Folks this is a sad day for music. And a sadder day for this country.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Linda Ronstadt Ejected For Supporting Michael Moore - Comments Page 2
Folks this is a sad day for music. And a sadder day for this country.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Eric Olsen
then there's that angle
27 - Pat
Since Michael Moore doesn't have any teeth and Linda Ronstadt can take hers out, they could really have something special when they 69. That is if you can fit a gravy bowl and a basket of bread on their asses.
28 - Pat
"Linda Ronstadt Ejected For Supporting Michael Moore"
Michael Moore has no balls therefore "no support needed".
29 - Pat
Sorry Mr. Moore I forgot about your support bra. You could use some mammary DD support.
30 - Dan
Isn't it a feather in the cap of the Bush administration that the one Arab joint in Vegas (the Aladdin) takes a pro-American stance in the political debate?
31 - Pat
The customers (not the Aladdin) told Linda Ronstadt to fuck off.
She took her own risk in making a "political" statement at her show(s).
Based on some of her remarks she is still a washed up version of a fucking bigot whore!
32 - Pat
In a nutshell: The majority of the folks at the Aladdin didn't like her endingor encore, therefore it was advantagious for her to get the hell out asap!
33 - Shark
Doug: "Shark... I don't know how old you are, but I have never heard anyone who lived through McCarthyism ever claim that it was not government censorship as you do in your post."
Good grief. How old are you?
Study up, whippersnapper.
Read about and/or Google:
John Henry Faulk,
Fear On Trial,
AWARE INC.
Dalton Trumbo,
Ring Lardner Jr,
Paul Robeson,
Lester Cole,
Albert Maltz
for starters.
---Then get back to me.
34 - Dirtgrain
Wayne Newton sings in honor of Bush all the time, and he doesn't get fired.
Flanagan: "But to give political messages to an audience that simply wants entertainment is not only a bad idea, it's in some ways unethical."
Yes, let's silence political thought entirely. That way nobody will know what's going on, and Big Brother can stay in control, unchallenged.
Shark, you're too smart to let Al Barger keep using those "you're too smart to . . ." lines on you and get away with it. It's a slimy tactic, similar to calling a man, "boy" or "son." Wait. I'm too smart to use those "you're too smart to. . ." lines on you and get away with it. Forget I even mentioned it.
I agree with Shark. Cases illustrating our loss of freedom are coming up faster than I can blog them. And so many people are lining up to support this. Why? Please do consider history again. Freedom is delicate. Look the other way a couple of times, and it will be gone. A spirit of censorship is spreading. Another word for this is intolerance. Hey you, Linda Ronstadt, up against the wall. Hey you, Michael Moore, up against the wall. Hey you, Whoopi Goldberg, up against the wall. Go against Big Brother and see what happens. Resistance is futile.
Censorship doesn't require a government (although there is plenty of that going around, as well). When a group silences ideas that are contrary to its status quo, that is a form of censorship. Too many are jumping up to say that it was a private business and that this makes it okay. Wake up. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns UPI. Can he do whatever he wants with it, even if it means we lose some of our freedom? Can't we tell him to fuck off? Tell him that he needs to serve the interests of the people--the majority? Don't say that if I don't like it, then I can avoid it. You try avoiding UPI.
There is an assumption behind some of the comments here that if it's about making money, then censorship is fine. I can hear Michael Douglass saying, "Greed is good." Since when is money a source of good? Just sit back, relax, and let the moneygrubbers do whatever suits them, and everything will work out for the best?
It's not about an audience being offended. It is about the corporatocracy not wanting to weaken its grasp on our world, our government and our lives. They don't want Linda, Michael, Whoopi--anyone--to speak so freely as to challenge growing corporate dominance. Those greedy bastards are all in on it, happily spreading the spirit of censorship--from casino owners to media owners, from Fox to Clear Channel, and so on. That is why Linda got the hook.
35 - thrasher
I really think that this comment by George Varga in the
San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE sums it all up pretty well:
"Those who complain that Ronstadt should just sing, rather than express her opinions, forget that all art has a responsibility to inspire and provoke, not just soothe and entertain."
36 - Shark
BTW: For those who don't want to read any history, you can rent "FEAR ON TRIAL" a decent made-for-TV movie about John Henry Faulk', one of America's greatest heroes in the fight for *freedom from fear and oppression.
*remember that potential anachronism? The US was established using it as a major pretext? You remember??
37 - Shark
This just in:
Laura Ingraham's Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood...are Subverting America" will go into its ninth printing -- with a new preface by Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.
heh.
38 - Shark
... and with a dedication to the late Republican Senator Sonny Bono...
39 - Corinna Hasofferett
The Financial is Political, the Political is Financial.
There is not a single instance in a human's life that is not Political.
It is a complete inversion of Values to consider Money and Business as exterritories of Freedom of Speech.
Gambling is Escapism from this crushing revelation: Humans are supposed to use their brains.
There is a long continuous line from Hitler's Willing Collaborators to all Willing Collaborators wherever and whenever. Step by step, minute by minute they scratch their foreheads until you find yourself with the universal challenge: Join the Rhinoceros or fight back.
40 - Dirtgrain
Now they are after Doonesbury. Will those bastards leave anything untouched? See 'Anniston Star' Protests Dropping of 'Doonesbury'. But hey, it was just a business decision, right? Bullshit! I want my Doonesbury.
41 - Mike Kole
Don't forget who owns the stage. It wasn't Linda Ronstadt, to be sure.
In fact, it *is* fascism when you own the stage and have to provide an artist an outlet you would prefer not to.
42 - Dirtgrain
Consider the extreme: what if it were the only stage in the US (or the world, for that matter)? What if it were the only outlet for entertainment that we the people would ever get to see (maybe like the wall onto which the projections are made in Plato's allegory of the cave)? If it were owned by one person (as opposed to a government), should we the people be subjected to the censorial whims of that owner? Shouldn't we be allowed to hear ideas that are contrary to this owner's beliefs? Of course we should. That is obvious. And if you say otherwise, think about what kind of world you would want to live in (within these hypothetical parameters). You would put the "freedom" of the owner over the freedom of the people. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock.
So it's a hypothetical extreme, you say. Well, just extend it. Say it's ten owners of ten stages versus we the people. Or a hundred. Or a thousand. When the bulk of the owners censor in a similar fashion, what is the effect on the people, the many? Censorship, as cold, icy and evil as any that has come from a dictator or Pope or government.
"Don't forget who owns the stage."
As if we are supposed to bend over and take it up the *** from him. Why are so many so gung-ho about being controlled by the rich? They can own a lot of shit, but don't let them own you.
43 - boomcrashbaby
I'm a pretty strong free speech advocate, but there is a thin, yet apparently provable line here, between censorship and job performance.
If I have a birthday party for my daughter, and Krusty the Klown decides to use that time speaking to the kids about the evil politics of President Burns and VP Smithers, I'd fire Krusty too. Even if I agreed with him about the evil politics of Pres. Burns. I'd fire him because he was hired to entertain and like Linda, he would have failed at his job.
Michael Moore didn't fail at his job, Whoopi didn't fail at her job, so I don't see this in the same category as those two. (This is in reference to comment 34 by Dirtgrain).
44 - Eric Olsen
I would say it was very rude and an overreaction to toss Linda out on her ass, but again, there appear to be several sub-stories running through this - was she trying to get herself fired? - I would like to see all the facts before I comment further.
45 - Shark
Corinna: "There is a long continuous line from Hitler's Willing Collaborators to all Willing Collaborators wherever and whenever. Step by step, minute by minute they scratch their foreheads until you find yourself with the universal challenge: Join the *Rhinoceros or fight back."
I'm honored and humbled to have my earlier comments confirmed and reinforced by a writer who has direct experience with the Holocaust.
In that context, her statements add a profound additional weight to the abstract warnings delivered by me, Dirtgrain, Rodney Welch, et al in this thread.
*one small correction: replace "Rhinoceros" with "Elephant" -- as in the GOP kind.
46 - Eric Olsen
I would say the Holocaust references are misguided at best: such references would be much more applicable if the story of her firing was somehow repressed. Such is obviously not the case, and people are free to bring in any kind of wild reference, inference and interpretation they wish to the story, as is going on all across the Internet and elsewhere.
There is no question the casino had the right to fire her for whatever reason - no rights were violated, she was in no way silenced - so the question is, was the story of her firing somehow suppressed? I would say this thread is clear evidence it was not.
Slippery slope analogies only hold up when you're on the right freaking hill.
47 - Michael Croft
That's certainly a sentiment that's out of fashion these days.
48 - Mike Kole
Dirtgrain: Consider the extreme: what if it were the only stage in the US (or the world, for that matter)? What if it were the only outlet for entertainment that we the people would ever get to see (maybe like the wall onto which the projections are made in Plato's allegory of the cave)? If it were owned by one person (as opposed to a government), should we the people be subjected to the censorial whims of that owner? Shouldn't we be allowed to hear ideas that are contrary to this owner's beliefs? Of course we should. That is obvious. And if you say otherwise, think about what kind of world you would want to live in (within these hypothetical parameters). You would put the "freedom" of the owner over the freedom of the people. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock.
I've come to see the light. I submitted a series of libertarian manifestos to moveon.org, and they deleted them all!Beginning right now, I demand that moveon.org give me all the space I need to express my views. It's time to end moveon.org's oppression and censorship! How dare they own a website and only present their views on it? This is without a doubt a vicious attempt to marginalize and oppress me! My views are an important contribution to the communal dialogue! Why should I be subjected to the censorial whims of moveon.org? Am I supposed to just bend over and take it from those rich, controlling people who own a website?
The definition of fascism is: that system by which private ownership of property is permitted, but its use is defined by those other than the property owner.
Can we conclude other than that Dirtgrain is a fascist?
49 - Eric Olsen
And then of course I went ahead and commented, but it was on a meta-issue (that's my excuse anyway)
50 - boomcrashbaby
Can we conclude other than that Dirtgrain is a fascist?
No, just someone who is concerned about the same situation happening in a place where all (or the only) avenue(s) are owned by private entities. Pointing out an extreme example does not make one a facist.
I agree with Dirtgrain, Shark, bhw, etc. about their concerns of censorship and free speech, I'm not convinced though, that it applies in this case. It sounds like a job performance issue. We shouldn't get distracted over this or things like 'girly man'. These issues won't win over mainstream America, there is some 'zeroing in' on some issues for political gain from my own party that I think is not to our benefit.
51 - Mike Kole
However, Dirtgrain pointed to the owner's stage being given to someone for the purpose of having views other than the stage owner's expressed. So, Dirtgrain *did* express a fascist point of view.
The thing that is so disappointing about the left is the eagerness to destroy one set of rights in order to give another. This is case in point.
52 - boomcrashbaby
I will let Dirtgrain defend him/her self. I personally do not see any political agenda currently in the presidental platforms of any candidate that would make stage owners everywhere need to be concerned at this time.
The thing that is so disappointing about the left is the eagerness to destroy one set of rights in order to give another. This is case in point.
The thing that is so disappointing about the right is the eagerness to destroy one set of rights, and leave it at that.
53 - Eric Olsen
himself
54 - Dirtgrain
Kole, see the forest, man. My comments are about the big picture--not just about what happened to Linda Ronstadt. If this were one isolated incident, then I wouldn't be so worried. It is the collective effect that shows a controlling, owning group imposing its censorship on the masses that scares me and others. I don't know that it is an organized collective in every way, but as I said before, this spirit of censorship is spreading.
You need to acknowledge the paradoxical nature of freedom: that one person's freedom can be in conflict with the freedom of others. In a way it seems like you are arguing that a person should be free to take away the freedoms of others and censor them because that person has money (remember, big picture--not just the Linda Ronstadt incident). A big problem is that corporations and big business have taken over so much of the media and other outlets, and they are using their control to effect political change in their favor (i.e., subjugating the masses). What is their agenda? Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money. The rich seek to get richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears--that is the nature of the beast (see Hal Pawluk's post, The Rich Get Richer, Everyone Else Gets The Squeeze, see Inequality.org, see SocialClass.org, and see Essential Information). George Soros said that the business world is amoral (as opposed to immoral) (see my posts Activism"We Can Make A Difference Part II: My Ass! The Dark Side Is Behind MoveOn.org, and Politics - The Dark Lords Duel and Democracy Fizzles, and Corporatocracy - Psychopathic Corporations, A Splinter in My Mind, and Outsourcing for more on Soros). It's a creepy concept. Corporations don't have consciences. They don't have values, either. Those who control them focus on one thing--making money. You Libertarians give them free reign, and they will rip apart our democracy (what is left of it, anyway). They will rob us of our freedoms in the name of making money. They will censor us. But free speech is essential in a democracy.
You think that freedom is allowing rich people to do what they want with their money--without exception. It's as if Libertarians cry out like Obi-Wan Kenobi every time a rich person doesn't get his or her way: "I felt a great disturbance in the force as if thousands of voices all cried out at once because a rich man didn't get his way." What is worse--a rich man not getting his way or a democracy being subverted? What if they use their money to tell us what to do, to control us, to censor us, to mislead us? Again, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock.
What is money? This needs to be clarified. Again, let's look at an extreme. Say that there is one person who owns all of the money in the world, and everybody else has nothing. What does that money represent? Power. Power over everybody else. Why should everybody put up with it and bow down to his money and power? They don't have to put up with it. They outnumber him, and they definitely have a say--the final say if they choose to take it.
Stepping away from the extreme example, we see today that money allows us to trade services, labor and goods. Without it, I don't think our large-scale societies could function. But what is money when it is accumulated in abstract, large sums? Power--which corrupts, a natural tendency. But we can check it, regulate it, and make sure that money-hungry individuals don't usurp our democracy. That must be music to your Libertarian ears.
"The definition of fascism is: that system by which private ownership of property is permitted, but its use is defined by those other than the property owner."
What? That might be a Libertarian's definition of fascism, but it isn't the commonly held one. In The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000), fascism is defined as the following:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I could say that you, Mike Kole, in your arguments here as opposed to mine, are more like a fascist. You would impose the will of the few, the rich and powerful, on the people, democracy be damned. You would silence our voices.55 - Rodney Welch
From Today's New York Times: The best thing yet written about the Ronstadt flap.
56 - Thrasher
Rodney,
Excellent link in NY TImes. And this from Editor & Publisher which is "America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry" regarding the Ronstadt/Moore fiasco:
57 - Mike Kole
Dirt: It's nothing to do with defending the rich. It's about defending the right to self-determination. If I own a stage, by what right do *you* or anyone else get to impose your will on me? What you want is to impose your will. Nothing high-minded about that.
58 - Eric Olsen
I agree that she was treated rudely and the management overreacted, but that is a separate issue from such things as censorship, a slippery slope toward the Holocaust, freedom of expression, the rights of ownership vis-a-vis a independent contractor, etc. etc.
59 - Mike Kole
Dirt & Boom:
If you own land, will you let me erect a pro-libertarian billboard on your land?
60 - boomcrashbaby
No, Mike. If you look at my comment #43, I said she was fired for not entertaining. I never claimed her free speech was violated.
In comment 50, I said I agreed with concerns of censorship, but that I didn't think it applied in this case.
So, my answer is no.
I do think though, that a casino is a business. And I don't believe in giving business's which cater to the general public, the rights of individuals. I understand Dirtgrains concern here, and I also grasp the concept that he is talking about a bigger picture, and recent trends, rather than one single incident alone.
61 - boomcrashbaby
Just something a libertarian should be aware of, Mike....
A casino is not the equivalent of my front yard.
62 - Mike Kole
Boom: I went back and read your comment 43, and agree with what you are saying there.
In re: Comment 60 & 61, a casino is exactly the equivalent of your front yard in the respect that it is private property. I defend the rights of self-determination for all property owners, large and small, held individually or collectively.
Why not give the rights of individuals to businesses? Aren't businesses owned by individuals? Sure, there is the corporate structure, but the structure is comprised of individuals. Isn't what you are saying then that in your view, it is ok to oppress individuals who happen to own businesses?
63 - Mike Kole
Dirt: re comments 54, I'll say the same thing- see the forest. When one property owner is forced to channel opinions he doesn't support, can the remaining property owners be far behind?
I'll confess, I have a 1962 Webster's unabridged, and the definition of fascism carried there is outdated by modern interpretation.
No matter, let's go with your definition.
If free speech vis a vis property rights is to disappear from this earth, who will determine what opinions are carried on the various media? Right now, with property rights in force, there are an enormous number of points of view being expressed. If the property rights vanish, then someone or something must control the various means of transmitting messages and permit access. Who will that be? Won't it necessarily be a dictator or some bureaucratic equivalent, that will analyze and filter the messages? (I would argue that the FCC is that already, that a completely free market would result in infinitely more outlets and opportunities for transmitting messages.)
It looks like you are still arguing for fascism.
64 - boomcrashbaby
a casino is exactly the equivalent of your front yard in the respect that it is private property. I defend the rights of self-determination for all property owners, large and small, held individually or collectively.
A casino generates revenue. A casino is a workplace for many people. It's not the eqivalent of my sanctuary.
Why not give the rights of individuals to businesses?
To business's and properties? You REALLY can't see why?
Goodness. Since property is the topic of this thread, let me start with that one.
I own useless swamp land, you own a casino. They are given the rights of individuals. They are equal. There's 10 million tax dollars to spend. The casino needs it for larger roads into the city, so business and people can thrive. I need it to get the swamp out of my land so that my kid can play in grass. Both properties are EQUAL. So who the heck are you going to give the money too? If you decide one is more important than the other, then you have assigned differing value/worth to each EQUAL individual/property. If I may quote the most overused phrase of 2004, that's a 'slippery slope'.
Aren't businesses owned by individuals? Sure, there is the corporate structure, but the structure is comprised of individuals. Isn't what you are saying then that in your view, it is ok to oppress individuals who happen to own businesses?
No. What I am saying is that if you give a business the right of an individual, then they are both entitled to be heard. So the individual can stand on his front yard and shout his opinion. The business can launch a 100 million dollar global ad campaign. Which viewpoint will most of the globe adopt? You CAN'T give a business the right of an individual because they CANNOT be equal. When it comes to politicking, lobbying, and influencing society overall, even though the business is comprised of individuals, the business is no mere single voter when the time comes to create societal policy.
Is your viewpoint really the viewpoint of your party?
65 - Rodney Welch
This idea that the casino fired Linda Ronstadt because she was there to entertain, not express political opinions, is a load of shit. Has anyone yanked Toby Keith or Travis Tritt off the stage for expressing THEIR political opinion lately? Pure and simple, the casino didn't like Ronstadt's politics.
66 - kd
These whiny celebs need to realize that opinions go both ways and their narrow mindedness needs to expand... you don't like what's going on - go ahead, you have the right - speak your bleeding heart out. In turn, I'll use my American-Given-Right and tell you how I feel. It's utterly pathetic that these people can feel free to dish it out but feel alienated when things don't go their way. Wow, such an amazing frame of mind that some people stagger around feeling hurt by consequesces they have brought on to themselves.. I'm suprised some of these people have the ability to get out of bed in the morning to face this ruthless society here at home in this great nation of ours. GROW UP.
67 - Corinna Hasofferett
Mike Kole:
1.
"If you own land, will you let me erect a pro-libertarian billboard on your land?"
If the land in question is for renting space for billboards yet discriminates - than this will be an unlawful business, propagating mono-culture.
2.
"If I own a stage, by what right do *you* or anyone else get to impose your will on me?"
The stage is yours in every sense as long as it and the theater are empty.
The moment you open it to the public and to a performer/artist it has become a public space where by law you are not allowed to discriminate, nor announce in words or deeds, before or after: I accept Only people who think uniformly like me.
Eric:
"...The essence of Fascism is not just Censorship but the Self-Censorship which enables it willingly. It was so throughout history, it spread all over during the Holocaust Era and is evident to this day. If we do not take notice and stay vigilant, then we'll wake up as the protagonist in Eugene Ionesco's play Rhinoceros, or worse:
"The "epidemic" of the rhinoceroses serves as a convenient allegory for the mass uprising of Nazism and fascism before and during World War II. Ionesco's main reason for writing Rhinoceros is not simply to criticize the horrors of Nazis, but to explore the mentality of those who so easily succumbed to Nazism. A universal consciousness that subverts individual free thought and will defines this mentality; in other words, people get rolled up in the snowball of general opinion around them, and they start thinking what others are thinking. In the play, people repeat ideas others have said earlier, or simultaneously say the same things. Once other people, especially authority figures, collapse in the play, the remaining humans find it even easier to justify why the metamorphoses are desirable..."
(http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/rhinoceros/themes.html)
Shark:
The above explains why I mentioned Rhinoceros. What are GOP/elephants stand for? Oh, they are the emblem of one of your parties. I am indeed to blame I do not know which one...
As long as they do not deter us from staying humanly benign, I do not mind the zoo yet prefer Noah's whole survival kit. You see, he owned that boat, he made it with his own hands, right? Even the Almighty did not order him to censor the passengers. It is good for our survival to cultivate differences. Ok, Ok, too bad there was not room for all and each living creature, but the rule was still fair representation of diversity, not so?
This issue comes up more than once in Israel. Some time ago a famous veteran Israeli singer, one of the two singers from the Independence War (1948) performed at a Protest event and expressed her disagreement with the Occupation. As a result she lost many engangements. The "property owners" in that case were goverment officials and private self-censors alike.
68 - Stephen M.H. Braitman
I certainly wouldn't have ejected Linda Ronstadt for her political views if I was running the hotel. I'd eject her for BAD MUSIC!!
69 - Mike Kole
Boom: The right to free speech is not the same as the 'right to be heard', or the 'right to be taken seriously', or anything else.
I accept that laissez faire capitalism has some inequities built into it. Some people *will* be richer than others. Some *will* have more influence than others. This is inevitably the outcome of any system that promotes an equal freedom to the pursuit of happiness, where you are on this earth, and good luck to you. This is the curse of capitalism.
On the other hand, the political attempts towards the *pursuit of the equality of outcome* have invariably led to the equal sharing of misery and deprivation. This is the 'blessing' of socialism. There are fewer inequities, but no opportunity to escape above what was once the middle.
I can see the issues very well, thank you. I accept some shortcomings in it, but then, that's human nature. This *is* my perspective and the perspective of the Libertarian Party. I stand by it.
By the way, Boom, that 'swamp' of yours is now known as a wetland. Your kid be damned, the froggies and duckies need their habitat, so don't go draining it. Whoops. There goes your right to self-determination of your property. I would have liked to have helped, but to many people were busy denouncing my views and working to defeat me. Bummer.
70 - boomcrashbaby
Well, I don't think I can ever agree with the principle that a business gets the same rights and freedoms as an individual. I believe a business should have rights, but not seen as the equivalent of a human being.
As for distracted by someone denouncing your views? Welcome to politics. It's too bad you couldn't save my swamp, my kickback would have been higher than the casino's I'm sure.
71 - Dirtgrain
"And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight.
So I jumped on the fence, and I yelled at the house,
'Hey, what gives you the right?'
You put up a fence to keep me out but to keep Mother Nature in.
If God was here he'd tell you to your face, 'Man you're some kind of sinner!'" ("Signs" by the Five Man Electrical Band)
Mike Kole said: "If you own land, will you let me erect a pro-libertarian billboard on your land?"
If I were forced to do so by the majority, then I would have no choice. As it is, you depend on the government to maintain your claim to "your" property. Without such government support, each would have to defend his or her claim to property on his or her own (whatever that might mean). This government is supposed to represent the people, the majority (although that isn't really the case at this point and time, is it? But ideally it would be so). The people allow you to own that property, manage it as you will--within certain guidelines. I have never heard of a person being forced to put a billboard on his or her property, though.
Regarding the wetlands example, you should note that this earth belongs to all of us. Sure, I was born onto it when all of its "property" was already claimed, but that holds only so long as the majority allows it (or a fascist minority forces it). Just see what is happening to white farmers in South Africa and Zimbabwe. But the wetlands are necessary for the health of our planet--for the quality of our water. They filter out some of the bad crap that we put on this earth. So, hell yeah, the government should tell you what you can and can't do with "your" property (because it affects us all).
Another extreme: say Tony Hawk owned all of the property in the US, except for the buildings in which we live. He decides to pave the world so that he can skate every inch of the US. We can't allow that. We need to maintain the world so that we can still live on it, regardless of an individual's self-determination. Now, you may own just one small wetland, but if every person who owns one decides to pave it over, then we approach Tony Hawk's dream world and our destruction. Their self-determination is at odds with our well being, and they must be stopped.
This illustrates the problem with your call to give carte blanche to self-determination, to the individual. It does not recognize the many, the majority. It puts the individual over the many, and as far as I can tell, that is the main reason for you call for this Libertarian state--so that the individual can impose his or her will on the majority (otherwise, when is this notion of self-determination a factor?). Yes, there are horror stories about an individual getting screwed or having something ridiculous happen to him because of our government's intervention or some group's intervention. Injustices occur, and it is our duty to attempt to prevent them and correct them when they happen. I fear the oppressive nature of governments, and I support freedom of the individual--but only to the limit when that individual's actions affect more than just himself or herself.
I don't see how this Libertarian philosophy would work. We can't assume that the Ayn Rand supermen will rise to the top and make the world a great place in which we can live. Plenty of evil men have self-determination, and we have the power to stop them. We must.
Read Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment if you haven't yet. In it Rodya takes Nietzsche's idea of the superman and the idea of self-determination to extremes to achieve his greatness, and he winds up killing two women.
What about Thoreau's majority of one? Free speech allows that majority of one to voice and argue his or her ideas in order to gain support from the majority.
72 - Dirtgrain
Our media is not so diverse as some have been led to believe.
Mike Kole said: "Right now, with property rights in force, there are an enormous number of points of view being expressed."
From Invasion of the Media Snatchers:
- Five giants " AOL/Time Warner, Walt Disney Co./ABC, Viacom, News Corp., and Bertelsmann " now control the equivalent of what 50 corporations dominated 20 years ago, according to The New Media Monopoly, the latest edition of renowned media critic Ben Bagdikian's book. Those five already control more than 80 percent of prime-time programming.
- The vast majority of Americans " 54 percent " still rely on television for their news. Only 8 percent look to the Internet as their primary news source, and half of those sites are owned by the top media giants, according to media watchdog group Free Press.
- Corporate control of cable and satellite TV is even more striking, with monopolies representing 98 percent of all cable markets nationwide, and two companies controlling satellite TV.
- The FCC " which is now heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists and myopic free marketeers " has consistently strengthened the grip powerful media conglomerates have on what Americans see, hear, and read with moves such as handing the digital spectrum to current TV station owners for free five years ago (a gift worth $80 billion at the time) and fighting low-power FM radio stations.
The free market isn't so free.73 - rick
[edited] Especially those of you who fail to see these bastards running this oppressive regime have been around since Nixon, and that bastard was one of the McCarthy hearings chief prosecutors. They were trying to stifle any clear thinking citizens then and they are still at it.
Someone posted this stupid quote, "Yeah, I go with the opinion of the casino expressing their opinion. Linda has to remember not to talk about religion or politics when at work."
Tell that to the fucking cretins running the Bush administration.
[edited]
Do some god damned research before you start defending those who are kicking your ass by chipping away at the rights of American citizens.
Just reading your lockstep drivel and support for these fucking Nazis completely fucking baffles me. No wonder America is getting so fucked up!
74 - rick
[edited] Why edit. [edited]
75 - Shark
UPDATE:
From CBS news:
EXCERPT: