Ugh! The photo is torture.

very cool mr. al.

i am going to start the texas homos for al barger truth.

i think what you are doing is great. i am sending right on vibes to you.

jack e. jett

right on with your right on, Jack E!

Real classy, Diva...

At least Al has a pair sufficient to use his real name and his picture. True grit.

I'm proud of the job he is doing. I fall in between that Libertarian/Repubican grid so I'm all for him...I hope he takes Indiana by storm!

Claire

MD won't even use her real name. No surprise she doesn't dare show her pic in public.

My theory is that she's Sister Soulja.

Eric, thanks so much for your kind words, and Claire and Jack E (kiss, kiss[I mean that in a manly, Texan sort of way]). I do what I can with what I've got to work with.

I've been away from both television and internet for about 60 hours out on a campaign swing. Tuesday I was on WFIE, the NBC tv affiliate in Evansville, something like 250 miles from home. For one thing, it gave me a good chance to stay a couple of days with the godson who lives that direction. I'll note that the reporter cited Blogcritics.org as my main website, rather than morethings. Full write-up soon.

Then there's Diva. Stop me if you've heard this before, but sometimes I feel like we're in a really cheesy version of Do the Right Thing. I'm cast as Da Mayor, and Mac Diva as the Mother Sister.

You know, one of these days, she's going to be nice to me.

This is what I'm talking about (and what Mike Kole talks about) with issues that voters don't care about and issues that increasingly marginalize the Libertarian Party: copyright law?

That is all.

I just want to say thank you, to all responsible, for this site where opposing views are expressed without too much personal attack. One thing I have been finding is there is a few topics that just die after I write my take on the subject. (Which is always subject to change if an opposing view can reasonably counter my fleeting feelings)? Why wont any of the 'Blogcritic Superstars' challenge me to see things another way? Claire rocks! Even though we don't see eye to eye, she at least treats me like a real person. Yes, what Diva said about Al was pretty lame, but at least for a while there she stuck her neck out for what she believes in. (Some of which does not stray too far from my own views)

I grew up in Washington state, but was born in Youngstown, OH & lived in Evanston Il, Indianapolis, & Norfolk, VA before I was 10 years old. Until you get out of the Midwest, east coast & south of the US, you have not witnessed the real complexities of politics in America. All of those regions have representation in Washington State. I'm beginning to believe our state was named after the capital of the US, because it best facilitates how far we have come & need to go as an example to the rest of the country. All of the issues the eclectic bloggers on this site have relevance here. We are a swing state because we are a swing country.

I mean no disrespect to anyone but neo-cons. Please don't cut me off for not fitting into a certain belief structure. Preaching to the choir is like running in circles. You can't get any dancing done that way!

Bob2112: Howdy! Thanks for your input at Blogcritics.

When you get the last word, that could be a lack of interest or something. However, when no one answers one of my arguments, I generally take that as an implicit concession.

Perhaps you could help me out with something here. You have beef with "neo-cons." What exactly is a neo-con? This seems to be a general term of criticism with no clear specific meaning. Could you complete this sentence stem for me?

A neo-con is someone who believes...

On an episode of Frontline, I learned about Neo-Reganites: Left over Regan Administration Staff, determined to re-apply their interpretation of 'his' policies to our society.

Neo-con is short for Neo-conservative: Retro-believers in the philosophies of William F. Buckley, Ronald Regan, & Barry Goldwater. Advocates of 'state's rights'; Trickle down economics; excessive defense spending; Strengthening faith-based social programs; Leanings towards privatization of Social Security, etc.

Neo-cons believe in turning the clock back to the 'good old days' when life wasn't about being fair. Minorities knew their place. You know, "Separate but Equal." All this 'tolerance' business is bad for business. Civil Rights are the right to use your own God-given discretion when discrimination is concerned.

Neo-cons want recreate the world in their image by force. They want their self-righteous agenda unquestioned, unopposed, & justified in the eyes of the American people. Through isolated fear-laced propaganda, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, & Paul Wolfowitz successfully perform 'Jedi mind tricks' on their 'Hawk' base Americans to the point that they can do no wrong enough to be fired. If these neo-cons can't be held accountable for their mistakes, what chance does peace have?

P.S. There is a big difference between the words tolerance & acceptance. Even more difference between acceptance & embracing.

i'll take "Baiting The New Guy" for $500.

That's more like it, Mark. Bring it on!

So then what is the difference between a "neo-con" and a plain old "conservative"? It sounds here like "neo-con" would just mean an ACTUAL conservative, as opposed to a welfare state "compassionate conservative."

If the definition of a "neo-con" is someone who likes Barry Goldwater, then I might be one of them dreaded neo-cons.

However, you're certainly loading a whole bunch of extraneous stuff on it that definitely does NOT describe me (nor Goldwater). For example, what would describe a social liberal, economic conservative who believes in a strong national defense- but also likes to encourage public discussion and debate of their positions?

I don't see where there's been any sign, in fact, of ANY of those people listed by name trying to suppress debate.

Nor would I consider Colin Powell a Goldwater conservative.

Can you break this down for me a little more?

Your mock ignorance is made more annoying but your actual ignorance.

Colin Powell is the farthest thing from a Goldwater conservative -- he believes in abortion rights, affirmative action, free speech, moderate fiscal policy, responsible internationalist foreign policy, etc. That's also why he's marginalized within this administration.

Goldwater conservatives, by definition, cannot be libertarians, and you have basically admitted you yourself are not a libertarian. First, they believe in the role of religion and state influence in determining cultural values and acceptable behavior and speech. ANY libertarian with any pride in their beliefs and in the Constitution would fight tooth and nail to keep the church and state separate and protect things like voting rights and equal access to property rights that Goldwater and the hard right of his era stood against. States' rights is a clever little euphemism these days for sanctioning prejudice -- libertarians would presumably NOT be supporters of states' rights in occasions where they created discrimination or interfered with the choices of individuals due to gender, race, sexuality. These are the "socially liberal" things you claim to believe in yet steadfastly refuse to speak in favor of and often speak against. Yet another reason your ideology is incompatible with your party affiliation.

Have some courage and speak out about the Patriot Act and other erosions of free speech and political debate in the country -- other LIBERTARIANS have done so.

Finally, for the last time, it is FUNDAMENTALLY impossible for an aggressive, bellicose military-industrial nation-state to be libertarian in any rational sense of the term. There is no such thing as a "strong national defense" libertarian, which is why no one takes your candidacy seriously. You have no credibility or strength on those issues, or in general, for that matter.

Go back to mocking the new guy and sitting in silence because your ridiculous statements have been demolished once again.

That is all.

I will incorporate Bob's remarks above into my brief, in their entirety.

As for the picture, Eric Olsen could have been considerate of other people and substituted a photo of Brian Flemming. Would have even gotten Al Barger some votes.

This "Bob" name thing is confusing me.

I guess since my name isn't actually Bob and I'm assuming that guy's name IS Bob, you guys can refer to me as BAB or whatever. If it's me you're quoting, feel free not to use my goofy name and refer to me as "one commenter."

That is all.

Eric,

Is the policy on comments still in effect? And if it is, does it include personal attacks on a fellow BC's appearance? And if it does, then why haven't I seen MD's comments edited?

RJ- I appreciate you standing up for me, and by rights she's probably well outside of policy.

Nonetheless, I have specifically asked Justene and Eric to give the maximum latitude to people talking against me specifically. For starters, I'm offering myself not just as a writer but as absolutely a candidate for high office. I should be held, therefore, to a higher standard, and expect harsher criticism.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that ever lovin' Mac Diva has spent an inordinate amount of effort over time arguing how unattractive I supposedly am, and speculating about my body parts. It's almost like she was jealously trying to run other women off.

I just hope she doesn't go all Glen Close on me. I don't have rabbits anyway.

No problem, Al.

The hypocrisy is what stuns me. You are out there every day, putting your money (literally) where your mouth is, placing yourself (and your rep) in the public eye in an effort to change minds, in a democratic fashion.

MD, OTOH, is cowering behind a pseudonym while personally attacking someone else in a childish manner.

I guess it's fine for Eric and co. to ignore this, if that's what you requested. But it is still deplorable behavior from someone who claims to have been a professional writer, lawyer, teacher, etc.

Anyway, I suspect you'll garner at least 5% of the vote. I'll be looking for your name to appear on-screen on FOXNews as they announce the results from the Indiana Senate balloting on Election Day...

taking Al's request into account, we just leave the nonsense as long as it remains mild

Cool! Open season on Barger!

Hasn't it always been? We actually had people quit, and several other threaten to quit, when I dared to announce - announce, mind you, never endorse - his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, which I thought was a rather noteworthy development regardless of which Blogcritic would have run for national office on whatever ticket.

Eric, I hear you and I agree with you about the noteworthiness of Al's senate run. But he kind of enjoys the attention, including the negative attention, don't you Al?

Eric, your slow learner is just trying to distract attention from his Mary Cheney thread. There he has engaged in all kinds of crudity toward women, gays and black people. Even Phillip is disgusted. You should know by now that when RJ claims to be outraged (yes, outraged!) about someone else, he is trying to cover his arse. Everybody else does.

but this post is about Al

And, my comments are mainly about Al. Someone needed to say what we were all thinking.

*We* were *all* thinking? The authoritarian elitist shines through.

Thank you Diva for your kind remarks towards me. My name is Bob.

Bob A. Booey, BAB is Persian for gate & the name given to the "John the Baptist" of the Bahai Faith. You may want to reconsider using that pseudonym. Besides you a star on this blog 'circuit.'

Al, I did not get to address your response to my description of what a Neo-con is. You are not a Neo-con if you remotely wear Libertarian clothing. If you believe that you may be one, jump ship & make sure your name is followed by an(R) There is nothing wrong with that if it is your calling. I just think it's convenient to (L) yourself because Republicans in Quayle Country surround you. I don't blame you. How else are you going to get any attention for your personal views this late in the game? I will agree that you are "doing it right" by distinguishing yourself from the Republican saturated field with the title, but I would suggest becoming a Republican, move out of Indiana to Chicago where you can be yourself. Maybe the attention you get, over time, will help with name recognition. When your true intentions at home call you back, you will be a star on the ballot.

whatever your isues with Al might be, he is most assuredly not stupid

I have no issues with Al. Al has shown me nothing but the utmost respect. I am just expressing an opinion, & we all know what opinions are like...

Hey again Bob2112, we're cool, but I've been a dedicated Libertarian since before I was old enough to vote.

Let's try a slightly different angle, leaving me out of it. I believe you had mentioned Barry Goldwater as a neo-con, which would be the basis for thinking it might somehow apply to me.

What made Barry Goldwater a "neo-con" or what beliefs mark one as the dreaded "neo-con"?

Barry Goldwater is a conservative. Last I heard he is die a long time ago. Neo= New. Neo-conservative.

You are right about neo-cons being just Conservatives as opposed to "compassionate conservatives." That label was used to get the 'Regan Demorcat' centrists back in line after an 8 year hiatus.

Frontline, in my opinion, is highly respected jounalism for the most part. They were honest about Regan's staff(Neo-Reganites) approaching a reluctant Governor Bush encouraging & grooming him to run for the presidency. Clinton let Kenneth Starr land too many punches for Gore to walk right into the job. If not for Clinton's mistakes,(Notably, 'Alien Gonzales') George W. would have looked like a lame attempt to interfere with economic progress.

I do believe that God had a heavier hand in Bush's appointment than any other element.(Supreme Court, roadblocks, trashed votes, hanging chads) This period resembles the 40 years in the desert God punished the Hebrews for their blatant disobediance in the face of His blessings. I am not really a practicing religious person, but I do believe in God.

Americans, led by Bill Clinton, flew in the face of God during the 1990's with the extravegance & indulgance. George W. Bush is a temporary reminder to get right with God. He is outta here! Now we have to count our blessings, mend fences, & show some respect in order to maintain what we have.

All this starts at home. We have to take care of our own, like it or not! Who in the heck is going to pay for what this country needs, generous rich people? You're damned right, rich people, if they want to stay rich! Who's goning to keep them rich? Penniless poor people? Middle class masses are responsible as well. They better assume their responsiblities or the growing poor will no longer be a laughable episode of "Cops" but in their living rooms, pulling a Charles Manson! The middle class can't afford to live in a Gated community, so they better pay now or pay more later! Schools, or Prisons & its baggage? You decide.

Gee, Bob, you talk as though people weren't paying enough taxes. Best estimates suggest that Americans currently end up giving about HALF their money to the government at various levels. How much are they supposed to give?

I'm still not understanding what a "neo-con" is, though. What beliefs mark one as a neo-con? A neo-con is someone who believes...

Heck, I'm still struggling to understand what a "conservative" is. Barry Goldwater seems to be considered the gold standard classic modern American conservative. If being "conservative" means being like Goldwater in favoring fiscal conservatism, social tolerance, separation of powers, and a strong defense of the country- then I'd be happy to wear that label.

On the other hand, this description doesn't much seem to fit a lot of the prominent names called "conservative" at this point, including President Bush. And if by "conservative" you mean Bill O'Reilly or Pat Buchanan, then you're getting pretty far from my outlook.

The thing is Al, the term doesn't mean anything but the current warmongering tax cutters running the White House & Congress. We pay too many taxes, agreed. If pork, war, foreign aid, congressional raises, corporate welfare, to name a few, were cut first, then we could look at tax cuts & re-org the tax code.

I do not wish to cut defense spending now, but pay for it then! If you want these wasteful, inhumane programs with the current tax code, don't give a break to anyone who can pay. Especially the rich lobbyists who always complain about who their taxes help.


If people want to pay for government programs that pay farmers not to grow things, then shut up about paying for someone who uses abortion as birth control! Do you want to pay for these unwanted babies' future burden to society? Do want someone like him/her raising or not raising these kids draining tax dollars as well, along with the new prisons & guards? Imagine the uninsured ER & inpatient hospital bills along the way to the joint! Say Hello to higher premiums!

Colin Powell is a neo-con, because he is in the administration. If he resigned in the light of all this corruption maybe, he could have avoided his day in The Hague. I have no respect for him because he said Saddam had no capability to produce WMD's before 9/11. Then, with Tenet behind him, in front of the U.N., he lied about chemical trucks using doctored photos & stupid cartoons! Sounds like unplugging babies from their incubators, to me.

Goldwater didn't stand for social tolerance. He was the furthest thing from socially tolerant -- he used states' rights and fear of minority uprisings during the 1960s to gain popularity as much as he used tax and fiscal policy. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" is widely acknowledged to have been code for racial and social politics of the time.

If you take Goldwater as the model for your "social tolerance," you're no Libertarian. Strong national defense isn't Libertarian. Libertarians don't admire Goldwater -- Republicans do.

Maybe if you read books other than science fiction and Ayn Rand, you'd know what libertarianism meant.

Bob: your first comments were right on in pinning Al as a closet right-winger who can't fit into the GOP, but your last couple of comments are hard for me to follow.

Colin Powell is anything but a neo-con, by the way, which is why he probably won't stick around for a 2nd Bush term. He was recruited into presenting bad info to the UN, it's true. But he was told that it was good intel by everyone in the administration and has now admitted, quite honestly, that he regrets and was upset by being misled by the intelligence. He's also made no bones about the lack of evidence for WMD and the lack of connection with Al Qaeda. I give him far more credit and respect than anyone else in the Bush foreign policy team for that candor and integrity, even if he did play the good solider to the detriment of his once-unassailable credibility and integrity.

That is all.

Colin, & Michael Powell can both go to hell with Ribbentrop(sp?) & Goebbels as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks, Booey for your kind words. I might not have been so nice, but I'm just having a good time blasting all this rhetoric! No offense to you intended.

You neither, Al. It's your thread. What do you do, take weekends off? There's no rest for the wicked! Running around, talkin' about you like you don't read this stuff!

actually, it's my thread - I believe is, um campaigning with two weeks to go until the election

well i feel i should add the fact that Al sent me some very swell MP3's by way of the elctronical email. I would note that neither George W Bush nor John Kerry, nor even JFK ever sent me a SOLITARY mp3, not even a shitty one that maybe is a version of a Yes track done by goats with bells around their necks that play different notes. Shocking.
I kinda liked the pic of Al, although not in a homosexualistic gay fashion. I'm afraid he would need to look a bit more like The Duke if that were to be the case.

OK Eric, it's your thread. That makes sense. Al has a real life beyond kickin' it with nerds on the WWW. What Al is doing is more than I can say for myself. I have all these views but I really haven't considered what I can actively do with them all. I did enroll for the Winter quarter at my community college, but who knows where I'll stand after I get my education.

Thanks for letting me & others have so much fun writing our say. I have learned a lot as well as spewing rhetoric.

Howdy guys. Thanks for keeping the home fires burning here at Blogcritics while I'm out campaigning and such what.

Thanks for your recent input especially, Bob2112. I will suggest gently, however, that comparing either Colin or Michael Powell to Nazis is just silly. In what way is Michael Powell like Goebbels?

Michael Powell, FCC Director= Joseph Goebbels, German Propaganda Minister

Colin Powell, Secretary of State= Joachim von Ribbentrop, German Foreign Minister

Colin Powell put a spin on lying to the U.N. with the claim of being advised with bad intel. Michael Powell runs the media police department.(The $1 million fine to FOX Network is to give the appearnce of fairness) It's laughable labeling the media 'Liberal', almost.

I don't care about them being black. It doesn't mean Republicans give a crap about racial diversity. In 2000 when the 'counted' black vote was 9 out of 10 in favor of Gore, it was obvious the African-American appoinments to the Bush Administration were attempts get more black votes this time around.

Everyone is so quick to discount people who connect the Right to Nazis. However, the fear of being attacked, installed in our psyche is the strongest connection to National Socialist methods adopted by today's Republican Party.

The lie that if you are against the war makes you anti-American is used as a political edge by the right. The 9/11 attacks were horrible, but it should not be used politically, especially by the president, whose watch it happened on. A thinking person should ask, "How in the hell did The Pentagon get hit after NYC WTC's?" America was better than that & you know it, Al. Call me crazy if you want to, but it smells like Polish prisoners dressed up to look like soldiers, shot at a radio station on the Germany-Poland border.

We stand as much of a chance to win the war on 'Violence' as we do decriminalizing marijuana. It's never gonna happen!

On the lighter side, the Indy Star has issued its' endorsement in Al's Senatorial race, giving the nod to incumbent Evan Bayh (R). Here's what the Star had to say about Al, though:

"Bayh's opponents in the Nov. 2 election, Republican Marvin Scott and Libertarian Al Barger, while waging respectable campaigns, have not made the case for unseating him."

and

"Barger's suggestion of abolishing the Social Security tax, for which he maintains there is no constitutional mandate, would be ill advised without an alternative set up to replace it."

Barger. Respectable campaign. Good show!

I'm happy for Al. Congratulations on the endorsement.

I get the feeling I'm being written off by Mike here. Don't you have anything to say in regards to my replies to Al? You can't think of anything to add to the things I say? You obviously read this thread. Am I so offensive that you will pretend I am not here? I am really offended by your blatant disregard. It make me think it's below you to acknowledge my thoughts specifically.

Eric, you do it too. At least Andy will call me out when I go against a grain. Are you guys trying to get rid of me?

Bob2112, this right here is a perfect example of the silly left-wing hysterical hyperventillating disconnected from any supporting facts or argument that causes most sensible people to tune you out: Michael Powell, FCC Director= Joseph Goebbels, German Propaganda Minister.

What, Powell is the same as Goebbel because they both had something to do with media? I don't recall Powell or the FCC sponsoring any Bush or American propoganda, nor punishing anyone in any way for speaking against the president. What is the basis for comparison?

And are you saying in comment 43 that you think the administration somehow did the Pentagon crash themselves, or purposely allowed it?

Supporting facts are AM right-wing/ Fundamentalist Christian radio & FCC rules recently allowing companies to legally buy up signals so one voice can monoploize more stations, under the guise of capitalism. Haven't you ever heard of a loophole? The $1mil fine to FOX Network(not FOX News, yet owned by Rupert Murdoch as well) is a cover-up to look like fair treatment.

Yes I do question how the Pentagon was hit! It feels like the self-inflicted flesh wound to justify murder. I am not following any specific organized rhetoric to theorize this. I have no facts to back up the legitamacy of my feelings. It's just the way I feel. As a fellow human, you cannot tell me that you never felt a certain way about something, especially love of country, that didn't make you wonder if you were being told the whole truth!

America is the best when it comes to defense & military strength! You don't hit us at home without help!

I think FDR new the Japanese would attack us by purposely embargoing their steel & oil so we could finally go after our German cousins! Japan & Germany were allies. I believe we had the A-bomb before Germany was defeated but used it on 'Japs' no one gave a fuck about! Tell me I'm wrong about my feelings when German POW's in the South could eat at lunch counters, & use white drinking fountains & restrooms! Those people were killing our boys as they flirted with the waitress a black man couldn't even look straight in the eye to ask directions!

Al, I might be wrong about the Pentagon, but I have the right to my suspicions.

Dude, are you hearing what you're saying here with Powell and the FCC? Loosening station ownership restrictions is equivalent to being the Nazi propaganda minister?

Personally, I would favor the total elimination of the FCC, and pretty nearly all of the regulations they are charged with enforcing, including especially station ownership limitations.

I would propose treating the broadcast spectrum as private property, with the same freedom of the press that is given to print media.

Does this make me even more Goebbel-esque than Michael Powell?

This would be rather a silly position to take, by my lights. See, Nazis were about denying people their liberty, killing those they didn't like and enslaving the rest to serve the commands of the reich.

Whereas on the other hand, withdrawing government interference in the free market of ideas, ie ending station ownership requirements, INCREASES rather than decreases freedom. It's heading exactly the OPPOSITE direction from Nazis.

Your problem here would seem to be not that the FCC is jimmying the scales, but simply that you don't like the choices being made by consumers in the marketplace. On radio at least, consumers are hot for right wing talk WAY more than left talk, for whatever reason. Consumers left to their free will much prefer Rush Limbaugh to Al Franken, whether that's good or bad.

Or do you propose that we (meaning the government) should force more stations to air left wing propaganda that you would approve of? Which way more resembles Goebbels?

Also, you can have whatever suspicions suit you about 9/11, or whether your girl is doing it with your best friend, or any other topic that comes to mind. However, it is just not appropriate nor does it reflect well on you to be voicing "suspicions" of absolutely legally treasonous behavior without ANY evidence.

I don't dispute your legal RIGHT to say such things, but I strongly question whether it is moral or just or useful to do so. It's only going to tend to undermine YOUR credibility to be making wild and wicked insinuations with absolutely no basis in reason.

Ever heard of De-Nazification? The program was scrapped because the US decided that the Nazi's were not that much different from us, & it would take longer to rebuild Germany without their help.

Don't forget the German scientists we absorbed to develop our space & missile programs. Those guys were Nazi's who developed the V-2 Rocket that killed thousands of British civilians. War criminals them all, but good enough to make full fledged Americans! Talk about necessary evil.

You are also fooling yourself to not be aware of Nazi ideals that they adopted from us: Eugenics, forced sterilization, genocide, (Hello, Native Americans!) Henry Ford's industry secrets.

I am not making this up. Eric, Mike, & yourself Al, can claim to be sensible people all you want. These facts are fully substantiated

Say, bob2112, what did I do to get this kind of treatment? In comment 45, you're claiming I've written you off, and then in the last comment, you're insinuating that I've made you out to be a nut or something.

Step back from that ledge, my friend. I'll advise you that I only comment from at home. When the stuff is flying through the air here on Blogcritics during business hours, I'm doing business. Don't make it into anything more than that.

Besides, this was Eric's thread about Al, so I figured that they could handle any general comment thrown out there. If you had wanted me to comment, why not just ask for it before snapping one off in my direction?

I'll only glorify this nazi business in this way: Operatives on either side fling the Nazi charges around far too casually. During the Clinton Administration, the right flung terms like feminazi around carelessly, and to their discredit. Now the left does so with Bush and others, to their similar discredit. The kind of charges you made above about the Powells is really way out there, and frankly, is offensive. Notice that your fellow travellers on the left are *not* rushing in to say, "rah rah, right on, those Powells are E-VIL!" This is for good reason.

What the hell, though. You got me to answer, right?

The kind of charges you made above about the Powells is really way out there, and frankly, is offensive. Notice that your fellow travellers on the left are *not* rushing in to say, "rah rah, right on, those Powells are E-VIL!" This is for good reason

I haven't said anything because I haven't been following along on this thread until now. I've found that relating anything right wing or left wing to Nazism tends to make whatever point there is, unreceivable.
Minds just close on that word.

The FCC is clearly much more sympathetic to the right than it used to be. And it is now completely in bed with big media corporations. The FCC has been rendered useless by the companies economic clout, much like the technology sector. Take Microsoft for example. The government has been trying for years to get them to do what is right, suing them endlessly but the capitalism is so great there, it overpowers the government. There were major lawsuits about Microsoft using their monopoly to crush an emerging technology and years later what do we have? Microsoft stronger than ever and Netscape now a mere pimple on Bill Gate's behind. The FCC and the big media companies are in the same way. It's an ineffective paper tiger, so it got into bed with them.

An indirect result of this is societies willingness to now call a pundit a journalist. I believe so anyway.

I understand, everyone isn't unemployed & has time to participate, like I am. So, I apologize to you Mike, in regards to insinuating that you are ignoring me.

In regards to the Powells & anyone I used the analogies with, If we were to be defeated in any way & some international tribunal was gathering up conspiritors, these guys would fit the bill. Their defense would be that they were just following orders, they would be found guilty & be sentenced accordingly.

I do hate that Colin Powell, who has lost the respect I once had, would have resigned before doing 'neo-con' dirty work. I can tell he is not happy with the way things are going. However, Michael seems to be enjoying himself, allowing Sinclair to broadcast the anti-Kerry doc. I really have no feelings for him.

I don't have any advocates to cheerlead me on this site. I don't expect any. I am just having fun expressing my beliefs with the hopes that in the real world, some of the things I say may be recognized & acknowledged as truth, someday. I most graciously thank you for your input.

I went to the Sinclair web site. It states that they have offered Kerry a spot on the piece and that it had not yet been completed. It said that Kerry supporters should urge their candidate to participate.

Boom, to me, the problems of the FCC and big corporate radio lies in the fact that government power is in the industry at all. Look at radio versus internet, for a good comparison.

Please note that the internet remains unregulated. Anyone who can afford to can pop a website, and generally does. There are an almost ridiculously huge number of individual, independent websites out there, representing a spectrum of views so broad it bewilders.

Imagine what it would be like if the FCC was out of the business, from the inception of the broadcast media, to today. I know that your first instinct is to say that the result would be even worse than today, with Microsoft-like near monopoly.

However, what does the FCC literally do? It limits bandwidth unnaturally, for one thing. Getting to a monopoly state is a heck of a lot easier when the band is made finite, and there are only 80 or so radio stations per market to be bought up. Imagine how hard a proposition that would have been had the band been limited only by technological advances. Thousands of stations instead of dozens.

Also, as you noted, the FCC controls the merger process. It judges that this group is okay for merger, and that one is not okay. That's a situation just begging for corruption, which we have.

Broadcast sans the FCC from inception could have and should have been what the internet is. If the FCC ever gets its hooks into the internet, I guarantee you that it will look exactly like what broadcast radio and TV look like today.

No prob, bob2112! Thanks.

Kerry should not have to debate with Sinclair representatives. This is a partisan attack from the right and he does not have to defend himself to them. I hear they offered him a 'debate'. If anything, the time should be balanced with an anti-Bush attackumentary.

They are attempting to influence public opinion in a coming election. This should be illegal, I don't know why it is not.

This is the same Sinclair Broadcasting Group who last April cried wolf over an attempt to "influence public opinion" by forbidding its seven ABC affiliates from airing a Nightline special devoted to the soldiers killed in Iraq.

The same Sinclair who gave $66,000 to the Republican Party in 2004.

The same Sinclair who required weather men to read a statement supporting President Bush's war on terror in 2001.

The same Sinclair who prevented a Madison, Wisconsin Fox affiliate from airing an advertisement by the Democratic National Committee last July.

The same Sinclair who today forces local stations against their will to run a daily "commentary" segment by its corporate spokesman which calls the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys," and antiwar Congressman "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military."

This is a perfect example of why the FCC is useless.

Mike, I think the FCC is useless right now, but I still think we need some type of oversight in place otherwise we would have far too many Sinclairs from both sides of the spectrum trying to influence public opinion. It's scary to think of this being tolerated just because the current oversight is not currently working.

Someone around here last night said that the Vietnam veterans had a right to air their grievences if that's what they wanted to do. The guys on this video, "Stolen Honor" are all Vietnam POW's and it's my understanding that's what they speak about in this piece. What they went through in the POW camps in Vietnam after John Kerry testified before congress about war attrocities. That's my understanding of the movie. These POW's have remained silent for 30 plus years. They are firm in their beliefs that Kerry is not the man for the job. I would imagine as firm in their beliefs as Michael Moore is in his.

Michael Moore is not being sent over the public airwaves this way.

Interesting choice of words for someone claiming Michael Powell to be an enemy of freedom, that he is being accused of allowing Sinclair to broadcast the anti-Kerry doc

I see. So they shouldn't be allowed to broadcast something that reflects a point of view that you disagree with.

Al, you are going back to the right of the individual to express a viewpoint. You have made claims to me that you believe the business should have the right OF an individual. That it should be a voice too.

Where you and I disagree is on the equality of the voice. A person standing on a street corner talking a viewpoint, does not have the same influence as a corporation talking it's viewpoint on airwaves that reach millions of people. I believe a corporation should have rights, but not on the level you give them. So yes, my viewpoint will seem to you, to be infringing on their right to express a viewpoint. I do not see it that way. One voice does not equal another voice and you seem to have no problem with the imbalance.

Remember Al, the public airwaves belong to ALL the people. Sinclair is using the public airwaves to promote their own view. That is not right. You need to take their whole pattern of behavior into account too.

That's right about Micheal Moore being denied his pay-per-view counter to the Sinclair bull. Will someone please find out how much the vets get paid to forego their dignity for their testimony? I'd really like to know.

Make sure you remember these are some angry people who were denied their rightful respect when they came home from years of misery. Do you see John McCain advocating these bitter men? No you don't. It would be easy to take a buck or two & say anything right now, especially when your youth was robbed from you by Vietnamese assholes.

Kerry did not specifically make these men's torture any worse than it was already, being that these men were shot down while dropping bombs or napalm on their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, & children. I would be kicking these guys asses myself if they were to be unlucky enough to be face to face with me, as a victim of their long distance atrocities.

By the way, F-9/11 carefully makes sure that the things Bush says is not out of context.(Unlike everything Kerry says when generated by right wing media) If any of the 'zombies' would pull their heads out of their asses & see the film, the things Bush says in it would not sound presidential at all. Because they are not the words of a decent man whatsoever!

Again, if the FCC had been always out of the business, there would have been a plethora of stations in existence, and plenty of them willing to air the anti-Kerry documentary, and plenty others willing to air the Moore film.

Boom and bob1221, you are offering equality of sorts- the kind that bans speech down to a level of equality that is devoid of any richness, and is wholly sanitized. I offer as a counter the kind of free speech that allows all points of view to be heard.

Jeez! Such hogwash. The simple-minded notion that deregulation is good in itself is proved wrong by what has occurred in the communications industry. Instead of a variety of viewpoints, deregulation of broadcast and print media has resulted in more of the same much of the time. Yes, cable has however many channels. But, there is very little variation in content. Even more so for radio. (But for talk radio, deregulation might have killed radio, period.) Newspapers? Deregulation has led to one paper markets. When there are two, joint operating agreements guarantee that one is weak and invariably in danger of getting its plug pulled. This is the reality of what today's media is like, not the pie-in-sky rhetoric of far Right Republicans who think they are libertarians.

If there had not been an FCC, the current situation would have occurred sooner. The concentraion of wealth it represents might have had severe repercussions on the political process by now. Think Sinclair bigger and bolder.

The Internet excludes about half of the population, mainly because of cost. To have it at one's fingertips, one must shell out at least $1000 per year. (Estimate based on moderately priced computer, with cost halved, and dial-up ISP rates.) Many Americans cannot afford to be on the Net. One result of that is much of what one sees here is skewed toward the affluent. Working-class and poor people largely don't exist as either users or subject matter on the Web. It does not surprise me that Mike Kole considers this an ideal situation, considering his previously expressed views in regard to the disadvantaged. However, I favor information being available to as many people as possible. Therefore, I don't believe the Internet to be a model for how information should be delivered in a democracy. It is acceptable as an option, but there must be less expensive methods available. My favorite system of information dispersal is one Kole would doubtlessly like to eliminate -- the public library.

Boom, I specifically deny this statement: Remember Al, the public airwaves belong to ALL the people.

That's just communism. Shortly after broadcasting first started, the government simply nationalized the airwaves, declaring themselves to be the owners. That was just stealing. They should have been homesteaded out to those what discovered and staked out and actually started using them.

Neither the US Constitution, nature, or Al Barger has claimed that everyone has a right to be equally HEARD. You are correct that I don't have any problem with that "imbalance."

You do not have a right to be equally heard. You don't have a positive "right" to have anything, merely the equal right to be left alone to try to get it for yourself.

Put differently, Al Franken does not have a right to have a radio show. He does, however, have every right to try to get one in the market same as everyone else without government interference.

Also, there's no point to a corporate/private distinction here. The basic libertarian point here is that a group has only the rights of the individual members. A corporation or government, therefore, would have no more right to do something than would an individual. If the individual wouldn't be allowed to do it, neither should a corporation be allowed.

However, the ownership of Sinclair could be one guy or a corporation with a half million stockholders. That wouldn't make any difference as to the legitimacy of what's going on here.

Here's the corrective: if the public democratically votes with their hands on the remote that Sinclair is biased bunch of crap, then they go bankrupt or get bought out by somebody fairer or more in tune with public sympathies.

Plus, it's not like Sinclair has any form of monopoly on public discourse even in the markets where they own a tv station. They've still got NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. And of course Fox News is there to make it all fair and balanced.

Plus, of course, the pajamahadeen such as us are here to keep them in line. If Sinclair goes all Dan Rather on us, they should get busted and discredited and lose audience- like ol' fabricatin' Dan.

To that end, I recommend that those who are concerned about this Kerry documentary should watch it, and take notes. Check 'em close, see what they say that is factually incorrect. Fact check their asses.

I say let it all run together. Keep the government out of it as much as possible, and let the public sort it out.

It is rare that I adopt a conservative trait but in this case I think I long for a value of yesteryear here. Back when people expected journalists and the news media to be fair and balanced. And I mean those words in the true sense, not in the Fox News sense.

Now the eagerness to allow a few corporate board members to be able to decide the ideology, the very information that the public receives all presented under the guise of a personal freedom, is very scary and never an ideology I could agree with.

I don't care if the documentary is shown, as long as equal time is given to the opposing side, the qualification being because it's politics and I believe that is important to have in a democratic society.

And wanting Kerry to sit down as if on trial is not a good 'equal time' allowance.

I disagree with what Sinclair is doing and I disagree with the ideology that would rationalize it.

the public owns the libraries as well. I guess that's communism too.

Diva, are you really saying that because every person in the world lacks a PC and internet access, that there is some hideous, conspiratorial denial of the freedom to express? That although there are literally millions of blogs, that there is a shortage of opinions?

I'll stand on my example, because you have failed to show a better one. You merely took examples of regulated access- broadcast media- and told me it was an example of how deregulation failed! Good grief how you missed badly!

You have a blog. You do not have a radio station, a TV station, or a newspaper. Yep, the internet is a horrrrrible example of access.

I know plenty of people who do not have and cannot afford net access. It is a good way to spread information but not a reliable source to reach everybody like the public airwaves can or a library. If you can walk to a library you can get information, it's free. And many people are illiterate or computer illiterate. That's what I took MD to mean.

As far as expressing opinions and shortage of opinions, there's plenty of those but isn't Sinclair claiming to not be presenting opinion but news fact? Is a concession being made here as to what we all know the case to really be?

Even after I posted my last comment, it dawned on me that people who can't afford a PC or the cost of an ISP can walk into a public library for free and use the net and blog for free, so MD's argument is weaker still.

I will give MD this: it's a clever tactic to continue to call me a Republican, knowing full well that I am not one. That kind of attack creates the very tempting desire to fire back, "but no! I'm not a Republican! I'm anything but that!". It satisfies her goal of having anyone decry the Republican Party. Problem is, I regard the GOP and her beloved Democratic Party as EQUALS. Equals in the drive toward a more authoritarian society.

So here's the challenge MD will not take, but will dance around. Diva, are you saying that there is a shortage of voices on the internet defending the perspective of the underclasses? I am saying that they are VERY well represented on the internet, while they are vastly less represented on the regulated media- radio and TV.

If you have any integrity, answer the challenge directly.

Yuck! Time for me to put on my apron and feed the people who think like they are year old, I see. Stop screechling, 'Mine! Mine!' and grabbing the spoon, Liberinfants.

Diva, are you really saying that because every person in the world lacks a PC and internet access, that there is some hideous, conspiratorial denial of the freedom to express?

Funny, Steve (Boom) had no problem deriving the plain meaning of what I said in that comment. But somehow, you, Mike Kole, have managed to twist a brief statement into something barely recognizable. I said the Internet is not the ideal method of distributing information you claim it is. One of the reasons I offered is high cost. That shuts out nearly half the population in the U.S. I said nothing about "the world" or "hideous conspiratorial" denials of anything. I speak of the basic economics and their impact on who gets what. The fact the Internet is a luxury means it is not an ideal way to distribute information. Shutting half the population out of the flow in a democracy is the desire of someone who prefers a different form of government. Feudalism, perhaps? But, we already know that about Liberinfants. (Still kicking and squawking, "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!')

You merely took examples of regulated access- broadcast media- and told me it was an example of how deregulation failed!

Mike, do you also only read Ayn Rand? That would explain why there are these huge gaps in your knowledge. The communications industry has been deregulating since the 1970s. It is far from what it was even twenty-some years agos, when I got my first job as a teen columnist at a newspaper. Then, that paper was independently owned. Today, it would be owned by a conglomerate along with numerous other papers, radio and television stations. Or, driven out of business by the conglomerates. Your ideal of complete deregulation of the media has not occurred yet, but we are at least half way to it. It boggles the mind that someone can come to a discussion about deregulation of the media without realizing that significant deregulation has already occurred. But, then, you're a Liberinfant.

The Internet is mainly an avenue of entertainment for the relatively affluent. Its biggest moneymaker is pornography. Another somewhat lucrative use is hosting games. Only a few Internet businessness are profitable at all. Dispersal of information is secondary usage at most. And, much of what passes for information is not. It is disinformation and misinformation. That is particularly true of blogs. Yesterday, I wrote a corrective to a Right Wing rant by John Mudd in which he claimed Yes, I Can, a prank by well-known cut-ups, the Yes Men, was a secret, Left Wing conspiracy out to get Bush. Hardly. Secretive people aren't interviewed by the media whenever they can get the opportunity and don't make movies about their antics. In the same piece, Mudd claimed the Boston Globe is hostile to John Kerry, Actually, the paper has endorsed him. People who rely exclusively on most blogs for information will be treated to a steady diet of such fabrications. Only a fool would do it.

You have a blog. You do not have a radio station, a TV station, or a newspaper. Yep, the internet is a horrrrrible example of access.

I have blogs, but I used to have newspaper columns. (Well, only twice. I spent most of my time in the business as a reporter and editor.) There is no question which one is the better method of disseminating information.

Again, the verbal projectile vomiting of Liberinfants aside, these points:

~ The media, both print and broadcast, have been increasingly deregulated since the 1970s.

~ The Internet is extremely flawed as a method of information delivery. It has no quality control and shuts out nearly half of the population. It is the opposite of an ideal way of delivering information in a democracy. An option for people who can afford this form of entertainment? Yes. A method we should rely on to create an informed citizenry. No.

Mike Kole and Al Barger, you can burp now.

I'm glad to know that I'm affluent! and all this time I thought I was just poor white trash, but since I have internet access, I am now affluent!

Hooray for me!!!

Oh sorry, relatively affluent. Hooray for me anyway!!!

Diva, are you saying that there is a shortage of voices on the internet defending the perspective of the underclasses?

Indeed, I am.

I am saying that they are VERY well represented on the internet, while they are vastly less represented on the regulated media-radio and TV.

Prove that. (Even when the journalist has the floor, the lawyer is not far away.)

The "underclasses" are largely not on the Internet at all. That $1000 a year entry cost is needed for necessities. There are a few pilot projects trying to offer access through wireless hubs in cities such as Philadelphia. But, those efforts are in their infancy.

Usage of the Internet at ancillary locations is the best that the poor can manage, but an inferior experience compared to home access. Libraries and community centers are shut some days of the week and at night. (Bush's reductions of federal funds available have made that worse.) The poor often can't afford to travel to locations where computers are available to the public. Increasingly, colleges only allow students, teachers and staff to use their facilities.

I've blogged the Digital Divide several times. (Yes, Liberinfants, the situation is well-known and has a name. The problem with reading only Ayn Rand is that you miss what is really going on.) However, in the interest of self-education, I suggest Mike Kole research the topic himself.

The most recent twist is the hierarchy being established in regard to Internet access. (I have a blog entry on this somewhere. Will add the link if my Archives cough it up.) It is this:

1) T1 or Wi-Fi (802.11) access at and/or away from home in addition to DSL or cable.

2) DSL or cable at home.

3) Dial-up access at home.

4) No access at home, but use of ancillary access.

5) No access at all.

The hierarchy pretty much mirrors the class system in the U.S. Ironically, the children who could most benefit from the Internet as an educational tool are shut out. Even if there is a library in bus or subway range, it will likely be closed at night when the child is doing her home work.

see, that's why I make my kids do their homework right after school!!!

Good morning, MacDiva Esq. My, but you are up early in Portland, the probable home of the 2006 LP national convention. It's nice to see such verbal diarrhea from you so early, and in such copious amounts. And, you're a lawyer? Gosh! I bow, deeply.

Actually, I read very little Rand and a whole lot of history. Perhaps you should do the same for a background on the FCC and how it allows the conditions for our current media situation, with corporations from ClearChannel to NPR devouring small stations with complicit government help.

Maybe it would allow you to see that it took decades for the poor to get telephones and televisions, but now mere years for the poor to get internet. There is a positive evolution there that defies your bitter rhetoric.

Your complaints are what? That the internet isn't perfect, and that not everybody has internet access? Gosh, but those are really pathetic, petty complaints. The regulated broadcast media was perfect until spoiled by deregulation? That's when the variety of perspectives closed up?

Maybe what we need, to make sure that everyone has internet access, is a law. That's what lawyers always argue for as the solution to any problem, right? No, two laws:

1. Amendment to the US Constitution: All citizens have a right to free internet access. There will be no denial of this vital resource based on economic or other status.

2. All citizens shall be forced to learn to read and to type. It shall be a crime to be unable to use this precious resource through lame excuses such as illiteracy, or even- get this- disinterest.

Obey! Obey!

My, but this is the most fun I've had in the last 23 minutes!

It just dawned on me that there has been something troublesome to me about MD's constant anti-Rand harangues.

I admit that there was a time when I was intoxicated by Rand's militant style of laissez faire politics. I never fully bought in, because there was one aspect of Rand's approach that I reject. It was overwhelmingly adopted by her cultist followers, the Objectivists: never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

That's what bothered me about MD's attacks. They always use this formula. She never fails to pronounce moral judgment. It is alway accompanied by bitterness, anger, negativity, and name-calling. I had no use for it in those people I had significant agreement with. I have even less use for it in those I disagree sharply with.

Believe it or not, I very much enjoy the arguments from the other side, coming from Natalie Davis, Hal, Boom, Shark, bhw, BAB, and even bob2112 (when he avoids the Nazi thing). I get tremendous value from dealing with what I consider intellectual peers.

hey bob2112, I absolutely was not ignoring you or in any way passing judgment: there are only somany hours in the day and only so much time to make comments. I see my overarching role regarding comments as filling in the spaces and acting as a lubricant. I always try to gree new members in particular. When a thread is going quite smoothly on its own with various sides being represented quite well without my help, I generally concentrate on other things. That's all there is to it.

Mike, I see your point about the FCC and regulation and your comparison to the Internet. There's no denying that an average American can have a voice on the Internet, while having zero chance of having a voice in traditional print or broadcast media.
That has to do with the *relatively* low cost to enter the Internet "market": a home PC, an Internet connection, and an overlown ego and you're on your way to Internet publishing!

But what MD says about the barrier to entry is still true: there are millions of Americans who still can't afford the access at home. Even if they can access it at, say, the local library, it's not quite the same as having the access anytime you want it and having the freedom to do what you want with the PC.

Still, access is *relatively* cheap, but that has a lot to do with the technology, which continues to go down in price. The Internet existed before the home PC, but without the home PC, the Internet would still be the exclusive domain of universities and government agencies and other institutions that could afford the hardware and software.

So, to make a long story longer, even if you got rid of the FCC and completely deregulated broadcast media ownership, we'd still end up with monopolies of ownership because of the cost barrier. It's just to frickin' expensive for an average American to own a single tv station that reaches more than his neighbors, nevermind an actual network of them.

One of the best things that happened to the Internet, if you ask me, is that people learned it's NOT that easy to make money on it, certainly not big money like with broadcast media. That's partially because of user behavior -- we just don't click those damn ads! -- but also because there's no centralized gather place: there are too many options out there for users [which is good for users but bad for advertisers]. Where is the "prime time" slot to book your ads? And users aren't too fond of subscriptions, either. We want it all for free. So the situation keeps feeding itself: more user options, fewer identifiable "sure things" for advertisers. And users will keep heading for the free content, for the most part.

Anyway, the Internet is about as democratic as you can get, even though many people still can't partake in it. But it's definitely unprecedented in giving average people the ability to broadcast their ideas across the globe.

Someone sounds bitter, but it sure ain't me. The Liberinfants' formula must have caused colic.

Forty-seven percent of Americans don't have Internet access. For most of them, the reason is the cost. To dismiss that large a proportion of the population tells us the person doing the dismissing holds anyone not economically well-off in contempt. But, we already know that about Liberinfants. They propose a world in which a tiny elite, which they hope would include themselves, would live well why others barely get by or perish from lack of necesseties.

Mike Kole, you know next to nothing about the history of deregulation of media and it shows. The one thing deregulation has accomplished superbly is concentration of media ownership in a few hands. More deregulation will create more concentration. Apparently you are silly enough to believe that Mom and Pop Doe will be the ones to buy newspapers, radio and television stations in the absence of regulation. I am not.

As for not liking being spoonfed by someone who does know what she is talking about, that is definitely your prerogative. Since you cling to ignorance as if it is a comforting teddy bear, your Liberinfant attitude in this regard is not surprising either.

It is somewhat amazing that you can be completely ignorant of the Digital Divide while claiming knowledge of the Internet. It is probably the most significant topic related to the 'Net. Reminds me of your argument with bhw about capitalism. You latched onto a simple-minded position -- capitalism is good -- and would not let it go. You've done the same thing here with pretty much the same result, conclusions that cannot be defended.

Diva could you give me a definition of the word Liberinfant? I'm just trying to keep up is all!!!

Thanks!

Even after I posted my last comment, it dawned on me that people who can't afford a PC or the cost of an ISP can walk into a public library for free and use the net and blog for free

But according to the Right, those PC's contain nothing but porn.

Andy, I coined 'Liberinfant' myself. I am not much of a curser or name caller, but I do like to turn a colorful word or phrase that captures the object like a deer in headlights. The self-centered nature of Libertarians reminds me of babies. Another infantile aspect is the way other people don't really exist for them except as abstractions. When Al Barger or a Mike Kole refers to much, maybe most of the population, it is not as people with needs like themselves, but as barriers to them getting their way. So, I bring you 'Liberinfants,' a construction that describes what those folks are really like.

Worse than that, Steve (Boom)! Natalie's blog, which contains absolutely no porn, cannot be accessed from the library or even Kinko's. She writes about gay rights and I suspect that has caused the ban. She once tried to blog from Kinko's, perhaps because her system was unavailable at home. She couldn't. I tried accessing her blog from Kinko's. I couldn't.

I'll buy into the cost of a pc...but you can actually access the internet for free through Juno. You will get bumped if the to many paying customers come on, but it's still free. And yes this still works. I was out of town 2 weeks ago, staying in a hotel that did not have HS internet (I try to avoid that) and used my old juno software that I have not paid for in a year to download my e-mail. It reminded me of why I hate dial up so much, but if you don't know any better...

Thank you, Eric. You got a thread dedicated to Al to be a super hot debate!

I hope to God Al wins his race!
Good luck, Al!

Can't play today, gang. Real life is calling. Real bills. Real Absentee voting for Kerry & the other (D)'s I can help out!

I know, I know. What a relief! bob2112 can't spew more of his outlandish theories to disregard, today. Maybe he'll get hit by a car or something! Maybe the accident will burn up his ballot before he gets to the mailbox! Yeah Andy, that's the ticket!

Diva, your 'facts' are crap. I'll show how crappy with a post shortly.

Funny how you can say that you aren't an insulting name-caller while having to explain the insulting name you coined for libertarians.

I know plenty about the history of the broadcast media. First, it was unregulated. Then it was regulated. Now it is still regulated, but what you call de-regulation is actually re-regulation. De-regulation is the absence of regulation. Tough concept to grasp, I know. Anyhow, that's the brief history of broadcast media and regulation. Stuff your head in the sand if you must.

Bob2112, thanks for your kind endorsement.

Bob...I have a lighter if you need it!!! I'd hate for you not to be around though, I love all your conspiracy theories!!!

That's piffle, Liberinfant. I was the research assistant for one of my law profs on a book about media deregulation. Still have my notes. Furthermore, I worked for newspapers for years. This is not some new topic I discovered yesterday, but something I've followed over time.

As for your assertion above (Comment 77) Mike Kole, that white participants in Blogcritics are your "intellectual peers," but I am not, I am not surprised by it at all. Show me someone who loves Al Barger and I will show you someone with a race problem. I just hope you are not stupid enough to actually believe what you imply.

you can tell colors from those names??? I'm impressed!!!

Bob2, my ballot came in the mail today, along with the real voters' pamphlet from the League of Women Voters and a phony voters' pamphlet disguised to look like the one by the LWV from the Republicans. If I am not too tired after getting up early today, I will sit down and peruse the ballot this evening. I hope to complete the ballot and mail it back by Thursday.

more of the vast right wing conspiracy...I sure hope after GWB finishes up his next four years that hillary runs on the dem ticket...think how much fun this place will be then!!

Not at all, Andy. The GOP printed up and mailed partisan voters' pamphlets designed to look like the objective ones from the League of Women Voters here. Now, they getting all shamefaced on TV about being exposed.

really...and I'm being serious here...I'd like to see one...I never seem to get any of the propaganda.

Diva, I can see why you no longer work for newspapers. Your factchecking abilities are subpar. You may still have the notes, but they are badly out of date.

Diva- this is my 'list of peers' from Comment 77:

Natalie Davis, Hal, Boom, Shark, bhw, BAB, and even bob2112

Every one of these are white people, eh?
Like I said about your factchecking abilities, above.

LOL! So, someone told you Natalie isn't white and you think that will get you off the hook, Mike Kole. It won't. Your claim that someone of my proven ability is your intellectual inferior is ludicrous. It is the kind of a thing a bigot would say. And, frankly, I am a lot smarter than you will ever be.

Andy, I will see if any of the local media have a picture of the phony voters' pamphlets.

Ballot mailed. Check.

Not influenced by other state's early voting. Check.

Still believe current version of (R)Party is watered down Fascism. Check.

FCC deregulation, overt assbackward right-wing benefit. Check.

Walmart is current version of government cheese.(Throw 'em a bone!) Check.

Tax cuts will bankrupt social programs to enslave the poor, more. Check.

Diebold programmed back door in vote count program for over 1000 counties to allow cyber-terrorism, in hopes of postponing election. Check.

Healthy Forest Initiative attempt to tip the balance for Bush, in swing states WA & OR. Check.

Flu Shot crisis, purposeful population control tactic to kill Seniors before 2006 Medicare prescription benefit kicks in. Check.

Medicare prescription benefit, carrot to secure as many (R) Senior Citzen votes as possible. Check.

Alan Keyes can kiss my ass! Check.
Tom Delay pure evil! Check.
Karl Rove, please die! Check.
Colin Powell, quit now, man! Check.
Michael Powell, down with the ship. Check.

John McCain, I understand what you have to do. Those guys are sick bastards, & who knows what they'll do to you if you don't play ball.
John McCain last (R) standing. Check!

Now, Bob2, I dunno about the flu shot conspiracy. ROFL!

I forgot: Saddam, Tariq Aziz, & Noriega are all nodding off on pure Afgani dope, not naming names.

James Baker is 'real' Secretary of State

Dick Cheney still smokes.

Bush is on perfect prescription cocktail
developed by Eli-Lilly.

There is no hope or help on the way if Republicans win. Check, check, check, check, check, check!

you really do crack me up Bob...glad you're around here...one of the few liberals with a real sense of humor...you're a good man charlie brown!!!

"They are attempting to influence public opinion in a coming election. This should be illegal, I don't know why it is not."

Have you ever heard of free speech?

Have you ever read Newsweek or Time?

"I would be kicking these guys asses myself if they were to be unlucky enough to be face to face with me, as a victim of their long distance atrocities."

Ooo...I would LOVE to see that...

Under the old, pre-deregulation rules (needless to say media has been deregulated) there would have been a requirement that Sinclair's Broadcast be presented as political fare (which would have brought the equal time requirement into play) or that it be aired after the election. Free speech is not absolute. The problems with what Sinclair does are twofold: They are the only local option for many of their viewers who do not have cable, and, they don't distinguish between opinion and fact. There will be viewers who believe they are watching a factual presentation.

"Even when the journalist has the floor, the lawyer is not far away."

(retch...)

"I am not much of a {...} name caller"

(retch...)

"Show me someone who loves Al Barger and I will show you someone with a race problem."

Is Justene on vacation? Or just utterly useless vis-a-vis race-baiting?

"someone of my proven ability"

RETCH!

Quoth Mac-Who-Cannot-Be-Named:

"Free speech is not absolute". I guess she or another dictator will the arbiter of what shall pass. In this case, the FCC will do nicely.

"The problems with what Sinclair does... They are the only local option for many of their viewers who do not have cable"

Once again, Mac's fact checking is lousy. A two-minute check of Sinclair's website reveals that they are present mainly in markets with plenty of TV viewing options: Baltimore, Buffalo, Birmingham AL, Cincinnati, Columbus OH, Dayton, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Antonio, Syracuse...

They are in places I'm not so familiar with, such as in Asheville, NC. Turns out they have an ABC afiliate in Asheville, which isn't much, but then again, they also get Nashville TN tv stations as well as Hickory NC stations. They have cable and are fighting to get the local County Commissioners to create the public access channel, which would allow for diverse viewpoints.

OK, how about Paducah, KY? Turns out Paducah has plenty of TV- all the network affiliates and Comcast cable.

I just can't find a market Sinclair serves where they are a monopoly player, or even where the market they are in isn't served by cable.

Your 'proven ability' seems to be in blowing smoke.

RJ, maybe I should have clarified what I meant. I would be kicking those guys asses in 1970-whenever as an NVA victim of their long distance atrocities they inflicted on my family. These guys committed their own share atrocities.

I wouldn't want to be in the same room with these guys today. The lies they tell hurt too much.

Once again, Liberinfant Mike Kole misses the point. But, then, he is ignorant of the deregulation of the media that makes the point an issue. As I said before, the problem is twofold: limited access to other voices and the intent of Sinclair to directly influence the election. Before deregulation, neither aspect of the problem would have occurred. There would have been other local options for viewers and the Fairness Doctrine would have required Sinclair be balanced in its airing of political content.

This not quite equivalent to Kole bragging about doing all the research he needed in regard to the Digital Divide in one minute on the Internet elsewhere, but it is further evidence of someone imagining hinself to be much brighter than he is.

Look, Mac. The FCC as it is now is what you call de-regulated, but I do not call it de-regulated. I call it re-regulated.

A de-regulated FCC would create no artificial barriers to entry for any entity wishing to pop a TV station up. The result would be *lots* of TV stations, and would prevent the possibility that a Sinclair could be the sole media outlet.

You argued that Sinclair was the only outlet in some places. I showed it wasn't true.

You would be imminently more credible if you stopped calling names, and debated on the facts. Alas, you sweep facts under the rug, never allowing them to get in the way of your bombast.

Que sera sera.

There are those who will stand up and be counted (like Al) and there are those like MD.

Deeds not words...

The only facts about deregulation on this thread were posted by myself, Steve (Boom), and bhw. Until his last comment, Mike Kole denied that deregulation has occurred.

Furthermore, the man who would be king* of his own Dungeons and Dragons world is totally tripping in regard to the main thing deregulation achieves -- concentration of ownership. Deregulate more and the same entities that own multiple television stations, radio stations and newspapers will own even more. The problems will be exacerbated.

*Yes, Mike Kole believes he would be king. He perceives Al Barger as his subject, a gofer. And entertainment. A kind of 'Mr. Piggy.'

"FCC deregulation, overt assbackward right-wing benefit. Check." post#98

"FCC rules recently allowing companies to legally buy up signals so one voice can monoploize more stations, under the guise of capitalism." post#43

Thanks, Lucy! Arrrgh!

Sorry I left you off the list, Bob2. You are right.

Relax in the safety of your own delusions, Diva. Whenever you're off on a topic, you will do one one the following: play the race card, call names, insult, put words in the mouth of your opposition.

You've done all of these things on this thread. Why not just concede that you're wrong once in a while? It works wonders, especially when you *are* wrong.

Diva, that was really unseemly of you to describe my relationship with Al Barger that way. The civil thing to do would be to apologize.

In all actuality, you have the relationship backward, though. Al is the candidate and I am the party operative. As such, I am his gofer.

It's OK, Diva. I can take it. I've been left out in these NW woods for the last 24 of my 35 years!

The dark woman, she is too wise and her soul too strong for us. She knows too much. She must be eliminated.

Mike Kole and RJ, my minions, you must dispatch this Fighter for Justice with extreme prejudice before she exposes our plans for World Domination.

Go, now!

[unsheathes two-handed battle axe]

"How many hit points does the gully dwarf have left?"