I wonder how much of the new regulation mentioned would include Washington pressuring (censoring?) local stations not to air shows critical of the Administration and Administration-friendly companies (ie, campaign contributors)? Or is that being cynical?
Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.
Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press.
Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.
The CPB is a non-profit entity that was created by Congress and that currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies each year. In fiscal 2009, it is receiving an appropriation of $400 million.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book.
“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”
Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.
On a vaguely unrelated topic, I’m thinking that a tad less than $18 million was used to create the FCC website.
Sorry, that’s #84, not #75
#89, Alphie,
So all those people that voted for Obama and a Democrat Representative are, what did you call them, “statist nuts”?
And you can’t tell a “nut” to stop being “nutty”.
Please keep it up. Insult the majority of Americans a little more. Simply put, the more you wing nuts show your insanity the more people move away from the Republicans and to the Democrats. So please, keep acting the total right wing nut asshole jesus freak idiot.
Thank you.
Yes, Alfred1, you’ve said many many many many times. Obama sucks. Your work here is done. You haven’t added anything meaningful to the debate in a long time. But if it gives you a thrill, keep on chanting, Obama sucks. And his presidency is a complete, total, abject failure six months into it. Riiiiiiiight.
And you had to throw that bit about race in there… your biases are showing there, pal. You might feel a lot better if you just came out and said it.
No, Alfie, it’s your hate that comes out so clear in every post that discredits you. Not whatever “conservative” beliefs you may or may not hold.
You, pedro, a couple others here… you really hate Obama, and you have from the start, long before we had any idea of what kind of president he’d be. Much like people like you hated Clinton before he even took office. It’s not who they are; you hated them before you knew who they are. They obviously represent something to you people, but what?
Somehow, Democratic presidents stir up some kind of unresolved issues with you people. A therapist would have a field day with it. Did a Democratic president kill your dad when you were a kid? Did a Democratic president give you a Wet Willie in junior high? Did a Democratic president steal your girlfriend in high school? What is it with you people? I must confess, I find wackos like you interesting… abnormal psych was one of my favorite college classes. 🙂
#68, And how do you come up with your opinions?
If it violates the Constitution, it is Bad. There is no gray area. It is either right or it is wrong.
Re: Obama Hating
I don’t hate him. I don’t know the man. But I do know his policy of “spreading the wealth” is Fascist and anti-American.
Knowing that, I feel I have the right to bash him shamelessly and without reprieve. I didn’t spill blood for this country to have it tell me that what I’ve accumulated over the years is to be forcefully taken from me and given to someone else because the majority of Americans who are too lazy to lend a helping hand on their precious days off to those less fortunate than themselves think it’s a Good Policy.
I like it. Spectrum that the broadcast stations use is a natural resource. I think they’ve been getting it for a song for the amount of money that they rake in.
I see nothing wrong with having the people who have licenses to use the spectrum fund public broadcasting.
#95 I don’t see how you can be so black and white on the constitution. Constitutional scholars can’t even agree on what it all means. And what about amendments? Even the authors knew it would have to change. It is not a fixed, unchanging document. Your absolutist stance puts you on the wrong side of a lot of issues. Before the various amendments passed, your spiritual forefathers were dead-set against getting rid of slavery, allowing women to vote, etc. — because it wasn’t in the Constitution at the time! The sacred Constitution! Here’s my favorite Jefferson quote, from the Memorial:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
So color me unimpressed by your Constitutional fundamentalism.
What the dolt asked for would kill all broadcasting other than that approved by him. That reflects badly on the person that appointed him.
Using tax money to support your party has proved the way to get your side trashed as has attacking free speech.
As for who gives the most trusted news around, just check the ratings.
If the people you are watching aren’t in first place there is a reason.
#100 As for who gives the most trusted news around, just check the ratings.
If the people you are watching aren’t in first place there is a reason.
By that rationale, McDonald’s is the best food in America. 🙂
Just because someone is most trusted doesn’t mean they’re most trustworthy.
The secret to success is sincerity… once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
#99 “Freeloaders living off his sweat.” By that you mean other people getting health care from his tax dollars? Boo friggin’ hoo. No distinction between that and the roads he’ll never drive on. Some of his tax dollars get spent in ways he doesn’t like. Cry me a river.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A lot of us in America believe that we’re a wealthy enough country that we can promote the general welfare by providing reasonable healthcare to every citizen, like every other civilized nation does.
Tell me Alfred1… some guy loses his job, loses his health insurance, gets sick… you think he should die rather than the government pay to heal him? A simple yes or no answer. Because that’s what is happening right now in America. You think that should continue?
Now, as we take a break from the A1Sauce show, this message:
# 87 Phydeau, Well said. Thank you.
– – – – –
And later:
Some of the finest examples of ad hominem I’ve ever seen… (“…different races you hate”? Which races do you hate?)
– – – – –
Thank goodness! Did you know he used to write articles praising Jim Crow laws in the South and that Fascist Francisco Franco? (Still dead. Both of them. Good.)
– – – – –
The difference is in the term “exclusive use.” When newspapers and magazines use the roads, other people can still use the roads at the same time. When a broadcaster uses channel 3, they’re the only ones who can use channel 3 anywhere within 50-100 miles, even farther for AM radio stations.
– – – – –
Which freedom? Huh? Just exactly what freedom or freedoms do any of the plans now in Congress take away from you in particular?
Which of the plans says anyone will be forced into the Government plan?
#104 Promoting general welfare cannot mean free medical care, or we would have had that back in the 18th century.
Thanks for your answer. Let them die. Not that this is a coherent statement. We didn’t have freedom for blacks or the vote for women or blacks back in the 18th century, does that mean we shouldn’t now? (Actually, you’d probably like that.) What does that have to do with anything? Times change. The Constitution has to change with the times. See my Jefferson quote on that in #102.
As for the poor…the sick, its always been the job of the church to look after them…its what we do
Ah, so you want the priests and ministers to perform appendectomies, heart bypasses, fill cavities. Makes perfect sense in wingnut world.
Its not a constitutional right Government provides healthcare…
Yes, let them die. Well, at least you’re consistent.
Our country is rich enough so that we can make sure everyone has healthcare, either thru competitive private health insurance (not what we have now) or government paid. And we’re talking about preventive care, so they don’t show up in the emergency room, which costs much more than preventive care. An ounce of prevention and all.
Every other civilized country in the world has figured out how to do this. What make you think Americans are so stupid, Alfred1, that we couldn’t figure this out?
#107 Uncle Patso, who was the last Republican who didn’t appeal to people’s fear and bigotry? Eisenhower maybe? Goldwater?
#97, Um, the Constitution has a way to change it. I support THAT, too.
#98, Just another greedy selfish bastard.
Just remember that you opened this can of worms.
All things being equal, would you sacrifice 10 strangers for your wife?
#116, Don’t concern yourself. In fact, I prefer you not take my side.
Fido,
Mr. Poison didn’t have the balls to see this through. Do you?
#118/119, Um, twas not I who called you a drone.
And you wonder why I don’t want you on my side?
#115, Loser,
If you and Alphie were among them, I would gladly sacrifice 10 strangers for my wife. Hell, toss in “‘dro” and “doill” and I won’t hesitate to help out with the sacrifice. Hell, I’d bring food for the crowd. It’s be like “Dinner and a Show”.
The only person who could contemplate making such an argument has never been married and has a very good chance of having been brought up in an orphanage. Simply because the concept of “family first” doesn’t occur to you.
*
In the “uncivilized” caveman days, it used to be :
Me against my brother.
My brother and I against our cousin.
Our family against the village.
Our village against the tribe.
Our tribe against the next tribe.
Our province against the next province.
Our country against the next country.
Now, for the health of the entire nation, who is more important, you or the nation as a whole?
If you notice, it doesn’t say anything about “for the sole betterment of Liberty Loser”. It is for “We, the people, … promote the General Welfare, …”.
Therefore, if in the wisdom of the people and as a nation, WE decide to build roads to unite the nation, then WE will build roads. If, as a nation, WE decide to put a man on the moon, then as a nation WE will put a man on the moon. If, as a nation, WE decide to provide a pension for our elderly then WE will provide a pension. [sarcasm] And if we as a nation decide to have a single payer system with mile long lines to a health clinic with only antiquated equipment and an elderly nurse (with hemorrhoids) deciding who gets treatment then WE will have mile long lines to a health clinic with antiquated equipment and an elderly nurse (with hemorrhoids) deciding who gets treatment. [/sarcasm]
And it will all be quite legal and Constitutional. So why not take your ten strangers and do whatever you and your ten strangers do.
Alphie,
Do everyone a favor and take you ball and go home.
#123, ‘dro, & #126 Alphie,
Fight between yourselves.
No one else cares.
Hey wingnuts, not everything the nation decides to do as a whole requires a Constitutional amendment. We didn’t need one to create the national interstate highway system. We don’t need one to create a system to give everyone decent healthcare. Funny how wingnuts claim everything the government does that they don’t like is “unconstitutional”.
And LibertyLover, I have no idea what your 10 strangers question has to do with anything. But I’ve met plenty of people like you. You want to enjoy all the stuff the government does that you like, but you don’t want to pay taxes to support the things you don’t like. But you don’t get to pick and choose, that’s not how the game is played. You don’t like the game, pick up your toys and go somewhere else. Mr. Fusion said it best in #121. It’s not all about you, believe it or not.
And pedro, I’ve met a lot of people like you to. People who bash Obama constantly, obvious right-wingers, who claim to have bashed Bush too back in the day. Riiiiiiiight. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. I never heard of any wingnuts bashing Bush, not once. He was your hero, and y’all don’t have the guts to admit it now that it has become clear what a disaster he was and how badly he damaged America.
Hey wingnuts, not everything the nation decides to do as a whole requires a Constitutional amendment. We didn’t need one to create the national interstate highway system. We don’t need one to create a system to give everyone decent healthcare. Funny how wingnuts claim everything the government does that they don’t like is “unconstitutional”.
And LibertyLover, I have no idea what your 10 strangers question has to do with anything. But I’ve met plenty of people like you. You want to enjoy all the stuff the government does that you like, but you don’t want to pay taxes to support the things you don’t like. But you don’t get to pick and choose, that’s not how the game is played. You don’t like the game, pick up your toys and go somewhere else. Mr. Fusion said it best in #121. It’s not all about you, believe it or not.
And pedro, I’ve met a lot of people like you to. People who bash Obama constantly, obvious right-wingers, who claim to have bashed Bush too back in the day. Riiiiiiiight. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. I never heard of any wingnuts bashing Bush, not once. He was your hero, and y’all don’t have the guts to admit it now that it has become clear what a disaster he was and how badly he damaged America.
#130 pedro, pedro, pedro. non sequiturs won’t help you. who’s saying anyone’s out to get anyone? What are you talking about? You have no coherent response to what I say so you spew nonsense.
#121, Making a joke out of the question doesn’t quite make the grade. Nice way to try and avoid answering the question, though. But, this isn’t about me. You called me selfish. I’m going to show that you are as well.
Now, back on subject — you’ve already said you would do anything to save her life. The question to you, which you haven’t answered, is WHY you would sacrifice 10 strangers for your wife?
And I will not go away on this until I’m either banned from this blog or you answer the question.
#128, And LibertyLover, I have no idea what your 10 strangers question has to do with anything.
Here is the scenario:
Your wife has some disease which only the $10,000 in your pocket can purchase the cure for. Just as you are about to take her to the hospital, 10 strangers come up and ask for that money because that same $10,000 would save their wives.
Would you give the money away and let your wife die or would tell them to take a hike?
It’s a simple question. What do you do?
Fusion has already said he would tell the strangers to take a hike (actually, he said he would do anything to save his wife) but he refuses to answer why.
This idea of non-private CPB sponsorship, sounds good. But it will never happen. But businesses depend too much on CPB as their propaganda arm. They’ve sponsored shows like “Nova” for years. All thru Allied Chemicals’ years of being sued, and its many name changes. They’ve made sure that Nova was always there to sing their praises. And deliver whatever gobbledygook science line, that help their bottom line. If CPB were to go bankrupt today. I’m sure big business would reinvent the network, and revive it overnight.
The only thing the private funding provides, is all the cooking shows, and britcoms.
#134 LL I understand the question, just don’t see what it has to do with universal healthcare. Your wife and the ten strangers’ wives would all be covered under that scenario.
It’s far too late to play the rugged individualist in America. You benefit from from the taxes countless other people pay every day when you ride on roads, enjoy clean air and clean water, live in a place without too much crime where the police are paid for by taxes, et cetera, et cetera.
We didn’t need a constitutional amendment to build the national highway system, we didn’t need one to create Medicare and Medicaid, and we don’t need one to create a system that provides everyone with reasonable healthcare regardless of their employment status. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, every other civilized country in the world has figured this out, we can too.
#133, Loser,
You called me selfish.
Yes, because you are. You, and your fellow cheapskates Liebertarians, want to only take that which benefit you. You told us before you work in a company doing municipal work. And you do very handsomely too. So you take take taxpayer money and laugh all the way to the bank. Your greedy paws are ready to take but your selfish mouth is ready to cry about high taxes.
*
Now to correct your misconception. I said I would do anything in my POWER to save my wife’s life. Anyone who wouldn’t is looking over their shoulder at a huge insurance policy or was ready to file divorce papers anyway. And this is where your posing comes out. Only a single, young person would even contemplate a question like that. Damn, even a doctor would do something, if he could.
The point you don’t consider is we are already insured. And we have good policies too. My wife works in the health industry and is personal friends with several doctors. If there is a way, they get the will. If my wife was ill, there would be no reason to question her treatment.
Those uninsured patients aren’t being kicked out of hospitals because of the doctors, it is the bean counters that refuse to treat them. The bean counters look at paying beds or empty beds.
And to think I stuck up for you. Alphie was saying you liked shit sandwiches. I told Alphie you were gluten intolerant.
#137, I understand the question, just don’t see what it has to do with universal healthcare.
It has nothing to do with Universal Healthcare. Your reading comprehension is well above Fusion’s. Good Job.
But, this is not a question about “healthcare.” The healthcare aspect is nothing more than a parameter of the question (which you still didn’t answer, BTW). This is a question about selfishness, which you accuse me of. We are going to find out if you are selfish.
So, would you save your wife or 10 strangers, if the power to do one or the other were in your power?
#138, Once again, you have tried to avoid the question.
WHY would you save your wife instead of 10 strangers?
#140 Loser,
No, the question was answered. The problem is the answer didn’t fit your juvenile idea of bolstering your argument.
Any husband will do what they can to save ANY family member. That does not make them selfish. It makes them part of a family group. I’m sorry you never developed that in the orphanage. Blood being thicker than water must be a terrible thing to miss out on.
Taking more money than you deserve from the same source you claim is gouging the taxpayers is a little hypocritical. Well, normal people think so.