator McCain did)to respond to it; Let everyone know the truth or in some cases, as the facts may reveal, further discredit themselves.
In a nutshell, if the press isn't allowed to ask probing questions then John McCain and Barack Obama (nor any other public figure for that matter) would not have a venue to quash rumors that amount to no more than innuendo, and then set the record straight on whatever issue or circumstance has been brought into question.
And I really believe that was what the founding Fathers intended when they wanted to insure this newly formed Republic had a free and open press. To them the truth would always set and help keep American's free. That is why some through out history have alluded to the press (media) as the fourth "unofficial" branch of our Government.
More importantly however and for the balance of this writing, the comments of Mr. Beckel (a Democrat) reignited a sentinel issue that I believe hangs in the balance with the upcoming Presidential election.
For several years now the debate over the Fairness Doctrine has repeatedly been bantered around by a large power vacuum in our nation's capital. And as Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has stated, it is a "misnamed" piece of legislation! And the Senator is absolutely correct!
In effect, the Fairness Doctrine, in the language which it has evolved recently will require media outlets to present a "balance of opinion" concerning political points of view as it relates to their prespective programming .
Now that may sound harmless enough on the surface but here is what it is really all about:
The Fairness Doctrine which has in one form or another existed since 1929 in its recent or contemporary outline will force radio stations to go through the burdensome step of presenting another point of view in addition to current "talk"programming. In other words, to borrow from Dick Morris, "if you are given three hourse of Sean Hannity on the radio station then the station will be obligated by law to give three hours to Allen Colmes." But the fact is that this newly designed legislation isn't really about fairness at all! It is designed to put current day conservative talk (i.e, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Laura Ingram, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) either out of business or force the stations to present counter-programming that, if the radio outlets(station managers) do not, they would probably be looking at best, a lawsiut, and at worse, prison.
Yeap, you heard it right friends, in America radio station owners and program directors could get into serious trouble for violating a new Fairness Doctrine if it actually becomes the law!
Still not convinced, try this.........
The far left has been unable to sustain a marketable political program (or programing) to rival the present day, talk radio behemoth's mentioned earlier and other small market radio programs that are very similar to them.
In fact, "Air America," the left-of-center, progressive, radio and Internet programming network that has been on the air since March of 2004, had to be pulled from the progeny of bankruptcy by the "Green Family Media" group in the fall of 2007. Air America was the left wings first, great hope to at least score a notch in the overwhelming success that has been enjoyed for nearly two decades by conservative talk radio. Obviously it didn't!
And in this failed effort one can't help but sense the otherwise vocal frustration that can, and most probably will from their political point of view, dictate legislative action to mute the voices of public discourse and an open assessment of public policy should the Democrats take control of the House, Senate and White House this January. In other words the left can't beat nor compete with conservative talk radio. So how will they try to shut it up? Enact new laws [Fairness Doctrine] that will force them to be shut down!!!
Why has conservative talk been so successful you ask?
Unlike the liberal leaning, Air America, and other left-of-center mediums, the conservative talk radio format enters not only the home but the marketplace. Why? Conservative talk radio reaches many who go about their day-to-day activities without the opportunity or time to exploit internet and television venues that are controlled by a more left-of-center establishments.
In other words, most conservative talk radio listeners are those who go about their business, work hard, raise their families and can't spend long hours being brain-washed by vegetating in front of mostly liberal television news outlets! (this is where I get to mention Oprah Winfrey) Most of talk radio listeners don't have an agenda except to raise their families, do their jobs, live respectful life, pay their bills and carve out their share of the American dream, love their country without all that leftest television nonsense to work their way through.
Perhaps just as importantly however, conservative talk radio exposes the realities of the agenda of the other side in a common sense, educated, understandable format. It is often hosted by educated professionals who care about our country and what happens to it! In most cases it isn't being hosted by political opportunists who are bent on "spinnning " a position to make themselves look good at the countries immediate or long term expense.
And how this comports with the aforementioned comments of Mr. Beckel should be obvious?
Simply, Mr. Beckel's comments are part of the underlying ideology that permeates the current wave in many a Democratic ideology. Shut up the press! Shut up the conservative talk venue so they (the left) can be home free to do anything without any public accountability or scrutiny. And the average citizen would then be left to languish with a more tilted, left-wing coverage, more tasteful to the Democrats palate.
In short to push their socialist agenda the Democrats must have control of the information that is generated for public consumption! And conservative talk radio is a forum that leaves them frustrated in their ability (or inability) to control content--yes, it is all about their"propaganda."
Apparently, in Mr. Beckel's (and other Democrats) world, the press should not ask a question that would create further inquisition and exploration by the media which could easily and creatively draw the public into public discourse and hold elected officials accountable. Because if that happens the lefty's loose, practically, every time!
California's senior Senator Diane Feinstein gives us a further glimpse of the Democratic perspective:
"Well in my view, talk radio tends to be one sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It is explosive. It pushes people, I think, extreme views without a lot of information........This bill [Fairness Doctrine] fixes those flaws. Do I think there ought to be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view, yes, I do, particularly about the issues of the day. .....I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is one way." (Foxnews Sunday 6/24/07)
The senior Senator from California is preaching a double standard! But that isn't a surprise. Think about it! She represents people from a state that is perhaps the most influential media sector of our country, Hollywood! And hasn't that same Hollywood crowd told us for years, in effect, "if you don't like what you watch or hear (via TV and other media) change the channel?" Or, "turn off the TV!" Well, senator, many of us did! And we have turned to conservative talk radio!
So now, Senator, it is your turn!!
Tell your people not to listen and to change the channel! Interesting how what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander in this case, is it? But that is nothing new to the Democrats. It is always a double standard!
Obviously, the left will maintain that Hollywood is an entertainment mecca. The Senator and those of her political pursuasion will point out they are talking about public policy when it comes to talk radio. Again, sounds good, but hold on just a second.....!!!
Question, does anyone out here in "fly-over country" not believe that at least half of the "junk" coming out of Hollywood has had a detrimental impact on our society? Especially on our young people? And aren't those political folks, like Senator Feinstein, always wanting Americans, especially young Americans, to get involved in the political process? Isn't conservative talk radio is one of those venues that does just that?
Yeap, Senator, you and your friends should follow the advice of some of your fellow Californians--- change the channel if you don't like it!
But the reality is, in the case of talk radio, the shoe is now on the other foot, and the Democrats will do what they can to silence it.
Last summer the House of Representatives voted 309-115 against allowing the FCC to use tax payer money to implement the Fariness Doctrine. Predictiably, noted Democrats in the Senate like Sen. Feinstein, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Dick Durban are for it. Most Republicans are opposed.
But believe it or not, some Democrats do have the right perspective. They might not like conservative talk radio but they understand, I believe, how important free speech is to each of us--whether as a reporter, a talk radio program or just normal citizens like you and me.
"We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now," said House Appropriations Committee Chaiman David Obey(D-Wisconsin). "Rush and Sean are about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibiity by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become mostly influential or respected." (The Hill.com/Alexander Bolten/06/28/07)
We have been told where John McCain stands on the subject and his position on any proposal of the Fairness Doctrine; The question begs, WHERE IS BARACK OBAMA ON THIS ISSUE?
And it is my hope that some folks or at least someone while he or she still has the freedom to do so will get him "on the record" on this issue before the election.
Who knows? Maybe that is one reason he is avoiding the "Town Hall Debates" with Senator McCain? He and his campaign must realize that he may get asked about his position on the Fairness Doctrine; And he would then have to stand there as looking at the crowd, the camera and each American, letting them know he is going to take away one of the sacred pillars of our national fabric---freedom of speech.
No big deal though,......it really isn't that important is it? ......it is only the US Constitution which is at stake!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right to peaceable assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution of the United States.
"There is no sactuary in the First Amendment for the unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all." Supreme Court Justice Byron White.
Gritsfed
About half-way through the program Bob Beckle questioned the legitimacy of reporters asking questions of political candidates concerning perspective rumors surrounding them in the midst of a campaign. This point arose out of the necessity of the Presidential campaign of Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-Ill.) to set up his own web-site (http://www.fightthesmears.com/) to stop the rumor mongering that had circulated during and after the democratic primary season.
Mr. Beckel had said, to paraphrase, ...
......that if reporters do not have any facts or evidence to support a question then those members of the press should NOT ask the question.
All I could do was gulp, and ask myself, "huh? Did Bob Beckel say what I thought he just said?"
I watched the program twice last Sunday evening to make sure that what I heard was correct; It was.
While I sometimes appreciate and enjoy Mr. Beckel's long political experience and his rather home-spun, down-to-earth humor, the fact that he would make such a declaratory statement requiring members of a free and open press to have "facts" before asking the question defeats the purpose for asking it, doesn't it?
I had always thought it was advantageous for reporters to ask candidates questions so that the person running for office would have the opportunity to set the record straight on an issue. Either deny it flat out, do a song 'n dance, put a spin on it, etc; Or simply say "no comment" and lets move on....If you disagree with me please feel free to let me know (Gritsfed@gmail.com).
Regrettably in this day and age of "gotcha politics" I can understand how political opportunists do not appreciate being confronted with the truth; While simultaneously recognizing that some unscrupulous reporters with a hidden cause might ask a "gotcha" question to just create a "buzz" while possibly diminishing a perspective office holder's reputation in doing so. In other words, a reporter with a murky agenda bringing something up to just create an illusion of improprioty.
(Does the attempted smear job against an honorable man like John McCain (R-Az) by the New York Times for wrongful allegation concerning a Washington lobbyist a few months ago ring a bell here?)
Senator McCain that very day was given the opportunity to stand before the press (and the nation) and clarify the record. He took some questions from the reporters which helped to straighten out a matter where, frankly, there was no matter or issue to begin with.
Along with the relief that many, including myself, enjoyed that Mr. McCain's reputation was still intact; There should have been a louder, collective, hallajuah!! in that only in an open society such as ours the freeworkings of the press worked in helping to clear his name and reputation.
Chalk up another one to our founding Fathers who knew exactly what they were doing where in the first amendment to our constitution they made it very clear that we MUST have a free press. (see below)
Realistically for those in the press the professionalism of the institution itself should weed out those who may be bent on an agenda to smear otherwise good people's names. Furthermore, the perspective candidate or individual should ignore that particular person or group who simply want to make a stir by asking stupid questions that do not even deserve a response. And leave it up to the rest of us, either individually or as a whole, to determine whether a response should have been warranted.
However, as the "unofficial" fourth branch of our government (free press) reporters should be given perfect leeway to ask a reasonable question they may not have all the answers to so that hopefully they'll be able to report the facts fairly. Likewise I believe that political figures, those running for office or anyone who has a question to arise concerning themselves and their character should be given the opportunity (as Senator McCain did)to respond to it; Let everyone know the truth or in some cases, as the facts may reveal, further discredit themselves.
In a nutshell, if the press isn't allowed to ask probing questions then John McCain and Barack Obama (nor any other public figure for that matter) would not have a venue to quash rumors that amount to no more than innuendo, and then set the record straight on whatever issue or circumstance has been brought into question.
And I really believe that was what the founding Fathers intended when they wanted to insure this newly formed Republic had a free and open press. To them the truth would always set and help keep American's free. That is why some through out history have alluded to the press (media) as the fourth "unofficial" branch of our Government.
More importantly however and for the balance of this writing, the comments of Mr. Beckel (a Democrat) reignited a sentinel issue that I believe hangs in the balance with the upcoming Presidential election.
For several years now the debate over the Fairness Doctrine has repeatedly been bantered around by a large power vacuum in our nation's capital. And as Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has stated, it is a "misnamed" piece of legislation! And the Senator is absolutely correct!
In effect, the Fairness Doctrine, in the language which it has evolved recently will require media outlets to present a "balance of opinion" concerning political points of view as it relates to their prespective programming .
Now that may sound harmless enough on the surface but here is what it is really all about:
The Fairness Doctrine which has in one form or another existed since 1929 in its recent or contemporary outline will force radio stations to go through the burdensome step of presenting another point of view in addition to current "talk"programming. In other words, to borrow from Dick Morris, "if you are given three hourse of Sean Hannity on the radio station then the station will be obligated by law to give three hours to Allen Colmes." But the fact is that this newly designed legislation isn't really about fairness at all! It is designed to put current day conservative talk (i.e, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Laura Ingram, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) either out of business or force the stations to present counter-programming that, if the radio outlets(station managers) do not, they would probably be looking at best, a lawsiut, and at worse, prison.
Yeap, you heard it right friends, in America radio station owners and program directors could get into serious trouble for violating a new Fairness Doctrine if it actually becomes the law!
Still not convinced, try this.........
The far left has been unable to sustain a marketable political program (or programing) to rival the present day, talk radio behemoth's mentioned earlier and other small market radio programs that are very similar to them.
In fact, "Air America," the left-of-center, progressive, radio and Internet programming network that has been on the air since March of 2004, had to be pulled from the progeny of bankruptcy by the "Green Family Media" group in the fall of 2007. Air America was the left wings first, great hope to at least score a notch in the overwhelming success that has been enjoyed for nearly two decades by conservative talk radio. Obviously it didn't!
And in this failed effort one can't help but sense the otherwise vocal frustration that can, and most probably will from their political point of view, dictate legislative action to mute the voices of public discourse and an open assessment of public policy should the Democrats take control of the House, Senate and White House this January. In other words the left can't beat nor compete with conservative talk radio. So how will they try to shut it up? Enact new laws [Fairness Doctrine] that will force them to be shut down!!!
Why has conservative talk been so successful you ask?
Unlike the liberal leaning, Air America, and other left-of-center mediums, the conservative talk radio format enters not only the home but the marketplace. Why? Conservative talk radio reaches many who go about their day-to-day activities without the opportunity or time to exploit internet and television venues that are controlled by a more left-of-center establishments.
In other words, most conservative talk radio listeners are those who go about their business, work hard, raise their families and can't spend long hours being brain-washed by vegetating in front of mostly liberal television news outlets! (this is where I get to mention Oprah Winfrey) Most of talk radio listeners don't have an agenda except to raise their families, do their jobs, live respectful life, pay their bills and carve out their share of the American dream, love their country without all that leftest television nonsense to work their way through.
Perhaps just as importantly however, conservative talk radio exposes the realities of the agenda of the other side in a common sense, educated, understandable format. It is often hosted by educated professionals who care about our country and what happens to it! In most cases it isn't being hosted by political opportunists who are bent on "spinnning " a position to make themselves look good at the countries immediate or long term expense.
And how this comports with the aforementioned comments of Mr. Beckel should be obvious?
Simply, Mr. Beckel's comments are part of the underlying ideology that permeates the current wave in many a Democratic ideology. Shut up the press! Shut up the conservative talk venue so they (the left) can be home free to do anything without any public accountability or scrutiny. And the average citizen would then be left to languish with a more tilted, left-wing coverage, more tasteful to the Democrats palate.
In short to push their socialist agenda the Democrats must have control of the information that is generated for public consumption! And conservative talk radio is a forum that leaves them frustrated in their ability (or inability) to control content--yes, it is all about their"propaganda."
Apparently, in Mr. Beckel's (and other Democrats) world, the press should not ask a question that would create further inquisition and exploration by the media which could easily and creatively draw the public into public discourse and hold elected officials accountable. Because if that happens the lefty's loose, practically, every time!
California's senior Senator Diane Feinstein gives us a further glimpse of the Democratic perspective:
"Well in my view, talk radio tends to be one sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It is explosive. It pushes people, I think, extreme views without a lot of information........This bill [Fairness Doctrine] fixes those flaws. Do I think there ought to be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view, yes, I do, particularly about the issues of the day. .....I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is one way." (Foxnews Sunday 6/24/07)
The senior Senator from California is preaching a double standard! But that isn't a surprise. Think about it! She represents people from a state that is perhaps the most influential media sector of our country, Hollywood! And hasn't that same Hollywood crowd told us for years, in effect, "if you don't like what you watch or hear (via TV and other media) change the channel?" Or, "turn off the TV!" Well, senator, many of us did! And we have turned to conservative talk radio!
So now, Senator, it is your turn!!
Tell your people not to listen and to change the channel! Interesting how what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander in this case, is it? But that is nothing new to the Democrats. It is always a double standard!
Obviously, the left will maintain that Hollywood is an entertainment mecca. The Senator and those of her political pursuasion will point out they are talking about public policy when it comes to talk radio. Again, sounds good, but hold on just a second.....!!!
Question, does anyone out here in "fly-over country" not believe that at least half of the "junk" coming out of Hollywood has had a detrimental impact on our society? Especially on our young people? And aren't those political folks, like Senator Feinstein, always wanting Americans, especially young Americans, to get involved in the political process? Isn't conservative talk radio is one of those venues that does just that?
Yeap, Senator, you and your friends should follow the advice of some of your fellow Californians--- change the channel if you don't like it!
But the reality is, in the case of talk radio, the shoe is now on the other foot, and the Democrats will do what they can to silence it.
Last summer the House of Representatives voted 309-115 against allowing the FCC to use tax payer money to implement the Fariness Doctrine. Predictiably, noted Democrats in the Senate like Sen. Feinstein, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Dick Durban are for it. Most Republicans are opposed.
But believe it or not, some Democrats do have the right perspective. They might not like conservative talk radio but they understand, I believe, how important free speech is to each of us--whether as a reporter, a talk radio program or just normal citizens like you and me.
"We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now," said House Appropriations Committee Chaiman David Obey(D-Wisconsin). "Rush and Sean are about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibiity by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become mostly influential or respected." (The Hill.com/Alexander Bolten/06/28/07)
We have been told where John McCain stands on the subject and his position on any proposal of the Fairness Doctrine; The question begs, WHERE IS BARACK OBAMA ON THIS ISSUE?
And it is my hope that some folks or at least someone while he or she still has the freedom to do so will get him "on the record" on this issue before the election.
Who knows? Maybe that is one reason he is avoiding the "Town Hall Debates" with Senator McCain? He and his campaign must realize that he may get asked about his position on the Fairness Doctrine; And he would then have to stand there as looking at the crowd, the camera and each American, letting them know he is going to take away one of the sacred pillars of our national fabric---freedom of speech.
No big deal though,......it really isn't that important is it? ......it is only the US Constitution which is at stake!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right to peaceable assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution of the United States.
"There is no sactuary in the First Amendment for the unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all." Supreme Court Justice Byron White.
Gritsfed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
