Ok, I'll start this week. Again.
I read an article today in which a wounded soldier was asked if the Iraq mission was worthwhile. His answer was candid and cuts right to the heart of the matter:
"I can't answer that question yet. If Iraq becomes a democracy, yes, but if it all falls apart, I think it will be in vain. We'll have to work that out."
The soldier didn't ask how much it cost. He didn't ask if there were intelligence failures. He didn't criticize the Pentagon. He didn't impugn the President's motives. He didn't even bitch about the hot weather and shitty food. The only issue to him was whether we could help to establish a democracy in a troubled and repressed part of the world.
There are no shortage of problems with the Iraq mission, many of which are being exacerbated by the Democratic Party in an election year. To say that we can set any exact and absolute date for withdrawal is a lofty, if unrealistic, goal. Sure, we want out as quickly as possible, but to rush off the field would be a certain disaster. If we quit and run, we betray the Iraqi people (again) and we dishonor the memory of the soldiers who lost their lives giving Iraq a chance at a bright future.
To those who want to put a limit and a deadline on U.S. participation, I would give the same answer as your dad gave to your 10,000th "Are we there yet?" My answer is: "Shut up. We'll get there when we get there."
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Do we need to be in Iraq until the end of 2005?
I'm betting on a few important points coming out on this one. I will not be waiting until the end of the week to get my word in on this one so get your opinion in early.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Bias In Media: The Proof
As I organized my thoughts for this article, I kept overlooking the fact that not many people realize how pervasive, common and omnipresent media bias really is. It has become quite obvious to me in the time I have been studying the subject. However, it occurred to me that the average Joe and Jane on the street may not necessarily see it that way. So, I will devote this first article to citing examples of media bias. After this, we can get into a deeper debate about the forms of media bias and how to look for it. Once you start looking for it, the examples will come flying at you from all quarters.
Anti-Republican Bias
Margaret Carlson on CNN's "Capital Gang" July 24, 1999: "I mean, the only thing that could explain this love of tax cuts is a lowered IQ."
Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times: "Reagan couldn't tie his shoes if his life depended on it."
Hayley Kaufman wrote a fashion column for the Boston Globe on November 16, 2000. Then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was the subject of her "fashion" column that day: "One wonders how this Republican woman, who can't even use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to use it and make sound decisions in this game of partisan one-upmanship....Why should anyone trust her?"
When interviewing then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, the Today Show's Matt Lauer asked, "So you can look me in the eye and say that you are a president committed to cleaning up the environment?" When asking Hillary Clinton to comment on the allegations against her husband in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" interview on January 27, 1998, Lauer did not ask the First Lady to "look him in the eye" as she sat there and lied through her teeth.
From a Media Research Center article on February 17, 2004: "ABC, CBS and NBC aired 63 morning and evening show segments about the [Democrat allegations that the President was AWOL from the] National Guard from February 1 through February 16 -- more than double the coverage of Bill Clinton's 1992 draft-dodging scandal."
Anti-War Bias
To be honest, I doubt anyone has a PRO-war bias. I don't think any reasonable person would want a war to happen. In spite of what the liberal medial would lead you to believe, the United States uses force as a last resort.
Nevertheless, the media goes far out of its way to promote the anti-war agenda. Liberal media outlets editorialize against it, which is fine. An editorial is not hard news, of course. It is the opinion of the network, newspaper, radio station or magazine. But just to show you how deep the anti-war bias is, I'm going to slip an editorial among these "news" stories. See if you can spot it.
In the days following 9/11/01, the New York Times ran a series of "news analyses" claiming America would drown in the "Vietnam-like quagmire" of Afghanistan.
Eric Alterman of The Nation wrote, "Is [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as 'their hoped-for liberators'?" Gee, Eric, I don't know who those guys were who pulled down the Saddam statues. They must have been Berkeley students.
MIT professor and liberal hero Noam Chomsky warned the world that if America attacked the Taliban it would lead to "genocide." Sorry, Noam, that prediction missed the mark. The New York Times said Chomsky was "arguably the most important intellectual alive." Arguably? Fine. I'd happy to argue that point.
Vivian Gornick of the Village Voice wrote, "A military strike? Where? What? When? Above all, against whom? If you hit them in Iraq, they'll regroup in Libya. If you squash them in Libya, they'll rise up in Afghanistan....Force will get us nowhere. It is reparations that are owing, not retribution." Excellent analysis, Vivian. You're dead wrong. You want us to pay "reparations" to Osama bin Laden? Fine. Just tell me where to deliver the check.
The one that sucked me in big time was the "reporting" that the Iraqi National Museum had been looted because U.S. troops were guarding the Oil Ministry. That was an AP wire story that got circulated all over the globe. Yeah, Mr. Liberal Reporter, we were guarding the oil ministry. We were also guarding hospitals and neighborhoods and the lives of Iraqi citizens. Thanks for the bias and the taint, jackass.
Now I have to admit to a little deception here. With the exception of the oil ministry story, all of the above quotes were editorials, not news reporting. (Yes, even the New York Times' "news analyses.") But stop and think about something for a moment. All of the above items appeared in print where it should be obvious to the reader that those articles were in an editorial context. What would the average Joe or Jane think if they saw a television reporter saying those things or heard a radio commentator saying them? There would be no way to distinguish hard news fact from editorial fiction. The days of our youth when TV stations ran the "Editorial Content" banner at the bottom of the screen are long gone. For that matter, I wonder how many people realize newspaper editorials are not hard news.
Beyond that, it just stuns me that any American would say those types of hateful things about our country. And there are worse examples, believe me. I'm even more flabbergasted that people would say them in the media. There's such a thing as being wrong or misinformed about an issue, but talking trash on your own country is a whole other matter. Poisoning the minds of millions each day on the air waves is worse still.
Anti-American Bias
I don't mind liberals being consistently wrong about U.S. foreign policy. In fact, I hope they continue to be wrong. But when it comes to defending our nation, I don't think the liberals deserve to take the bully pulpit and not give equal time to those of us who might want to defend our country and our way of life.
Gary Kayima of Salon.com wrote: "As long as millions of Islamic and Arab people hate America because of its Mideast policies, we will be in danger." Well, Gary, please tell us what we can do to appease the Arabs. Maybe if we crash a 747 into an Israeli neighborhood, that will calm things down a bit. Maybe we should strap some explosives to ourselves and blow up a bus or two. Idiot.
"Let me tell you what is impressive. You're not wearing a flag. Well, I don't want to damn you with my praise, but I say hip-hip-hooray for that, and I think you gave the right answer when you spoke at Northwestern University. Remember what you said? Did somebody ask you, say 'why didn't you wear a flag?'" That was Phil Donahue, July 25, 2003, talking to NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw on Donahue's since-canceled program.
Barbara Kingsolver in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Who are we calling terrorists here?" The amazing thing to me is that our Constitution provides free speech protection for "citizens" like this.
In an article titled "Put Out No Flags" in The Nation on November 8, 2001, Katha Pollitt wrote: "My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war....I tell her she can buy a flag with her own money and fly it out her bedroom window." What a horrid thing to tell your own child. If I had known about this at the time, I would have bought the girl a flag, tracked her down and sent it to her with an apology for her mother's revisionist, anti-American view of history.
Random Examples of Bias
"Is it fair to call him [Jimmy Carter] the best former President in, at minimum, modern American history, and perhaps, well, I guess, the last 200 years?" Those words were uttered by Brian Williams on CNBC, October 11, 2003. The name of his program? "The News with Brian Williams." Not "Editorial Content with Brian Williams"--the NEWS with Brian Williams.
Here's a gem from Terry's pal Bill Maher on Larry King Live, November 1, 2003:
Maher: "Not for the rest of the world. We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We're oblivious to suffering."
Larry King: "And so we are hated because of this?"
Maher: "Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."
Think about what Maher said. What an insulting thing to say to Iraqis, not to mention the fact that he's just dead-on wrong about the mega-billions of dollars we give in foreign aid each year. If we give even more to the Arabs, they'll love us? What a great way to buy their respect. Why is Maher still on television? I feel like bringing this up again:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly." Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect, September 17, 2001.
I just found this, so I'm going to hit this fool with his own words one more time:
Maher: "I do think, if it turns out that this beautiful young girl [Chandra Levy] is gone, I think, and he [Condit] is responsible in some way, you have to look to Ken Starr for a little bit of guilt."
Larry King: "Why?"
Maher: "Because, you know, Ken Starr made it so that you, in the old days, you had an affair with somebody, and you know, okay, you had an affair. The press didn't report it. They didn't make a political criminal case of it. Now, it's almost like you have to get rid of them." This man is dense beyond belief.
"If we'd really been watching and paying attention we could have headed off 9/11. But the German prosecutorial system was pretty laid back and didn't want to be John Ashcroft, you know, they didn't want to be the SS, they had that worry there, no Gestapos. And so it was a great place for terrorists to operate." That was Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas talking about German surveillance of an al-Qaeda group before 9/11. Yeah, you know, God forbid we act more like that horrible Nazi John Ashcroft and make it harder for terrorists to operate. Read it again, kids. I didn't make it up.
What could be more telling than this: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist....To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."--Steven Jukes, global head of news for the Reuters News Service, in an internal memo cited by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz in a September 24, 2001, article.
Wrap Up
In my mind, there can be absolutely NO doubt that the media has a liberal bias. If you're still doubting it after reading this, let me know. I can back it up with statistics as well as examples.
It's late and I've spent hours researching this, so I'm going to quit for now and see if someone else would like to wade in. Obviously, we could write whole books about media bias. Several authors have, in fact.
I'll try to follow up later with another article about how to recognize media bias. I think it's vitally important that we be able to recognize it on sight. Rule #1: Just because you don't like what the article has to say, that doesn't mean it's biased. On the other hand, just because they say it on the news, that doesn't mean it's true or accurate.
Anti-Republican Bias
Margaret Carlson on CNN's "Capital Gang" July 24, 1999: "I mean, the only thing that could explain this love of tax cuts is a lowered IQ."
Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times: "Reagan couldn't tie his shoes if his life depended on it."
Hayley Kaufman wrote a fashion column for the Boston Globe on November 16, 2000. Then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was the subject of her "fashion" column that day: "One wonders how this Republican woman, who can't even use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to use it and make sound decisions in this game of partisan one-upmanship....Why should anyone trust her?"
When interviewing then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, the Today Show's Matt Lauer asked, "So you can look me in the eye and say that you are a president committed to cleaning up the environment?" When asking Hillary Clinton to comment on the allegations against her husband in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" interview on January 27, 1998, Lauer did not ask the First Lady to "look him in the eye" as she sat there and lied through her teeth.
From a Media Research Center article on February 17, 2004: "ABC, CBS and NBC aired 63 morning and evening show segments about the [Democrat allegations that the President was AWOL from the] National Guard from February 1 through February 16 -- more than double the coverage of Bill Clinton's 1992 draft-dodging scandal."
Anti-War Bias
To be honest, I doubt anyone has a PRO-war bias. I don't think any reasonable person would want a war to happen. In spite of what the liberal medial would lead you to believe, the United States uses force as a last resort.
Nevertheless, the media goes far out of its way to promote the anti-war agenda. Liberal media outlets editorialize against it, which is fine. An editorial is not hard news, of course. It is the opinion of the network, newspaper, radio station or magazine. But just to show you how deep the anti-war bias is, I'm going to slip an editorial among these "news" stories. See if you can spot it.
In the days following 9/11/01, the New York Times ran a series of "news analyses" claiming America would drown in the "Vietnam-like quagmire" of Afghanistan.
Eric Alterman of The Nation wrote, "Is [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as 'their hoped-for liberators'?" Gee, Eric, I don't know who those guys were who pulled down the Saddam statues. They must have been Berkeley students.
MIT professor and liberal hero Noam Chomsky warned the world that if America attacked the Taliban it would lead to "genocide." Sorry, Noam, that prediction missed the mark. The New York Times said Chomsky was "arguably the most important intellectual alive." Arguably? Fine. I'd happy to argue that point.
Vivian Gornick of the Village Voice wrote, "A military strike? Where? What? When? Above all, against whom? If you hit them in Iraq, they'll regroup in Libya. If you squash them in Libya, they'll rise up in Afghanistan....Force will get us nowhere. It is reparations that are owing, not retribution." Excellent analysis, Vivian. You're dead wrong. You want us to pay "reparations" to Osama bin Laden? Fine. Just tell me where to deliver the check.
The one that sucked me in big time was the "reporting" that the Iraqi National Museum had been looted because U.S. troops were guarding the Oil Ministry. That was an AP wire story that got circulated all over the globe. Yeah, Mr. Liberal Reporter, we were guarding the oil ministry. We were also guarding hospitals and neighborhoods and the lives of Iraqi citizens. Thanks for the bias and the taint, jackass.
Now I have to admit to a little deception here. With the exception of the oil ministry story, all of the above quotes were editorials, not news reporting. (Yes, even the New York Times' "news analyses.") But stop and think about something for a moment. All of the above items appeared in print where it should be obvious to the reader that those articles were in an editorial context. What would the average Joe or Jane think if they saw a television reporter saying those things or heard a radio commentator saying them? There would be no way to distinguish hard news fact from editorial fiction. The days of our youth when TV stations ran the "Editorial Content" banner at the bottom of the screen are long gone. For that matter, I wonder how many people realize newspaper editorials are not hard news.
Beyond that, it just stuns me that any American would say those types of hateful things about our country. And there are worse examples, believe me. I'm even more flabbergasted that people would say them in the media. There's such a thing as being wrong or misinformed about an issue, but talking trash on your own country is a whole other matter. Poisoning the minds of millions each day on the air waves is worse still.
Anti-American Bias
I don't mind liberals being consistently wrong about U.S. foreign policy. In fact, I hope they continue to be wrong. But when it comes to defending our nation, I don't think the liberals deserve to take the bully pulpit and not give equal time to those of us who might want to defend our country and our way of life.
Gary Kayima of Salon.com wrote: "As long as millions of Islamic and Arab people hate America because of its Mideast policies, we will be in danger." Well, Gary, please tell us what we can do to appease the Arabs. Maybe if we crash a 747 into an Israeli neighborhood, that will calm things down a bit. Maybe we should strap some explosives to ourselves and blow up a bus or two. Idiot.
"Let me tell you what is impressive. You're not wearing a flag. Well, I don't want to damn you with my praise, but I say hip-hip-hooray for that, and I think you gave the right answer when you spoke at Northwestern University. Remember what you said? Did somebody ask you, say 'why didn't you wear a flag?'" That was Phil Donahue, July 25, 2003, talking to NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw on Donahue's since-canceled program.
Barbara Kingsolver in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Who are we calling terrorists here?" The amazing thing to me is that our Constitution provides free speech protection for "citizens" like this.
In an article titled "Put Out No Flags" in The Nation on November 8, 2001, Katha Pollitt wrote: "My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war....I tell her she can buy a flag with her own money and fly it out her bedroom window." What a horrid thing to tell your own child. If I had known about this at the time, I would have bought the girl a flag, tracked her down and sent it to her with an apology for her mother's revisionist, anti-American view of history.
Random Examples of Bias
"Is it fair to call him [Jimmy Carter] the best former President in, at minimum, modern American history, and perhaps, well, I guess, the last 200 years?" Those words were uttered by Brian Williams on CNBC, October 11, 2003. The name of his program? "The News with Brian Williams." Not "Editorial Content with Brian Williams"--the NEWS with Brian Williams.
Here's a gem from Terry's pal Bill Maher on Larry King Live, November 1, 2003:
Maher: "Not for the rest of the world. We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We're oblivious to suffering."
Larry King: "And so we are hated because of this?"
Maher: "Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."
Think about what Maher said. What an insulting thing to say to Iraqis, not to mention the fact that he's just dead-on wrong about the mega-billions of dollars we give in foreign aid each year. If we give even more to the Arabs, they'll love us? What a great way to buy their respect. Why is Maher still on television? I feel like bringing this up again:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly." Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect, September 17, 2001.
I just found this, so I'm going to hit this fool with his own words one more time:
Maher: "I do think, if it turns out that this beautiful young girl [Chandra Levy] is gone, I think, and he [Condit] is responsible in some way, you have to look to Ken Starr for a little bit of guilt."
Larry King: "Why?"
Maher: "Because, you know, Ken Starr made it so that you, in the old days, you had an affair with somebody, and you know, okay, you had an affair. The press didn't report it. They didn't make a political criminal case of it. Now, it's almost like you have to get rid of them." This man is dense beyond belief.
"If we'd really been watching and paying attention we could have headed off 9/11. But the German prosecutorial system was pretty laid back and didn't want to be John Ashcroft, you know, they didn't want to be the SS, they had that worry there, no Gestapos. And so it was a great place for terrorists to operate." That was Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas talking about German surveillance of an al-Qaeda group before 9/11. Yeah, you know, God forbid we act more like that horrible Nazi John Ashcroft and make it harder for terrorists to operate. Read it again, kids. I didn't make it up.
What could be more telling than this: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist....To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."--Steven Jukes, global head of news for the Reuters News Service, in an internal memo cited by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz in a September 24, 2001, article.
Wrap Up
In my mind, there can be absolutely NO doubt that the media has a liberal bias. If you're still doubting it after reading this, let me know. I can back it up with statistics as well as examples.
It's late and I've spent hours researching this, so I'm going to quit for now and see if someone else would like to wade in. Obviously, we could write whole books about media bias. Several authors have, in fact.
I'll try to follow up later with another article about how to recognize media bias. I think it's vitally important that we be able to recognize it on sight. Rule #1: Just because you don't like what the article has to say, that doesn't mean it's biased. On the other hand, just because they say it on the news, that doesn't mean it's true or accurate.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Boobs, boobs everywhere (and I'm not just talking about the FCC commissioners.)
First off, I am a huge supporter of free speech (hell, I was a radio dj at one point in my life) but there are times you can not have even the remote possibility of nudity and the Super Bowl halftime show is one of them (Saturday morning cartoons being a very close second) due to the number of families watching. I do have to agree with Mike when he said (essentially) that this is what you get for letting MTV produce it. I do have to say that I was not really surprised when I heard what happened (I chose to read a book instead of watching the Super Bowl.) I do think that the FCC's investigation is something of a joke since nothing has happened as of yet. Also, to all the people that complained to the FCC, I hate to sound like an ass but there were (supposedly) 88 million+ people that watched the Super Bowl and around 250,000 complained about the incident as being indecent. According to the FCC's own rules (An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value) this does not conform to ALL of the requirements to be offensive. Seeing as how the "average person" (the 87,750,000+ that didn't complain) did not find it offensive the FCC, according to it's own rules, should not be able to fine anyone over this incident.
This brings me to the other point that I brought out in the opening of this topic. The FCC is fining Todd "Bubba The Love Sponge" Clem and Clear Channel Broadcasting $755,000 dollars over his supposed indecency of his Florida based morning radio show. The main reason that this has come to light is that it is the second largest fine the FCC has levied ever. I did some research on this and found out this fine stems from one show in 2001 that one man recorded and sent to a New York lawfirm. The lawfirm then wrote up the case/complaint (I'm sure throwing every hotshot lawyer they had into it) and sent it to the FCC. That's right, one man complained and the FCC listened. The "Bubba The Love Sponge" show is rated #1 in the three markets they broadcast in Florida but the feelings of one man outweigh the feelings of the community. When I was in radio this would have ground the radio community to a standstill. Contrary to what most people hear about radio stations not getting along with other stations is mostly untrue because they know that when one dj or station is getting railed by the FCC it is only a short time before the crosshairs are on you.
I have to piss off Mike here a second by saying "Times, they are a changin." This is true as much as Mike and other people don't want to admit it. When Playboy and Hustler magazine went to the newstands it was a huge deal! People were picketing and complaining to their Senators about this blatant pornography. Now you can go to your local Walmart (the place where no pornography is sold, yeah right) and pick up a woman's magazine with the topic "50 ways on how to please your man in bed!" printed right on the cover or a "lowrider" car magazine with a woman on the cover almost wearing nothing at all. Don't get me wrong, much like Mike, I enjoy these things as much as the next guy but this is showing how much times are changing. By the way, Mike, Nick-at-Nite still plays things like I Love Lucy, Happy Days, CHiPs and shows like that (Ponch wasn't gay but I do have suspicions about Chachi, no matter how much Joanie loves him.)
Again, I have to say that I , and many others out there, believe in freedom of speech, and TV and Radio is a public forum as much as the town square, the newspapers and, later, the internet is. If someone starts to read these posts and doesn't like it they have two choices (and I guess a third if emailing, writing or calling the FCC and complaining is an option.) They can click on and ignore what we have said or they can email me and express their opinions and it will get posted here so that they can be part of the discussion process. This is essentially the same thing they can go when it comes to TV or radio, listen to it or turn it off.
I have the freedom to say what I want but I do not have the freedom to force you to listen to it. You have the freedom to ignore what I say or not listen to what I say. You also have the freedom to complain about what I say but be prepared for me to exercise my freedom of speech about what I think about your complaining when you are done.
"The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court -- or to the principal -- when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own." -Jeff Jacoby
"Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." -Mark Twain
"Our First Amendment expresses a far different calculus for regulating speech than for regulating nonexpressive conduct and that is as it should be. The right to swing your fist should end at the tip of my nose, but your right to express your ideas should not necessarily end at the lobes of my ears." -Alan Dershowitz
This brings me to the other point that I brought out in the opening of this topic. The FCC is fining Todd "Bubba The Love Sponge" Clem and Clear Channel Broadcasting $755,000 dollars over his supposed indecency of his Florida based morning radio show. The main reason that this has come to light is that it is the second largest fine the FCC has levied ever. I did some research on this and found out this fine stems from one show in 2001 that one man recorded and sent to a New York lawfirm. The lawfirm then wrote up the case/complaint (I'm sure throwing every hotshot lawyer they had into it) and sent it to the FCC. That's right, one man complained and the FCC listened. The "Bubba The Love Sponge" show is rated #1 in the three markets they broadcast in Florida but the feelings of one man outweigh the feelings of the community. When I was in radio this would have ground the radio community to a standstill. Contrary to what most people hear about radio stations not getting along with other stations is mostly untrue because they know that when one dj or station is getting railed by the FCC it is only a short time before the crosshairs are on you.
I have to piss off Mike here a second by saying "Times, they are a changin." This is true as much as Mike and other people don't want to admit it. When Playboy and Hustler magazine went to the newstands it was a huge deal! People were picketing and complaining to their Senators about this blatant pornography. Now you can go to your local Walmart (the place where no pornography is sold, yeah right) and pick up a woman's magazine with the topic "50 ways on how to please your man in bed!" printed right on the cover or a "lowrider" car magazine with a woman on the cover almost wearing nothing at all. Don't get me wrong, much like Mike, I enjoy these things as much as the next guy but this is showing how much times are changing. By the way, Mike, Nick-at-Nite still plays things like I Love Lucy, Happy Days, CHiPs and shows like that (Ponch wasn't gay but I do have suspicions about Chachi, no matter how much Joanie loves him.)
Again, I have to say that I , and many others out there, believe in freedom of speech, and TV and Radio is a public forum as much as the town square, the newspapers and, later, the internet is. If someone starts to read these posts and doesn't like it they have two choices (and I guess a third if emailing, writing or calling the FCC and complaining is an option.) They can click on and ignore what we have said or they can email me and express their opinions and it will get posted here so that they can be part of the discussion process. This is essentially the same thing they can go when it comes to TV or radio, listen to it or turn it off.
I have the freedom to say what I want but I do not have the freedom to force you to listen to it. You have the freedom to ignore what I say or not listen to what I say. You also have the freedom to complain about what I say but be prepared for me to exercise my freedom of speech about what I think about your complaining when you are done.
"The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court -- or to the principal -- when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own." -Jeff Jacoby
"Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." -Winston Churchill
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." -Mark Twain
"Our First Amendment expresses a far different calculus for regulating speech than for regulating nonexpressive conduct and that is as it should be. The right to swing your fist should end at the tip of my nose, but your right to express your ideas should not necessarily end at the lobes of my ears." -Alan Dershowitz
FCC Follow Up 1
Darn it, I meant to say something about simply changing the channel if you're unhappy with the programming, but I forgot. Terry said it very well though and he's exactly right. If you don't like the trash being peddled on TV, change the channel. Better still, turn the TV off and read. Broaden your mind and form your own opinions. The biggest protest you can make is to not watch (or listen or read) if you find the message offensive.
Now, Terry, my good friend, here's where we go off at a 90 degree angle....
The media not only caters to people, they do it very consciously. They do it all the time. They do it with razor-sharp precision. They are excellent at catering to audiences. It's not an exact science. Some programs fail and go off the air. However, the airwaves are chock full of programs that zero in on specific demographics and segments of viewers. If the media didn't cater to their audiences, no one would watch.
Queer As Folk didn't get developed because a million soccer moms wrote in begging for a show about man-on-man love. The show was developed to bring in a gay male demographic. Trading Spaces wasn't created because millions of men like to sit home on Saturday nights and watch interior design shows. The show was created to cater to the tastes of women.
You're right, Terry, if there wasn't an audience for these shows, they wouldn't be there. And you're also right when you say that people should change the channel if those shows aren't their cup of tea. But you really cannot deny that those programs, indeed every program, are catering to a target audience. That is exactly what those shows are meant to do.
The point I was trying to make is that we are sometimes being forced to see and hear things that aren't in the public interest. Let's speculate for a moment that CBS announced ahead of time that they were going to show a naked breast at the Super Bowl halftime. What do you think would have happened? Those who would have been offended might have changed the channel. They would have had the opportunity to tune out. But at the same time, every teenage boy in America (and most adults) would have been glued to the set, watching for this "historic" moment in "Must See TV." It would have been a great big joke and a publicity stunt unmatched since the days of P.T. Barnum.
But we weren't given that choice. Instead of being warned that something possibly offensive might be about to occur, 90 million people were shocked by it. We weren't given the opportunity to go read a book or listen to the radio. If you were watching the Super Bowl, you were, in essence, forced to see the incident. Actually, there's no pussyfooting about it. You were definitely forced to see nudity.
The standards are in place. The FCC just needs to wake up and enforce them. That's when the fines need to be handed out. And I'm real close to deciding that criminal prosecution for that kind of stunt might not be totally out of line either. If you showed a picture of a naked breast to a child, you'd go to jail. What happens when you show it to 10 million children? Think about that.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell said the commission has asked Congress for the leeway to levy greater fines on offenders. He suggested raising the fines from $27,000 per outlet to $270,000 per outlet. Instead of paying a $10 million fine and laughing it off, Viacom/CBS/MTV might have had to shell out $100 million. That takes the fun out of pushing the decency envelope. Handing down a 30-day jail sentence to Justin Timberlake might have wiped that laughing smirk off his face when he "apologized" at the Grammy Awards.
Let me give you a little prelude to one of my arguments next week on bias in media. If you want to watch TV then you are forced to watch what they show you. Yes, you can most certainly go read a book, but if you want to watch TV, you have to eat what they feed you. I have 100-odd channels available to me and still can't ever find anything to watch because the shows are all the same. Imagine what a parent goes through when trying to find a family-oriented show. It's all T&A and bad language and demented themes. Television is a literary wasteland and we are treated to a steady diet of it. It's like eating at McDonald's every day.
Well, enough rant. I look forward to more discussion on this topic and I can't wait to wrestle bias in media next week. Stay tuned.
Now, Terry, my good friend, here's where we go off at a 90 degree angle....
The media not only caters to people, they do it very consciously. They do it all the time. They do it with razor-sharp precision. They are excellent at catering to audiences. It's not an exact science. Some programs fail and go off the air. However, the airwaves are chock full of programs that zero in on specific demographics and segments of viewers. If the media didn't cater to their audiences, no one would watch.
Queer As Folk didn't get developed because a million soccer moms wrote in begging for a show about man-on-man love. The show was developed to bring in a gay male demographic. Trading Spaces wasn't created because millions of men like to sit home on Saturday nights and watch interior design shows. The show was created to cater to the tastes of women.
You're right, Terry, if there wasn't an audience for these shows, they wouldn't be there. And you're also right when you say that people should change the channel if those shows aren't their cup of tea. But you really cannot deny that those programs, indeed every program, are catering to a target audience. That is exactly what those shows are meant to do.
The point I was trying to make is that we are sometimes being forced to see and hear things that aren't in the public interest. Let's speculate for a moment that CBS announced ahead of time that they were going to show a naked breast at the Super Bowl halftime. What do you think would have happened? Those who would have been offended might have changed the channel. They would have had the opportunity to tune out. But at the same time, every teenage boy in America (and most adults) would have been glued to the set, watching for this "historic" moment in "Must See TV." It would have been a great big joke and a publicity stunt unmatched since the days of P.T. Barnum.
But we weren't given that choice. Instead of being warned that something possibly offensive might be about to occur, 90 million people were shocked by it. We weren't given the opportunity to go read a book or listen to the radio. If you were watching the Super Bowl, you were, in essence, forced to see the incident. Actually, there's no pussyfooting about it. You were definitely forced to see nudity.
The standards are in place. The FCC just needs to wake up and enforce them. That's when the fines need to be handed out. And I'm real close to deciding that criminal prosecution for that kind of stunt might not be totally out of line either. If you showed a picture of a naked breast to a child, you'd go to jail. What happens when you show it to 10 million children? Think about that.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell said the commission has asked Congress for the leeway to levy greater fines on offenders. He suggested raising the fines from $27,000 per outlet to $270,000 per outlet. Instead of paying a $10 million fine and laughing it off, Viacom/CBS/MTV might have had to shell out $100 million. That takes the fun out of pushing the decency envelope. Handing down a 30-day jail sentence to Justin Timberlake might have wiped that laughing smirk off his face when he "apologized" at the Grammy Awards.
Let me give you a little prelude to one of my arguments next week on bias in media. If you want to watch TV then you are forced to watch what they show you. Yes, you can most certainly go read a book, but if you want to watch TV, you have to eat what they feed you. I have 100-odd channels available to me and still can't ever find anything to watch because the shows are all the same. Imagine what a parent goes through when trying to find a family-oriented show. It's all T&A and bad language and demented themes. Television is a literary wasteland and we are treated to a steady diet of it. It's like eating at McDonald's every day.
Well, enough rant. I look forward to more discussion on this topic and I can't wait to wrestle bias in media next week. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Different perspective of the FCC
Here's a thought...if you don't like what your seeing or hearing, turn the channel. Nobody is forcing these people to take part in these media broadcasts. It's not like some Clock Work Orange style tie them down, strap them in, force your eyes and ears open and spoon feed you information. If you know that a specific channel airs programming that doesn't suit your pallet then find another form of entertainment. This is not a situation where you shoot the monkey into space and hope he pulls the lever in the space pod. This is common sense people. This is the same difference as the periodicals you read on a day to day basis. You don't like this magazine so your not going to buy it. Nuff said. I get really mad when I keep hearing people say that these media sources are "catering" to people. No, people are actually watching, reading, hearing all these things. They are inquisitive and wanting to experience new things. And the first time they see something that pisses them off they start crying foul. How about they have a little middle ground, a little rational thought before they take a running leap to go off the deep end on this stuff.
I happen to be a huge believer in freedom of speach and press. I enjoy the thought that because of my nationality, my right that citizenship guarantees me, that I can say what I think. Let's be honest free speach and press create ideas. These ideas spark what this country is all about. Just because the idea or thought is out there doesn't mean you have to buy into it. F*** it here's a thought...have your own ideas. Watch what programs you like. Read the books that entertain or inform you. Listen to the radio. If it isn't your cup of tea, the walk away from it.
I happen to be a huge believer in freedom of speach and press. I enjoy the thought that because of my nationality, my right that citizenship guarantees me, that I can say what I think. Let's be honest free speach and press create ideas. These ideas spark what this country is all about. Just because the idea or thought is out there doesn't mean you have to buy into it. F*** it here's a thought...have your own ideas. Watch what programs you like. Read the books that entertain or inform you. Listen to the radio. If it isn't your cup of tea, the walk away from it.
The FCC: Is Anybody Listening?
The Super Bowl Incident
I suspect Mr. Devil's comments about the outraged mothers were meant to express his frustration at being bombarded by the calls. In this case, the cable company had no control over the Super Bowl incident, so I can't say I blame him one bit for feeling helpless. However, it did raise an interesting question in my mind and one the equally helpless moms apparently could not answer: Who do we complain to?
First off--and let's not just graze past this point--it is the FCC's job to enforce decency standards in broadcast medium. This isn't something the commissioners just suddenly decided while watching the Super Bowl. Federal laws are already written and in place that define what is decent, what is indecent, and what can and cannot be broadcast. By holding hearings into the matter, imposing fines, censuring, etc., the FCC is doing the job it was created to do. The laws don't give the commission the power to call an incident a "shenanigan" and I don't see how investigating a "shenanigan" is a "crock."
Apart from a legal mandate, the FCC has been given broad power to define what is indecent, what is obscene and what is in the public interest. That was slightly scary to me until I discovered that the rules are real clear and unambiguous. Even the areas that you would expect to be a little gray, like "what is indecent?" are clearly spelled out. I lifted this right off the FCC web site at:
http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
"The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.'" In other words, you can't show boobies on TV. No debate, no bitching, no whining about censorship, no talk about it being a "crock." If you did it, you're just plain breaking the law. End of story.
"I'm not an FCC commissioner, but I play one on TV."
So where have you FCC jokers been all this time? Why did it take the Super Bowl incident to wake you guys up? Why is indecency in broadcast a big deal all of a sudden? Do you people not watch TV or listen to music?
Columnist Peggy Noonan answered the shock value question best, I think. I highly recommend taking a moment and reading this column with an open mind:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004649
In essence, Noonan's article says that we have become so desensitized to vulgarity, indecency, immoral behavior, or whatever you want to call it, that we no longer notice it. To use her analogy, it's like putting a frog in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. If it is done slowly, the frog doesn't notice he's being boiled to death. On the other hand, if you throw the frog into an already boiling pot of water, it is a definite shock to the system. That's what happened at the Super Bowl. Viacom/MTV/CBS thought they could get away with a little fun and push the edge of the envelope by throwing the viewing public into a pot of boiling water. But who's in hot water now?
Now let me pause here for a moment. You boys know me and you know I'm no prude. I like boobies as much as the next guy. But do we really need to say "son of a bitch" on prime time network TV? Is it really necessary for every network to carry a show that openly discusses gay and lesbian issues? Is it really essential to the storyline that the main female character appear clad in a bikini or lingerie? No. They do that for the very reason Terry mentioned: Sex sells. Counterculture sells. Rebellion, violence, cursing, ranting, raving, and shocking all sell. If we can only lower our standards enough, everyone will watch!
And that's exactly what the FCC is supposed to stop. Again, from their website:
"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Now that is a pretty flexible definition. In fact, lack of literary or artistic value describes most of the programs on TV. Nevertheless, if you pick any broadcast network on any given night during prime time, I guarantee you will find examples that run contrary to the FCC's broad guidelines. I don't even need to cite examples here. You can think of some yourself. If you can't think of any, hold your nose and turn on the TV or radio for a while.
The First Amendment
Now that the FCC has decided to crack the whip (a little) we're going to start hearing cries of censorship from now to doomsday. It will be a matter of days, if not hours, before someone starts beating the "McCarthyism" drum again. The ones crying the loudest will be the ones making the most money from sleazy TV.
I am a strong believer in the precept of "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." On the other hand, when you start baring breasts when kids are watching and when you start cursing on a regular basis and when you start depicting violence as an accepted way to solve problems, then you're on your own. Not only am I not going to watch the valueless programs you're airing, you just might find me writing a protest letter to the FCC. I think there are probably a few million Americans that feel the same way right now.
It's All About the Dollars
Don't even start with the "times are changing" and "it's all around us" and "everybody wants to see it" and "TV is no worse than movies." If that were the case, the Playboy Channel would have 100 million subscribers and Larry Flynt would be co-hosting the Today Show with Katie Couric.
On the contrary, everyone doesn't want to see a steady stream of nudity and vulgarity. It is for that reason that the broadcast networks keep pushing the envelope on decency standards. They feel they can only get our attention by shocking us, enraging us, flashing us and making fun of others. It's not about entertainment or what the public wants. It's about attracting viewers and bringing home the advertising dollars. That's the bottom line. If NBC or CBS or ABC thought it would attract viewers, they would stage live murders and show torture. Don't kid yourselves. They'd do it in New York minute if they could get away with it and it put a buck in their pockets.
Bring Back Little House on the Prairie
I'm going to get a little freaky here, so bear with me minute.
Why not bring back Little House on the Prairie? Why is that less entertaining than "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or "My Two Mommies" or "CSI: Grisly Murder Squad" or "Naked Celebrities Eating Bugs in the Jungle?"
[By the way, if you hesitated for just a split second and wondered if "My Two Mommies" is an actual show, then you're starting to see my point about decency on TV. Bonus points if you thought the show was on ABC.]
When we younger, we watched Cosby and Happy Days and Emergency and CHiPs and we thought that was great entertainment. Sure, those shows pushed the envelope a little from time to time, but you didn't hear Bill Cosby saying "shit," Fonzie didn't grab his crotch and Ponch wasn't gay. Ok, that last one was a bad example, but you get the idea.
"People are changing. TV is changing. Morals are different. The old shows were boring. Kids are more sophisticated now. People wouldn't watch shows like those now. There are more choices on TV now. Blah, blah, blah."
Would it surprise you to know that Bonanza had more viewers in the 18-34 demographic than Friends? Would it shock you to discover that Touched By An Angel had a longer run than Ellen DeGeneres? Would you be amazed to know that (adjusted per capita) more people watched the final episode of I Love Lucy than saw this year's Super Bowl halftime "show?"
The point of all that is that sex, violence and counterculture really aren't selling at all. The big three networks are scared to death because teenage audiences are deserting them in droves. That's why they tried very hard to get the word f**k on TV this year and pulled the boobie stunt at the Super Bowl. That's why song lyrics are getting increasingly nasty and music videos are getting more racy. They are doing anything they can to bring back the kids. And the more vulgar they get, the more kids are going to tune out, if for no other reason, because it's commonplace and unexciting.
How Do We Fix It?
I guess that question presumes that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. If you don't mind sitting down with your little girl and explaining why a woman got her clothes ripped from her body during the Super Bowl, then it probably doesn't effect you. If you're ok with watching "Will and Grace" with your 8-year-old boy and explaining the relative merits of a gay man coming out, then don't worry about it. But if you're just a little bit uncomfortable about those things, and if you're wishing there was a Little House on the Prairie marathon on TV, then read on.
The first thing we need to do is clean up the FCC. The commissioners are awake right now, but they will go back to sleep when the spotlight turns away. When their terms are up, replace them.
Congress should rewrite the law to allow seven members on the commission instead of five. The majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate should appoint one member each. The President should appoint one member, not all five. The remaining two should be nominated by a new FCC advisory committee that would be made up of an equal number of industry representatives and spiritual leaders, moral guardians or whatever you want to call them. In this way, a much broader representation of people could be chosen to sit on the commission, instead of industry toadies and political hacks.
Another good idea is to make the commissioner's terms four years instead of five and stagger them so the entire commission isn't up for reappointment at the same time. That should stop some of the political wrangling. While you're at it, make a rule that no FCC commissioner can have worked in the past three years for company regulated by the FCC, nor can he go to work for a company regulated by the FCC within a year of leaving the commission. That should stop some of the payoffs.
Next, and I know this has been said for decades, parents need to start getting involved in what their kids are watching. If there is something grossly inappropriate on TV, write to the FCC. There is a simple procedure for making a complaint about what you saw. You can even do it by e-mail if you like. Make your views known. Don't be afraid to write to the media moguls too. If they get enough letters, it might give them pause for thought. In fact, that does happen, but only when Joe and Jane Citizen start speaking out.
The biggest thing you can do to combat indecency is to turn off the radio, TV, CD or whatever you're exposed to. If CBS knows you won't watch their shows because you're unhappy, they will eventually take notice. It's all about the dollars, remember?
Last, and I know I'm living in a fantasy world when I say this, but it shouldn't take a boobie show at the Super Bowl to get people involved in the world around them.
I suspect Mr. Devil's comments about the outraged mothers were meant to express his frustration at being bombarded by the calls. In this case, the cable company had no control over the Super Bowl incident, so I can't say I blame him one bit for feeling helpless. However, it did raise an interesting question in my mind and one the equally helpless moms apparently could not answer: Who do we complain to?
First off--and let's not just graze past this point--it is the FCC's job to enforce decency standards in broadcast medium. This isn't something the commissioners just suddenly decided while watching the Super Bowl. Federal laws are already written and in place that define what is decent, what is indecent, and what can and cannot be broadcast. By holding hearings into the matter, imposing fines, censuring, etc., the FCC is doing the job it was created to do. The laws don't give the commission the power to call an incident a "shenanigan" and I don't see how investigating a "shenanigan" is a "crock."
Apart from a legal mandate, the FCC has been given broad power to define what is indecent, what is obscene and what is in the public interest. That was slightly scary to me until I discovered that the rules are real clear and unambiguous. Even the areas that you would expect to be a little gray, like "what is indecent?" are clearly spelled out. I lifted this right off the FCC web site at:
http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
"The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.'" In other words, you can't show boobies on TV. No debate, no bitching, no whining about censorship, no talk about it being a "crock." If you did it, you're just plain breaking the law. End of story.
"I'm not an FCC commissioner, but I play one on TV."
So where have you FCC jokers been all this time? Why did it take the Super Bowl incident to wake you guys up? Why is indecency in broadcast a big deal all of a sudden? Do you people not watch TV or listen to music?
Columnist Peggy Noonan answered the shock value question best, I think. I highly recommend taking a moment and reading this column with an open mind:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004649
In essence, Noonan's article says that we have become so desensitized to vulgarity, indecency, immoral behavior, or whatever you want to call it, that we no longer notice it. To use her analogy, it's like putting a frog in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. If it is done slowly, the frog doesn't notice he's being boiled to death. On the other hand, if you throw the frog into an already boiling pot of water, it is a definite shock to the system. That's what happened at the Super Bowl. Viacom/MTV/CBS thought they could get away with a little fun and push the edge of the envelope by throwing the viewing public into a pot of boiling water. But who's in hot water now?
Now let me pause here for a moment. You boys know me and you know I'm no prude. I like boobies as much as the next guy. But do we really need to say "son of a bitch" on prime time network TV? Is it really necessary for every network to carry a show that openly discusses gay and lesbian issues? Is it really essential to the storyline that the main female character appear clad in a bikini or lingerie? No. They do that for the very reason Terry mentioned: Sex sells. Counterculture sells. Rebellion, violence, cursing, ranting, raving, and shocking all sell. If we can only lower our standards enough, everyone will watch!
And that's exactly what the FCC is supposed to stop. Again, from their website:
"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Now that is a pretty flexible definition. In fact, lack of literary or artistic value describes most of the programs on TV. Nevertheless, if you pick any broadcast network on any given night during prime time, I guarantee you will find examples that run contrary to the FCC's broad guidelines. I don't even need to cite examples here. You can think of some yourself. If you can't think of any, hold your nose and turn on the TV or radio for a while.
The First Amendment
Now that the FCC has decided to crack the whip (a little) we're going to start hearing cries of censorship from now to doomsday. It will be a matter of days, if not hours, before someone starts beating the "McCarthyism" drum again. The ones crying the loudest will be the ones making the most money from sleazy TV.
I am a strong believer in the precept of "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." On the other hand, when you start baring breasts when kids are watching and when you start cursing on a regular basis and when you start depicting violence as an accepted way to solve problems, then you're on your own. Not only am I not going to watch the valueless programs you're airing, you just might find me writing a protest letter to the FCC. I think there are probably a few million Americans that feel the same way right now.
It's All About the Dollars
Don't even start with the "times are changing" and "it's all around us" and "everybody wants to see it" and "TV is no worse than movies." If that were the case, the Playboy Channel would have 100 million subscribers and Larry Flynt would be co-hosting the Today Show with Katie Couric.
On the contrary, everyone doesn't want to see a steady stream of nudity and vulgarity. It is for that reason that the broadcast networks keep pushing the envelope on decency standards. They feel they can only get our attention by shocking us, enraging us, flashing us and making fun of others. It's not about entertainment or what the public wants. It's about attracting viewers and bringing home the advertising dollars. That's the bottom line. If NBC or CBS or ABC thought it would attract viewers, they would stage live murders and show torture. Don't kid yourselves. They'd do it in New York minute if they could get away with it and it put a buck in their pockets.
Bring Back Little House on the Prairie
I'm going to get a little freaky here, so bear with me minute.
Why not bring back Little House on the Prairie? Why is that less entertaining than "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or "My Two Mommies" or "CSI: Grisly Murder Squad" or "Naked Celebrities Eating Bugs in the Jungle?"
[By the way, if you hesitated for just a split second and wondered if "My Two Mommies" is an actual show, then you're starting to see my point about decency on TV. Bonus points if you thought the show was on ABC.]
When we younger, we watched Cosby and Happy Days and Emergency and CHiPs and we thought that was great entertainment. Sure, those shows pushed the envelope a little from time to time, but you didn't hear Bill Cosby saying "shit," Fonzie didn't grab his crotch and Ponch wasn't gay. Ok, that last one was a bad example, but you get the idea.
"People are changing. TV is changing. Morals are different. The old shows were boring. Kids are more sophisticated now. People wouldn't watch shows like those now. There are more choices on TV now. Blah, blah, blah."
Would it surprise you to know that Bonanza had more viewers in the 18-34 demographic than Friends? Would it shock you to discover that Touched By An Angel had a longer run than Ellen DeGeneres? Would you be amazed to know that (adjusted per capita) more people watched the final episode of I Love Lucy than saw this year's Super Bowl halftime "show?"
The point of all that is that sex, violence and counterculture really aren't selling at all. The big three networks are scared to death because teenage audiences are deserting them in droves. That's why they tried very hard to get the word f**k on TV this year and pulled the boobie stunt at the Super Bowl. That's why song lyrics are getting increasingly nasty and music videos are getting more racy. They are doing anything they can to bring back the kids. And the more vulgar they get, the more kids are going to tune out, if for no other reason, because it's commonplace and unexciting.
How Do We Fix It?
I guess that question presumes that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. If you don't mind sitting down with your little girl and explaining why a woman got her clothes ripped from her body during the Super Bowl, then it probably doesn't effect you. If you're ok with watching "Will and Grace" with your 8-year-old boy and explaining the relative merits of a gay man coming out, then don't worry about it. But if you're just a little bit uncomfortable about those things, and if you're wishing there was a Little House on the Prairie marathon on TV, then read on.
The first thing we need to do is clean up the FCC. The commissioners are awake right now, but they will go back to sleep when the spotlight turns away. When their terms are up, replace them.
Congress should rewrite the law to allow seven members on the commission instead of five. The majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate should appoint one member each. The President should appoint one member, not all five. The remaining two should be nominated by a new FCC advisory committee that would be made up of an equal number of industry representatives and spiritual leaders, moral guardians or whatever you want to call them. In this way, a much broader representation of people could be chosen to sit on the commission, instead of industry toadies and political hacks.
Another good idea is to make the commissioner's terms four years instead of five and stagger them so the entire commission isn't up for reappointment at the same time. That should stop some of the political wrangling. While you're at it, make a rule that no FCC commissioner can have worked in the past three years for company regulated by the FCC, nor can he go to work for a company regulated by the FCC within a year of leaving the commission. That should stop some of the payoffs.
Next, and I know this has been said for decades, parents need to start getting involved in what their kids are watching. If there is something grossly inappropriate on TV, write to the FCC. There is a simple procedure for making a complaint about what you saw. You can even do it by e-mail if you like. Make your views known. Don't be afraid to write to the media moguls too. If they get enough letters, it might give them pause for thought. In fact, that does happen, but only when Joe and Jane Citizen start speaking out.
The biggest thing you can do to combat indecency is to turn off the radio, TV, CD or whatever you're exposed to. If CBS knows you won't watch their shows because you're unhappy, they will eventually take notice. It's all about the dollars, remember?
Last, and I know I'm living in a fantasy world when I say this, but it shouldn't take a boobie show at the Super Bowl to get people involved in the world around them.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Thoughts on the FCC...part 1
The whole FCC investigation against the Super Bowl shenanigans is a crock. Let's look at the facts. The Super Bowl is no longer a contest of grid iron greatness or superb athletic ability. It's a production. It's a show. A great number of people you talk to don't even care about the game, little alone could tell you who are the competing teams in the game. They watch it for the media blitz. They zone out to the commercials, and wait for the half time show. No kidding. At work I asked people who they were rooting for in the big game knowing that every team that we all rooted for didn't make it. At least 1/3 of the people said they didn't care, they just wanted to see the commercials and half time show. If your setting there reading this and thinking, "Nope, not me. I'm hard core, I'm in it for the football", I've got news for you. I'm going to take that little lie of yours, dry it out and fertilize my lawn with it when the snow melts this spring. Everyone from babies to our elderly folk have come to think that football and flash are one in the same. New on the edge commercials and the Super Bowl go hand in hand like a junkie and their fix. Every year the hype gets bigger because the show gets better. With that diatribe out of the way let's get down to business.
Number one, the network and the NFL got caught with their pants down. That's right, they got their little billion dollar asses spanked by a twenty-something year teeny bopper kid and one of the longest ruling princesses of pop. Of course they are going to change the set and not tell you about that one little secret that is going to whip the masses into a hysterical. What did they honestly expect would of, could of, should of happened when you let MTV drive the boat? They are going to cater to the masses. Of the people who saw the flash of tit, they were as hyped up as chichuahua in a room full of couch legs. And the rest of the people, well they didn't even realize that the three second fully exposed right breast of Janet Jackson even came to light until they watched again, the TV the next day.
The usual insert of triva: The three most successful tools in marketing...babies, puppies or sex.
What do people want to see? They want to see an over the top, something to talk about tomorrow show. That's exactly what they got. Big daddy broadcast and Co. got more than they expected. Nuff said. Ok, now your thinking how can I condone this? How can I sit here and write that it's ok that Janet Jackson exposed herself to millions of people? It's TV! personaly I think the whole Jackson family is a bunch of wack jobs. It just adds to the mountain of publicity stunts that her family has compiled over the years (of which, our color corrected and digitally enhanced savior has brought to us). Me, I would have taken the safe road and called Latoya's psychic friends network before I decided to broadcast on Jug-A-Vision. Hey Janet & Justin, it's just a hunch...(everybody do your best Ms. Cleo voice now), "Wait the vision is coming to me now. I see...I see, yes it's becoming clear now dearie...a fine in your future."
Number two, if this is sooooo bad and shameful, where is the lawsuit against the rest of the commercials? Oh, don't seem to remember them do we. Well let's take a quick trip. Of the most memorable ones I can honestly say that I watched (that's right everybody, I did watch the commercials and I admit it. Unlike those of you that will be helping my lawn grow nice and green this year) there was one of a dog biting a man's crotch while selling beer. Also a horse breaking wind over a lit flame into a woman's face. While some of the most staunch of the conseratives were leaping for the phone and hoping to save the masses from decadence, what were the rest of us doing? Laughing our asses off! We were slamming chips full of spicy cheese dip, sucking down luke warm brew while playing grab ass and high fiving our buddies at the traditional Super Bowel party. That's what. Still, that is not quite in the same category as Janet a.k.a Ms. Jackson if your nasty, type of league. You get the broad picture of the logic train at least.
Number three, do you think the FCC is going to bust the streaker? For those of you were still gape jawed from the hooterific half time boobie bonanza, yes there was in fact a streaker. Though this time they went to a half time game statistic graphic (which you could also see right through). Good call production trailer dude! Got to keep those costly FCC fines to a dull roar. Seriously though, is this man going to be charged by the FCC. Though they didn't go to a close up of his unit, they did show the chase by security, event staff, players and possibly a mascot. Hey! FCC, the dude was NAKED! And might I add that it was for more than three seconds. What gives?
Number one, the network and the NFL got caught with their pants down. That's right, they got their little billion dollar asses spanked by a twenty-something year teeny bopper kid and one of the longest ruling princesses of pop. Of course they are going to change the set and not tell you about that one little secret that is going to whip the masses into a hysterical. What did they honestly expect would of, could of, should of happened when you let MTV drive the boat? They are going to cater to the masses. Of the people who saw the flash of tit, they were as hyped up as chichuahua in a room full of couch legs. And the rest of the people, well they didn't even realize that the three second fully exposed right breast of Janet Jackson even came to light until they watched again, the TV the next day.
The usual insert of triva: The three most successful tools in marketing...babies, puppies or sex.
What do people want to see? They want to see an over the top, something to talk about tomorrow show. That's exactly what they got. Big daddy broadcast and Co. got more than they expected. Nuff said. Ok, now your thinking how can I condone this? How can I sit here and write that it's ok that Janet Jackson exposed herself to millions of people? It's TV! personaly I think the whole Jackson family is a bunch of wack jobs. It just adds to the mountain of publicity stunts that her family has compiled over the years (of which, our color corrected and digitally enhanced savior has brought to us). Me, I would have taken the safe road and called Latoya's psychic friends network before I decided to broadcast on Jug-A-Vision. Hey Janet & Justin, it's just a hunch...(everybody do your best Ms. Cleo voice now), "Wait the vision is coming to me now. I see...I see, yes it's becoming clear now dearie...a fine in your future."
Number two, if this is sooooo bad and shameful, where is the lawsuit against the rest of the commercials? Oh, don't seem to remember them do we. Well let's take a quick trip. Of the most memorable ones I can honestly say that I watched (that's right everybody, I did watch the commercials and I admit it. Unlike those of you that will be helping my lawn grow nice and green this year) there was one of a dog biting a man's crotch while selling beer. Also a horse breaking wind over a lit flame into a woman's face. While some of the most staunch of the conseratives were leaping for the phone and hoping to save the masses from decadence, what were the rest of us doing? Laughing our asses off! We were slamming chips full of spicy cheese dip, sucking down luke warm brew while playing grab ass and high fiving our buddies at the traditional Super Bowel party. That's what. Still, that is not quite in the same category as Janet a.k.a Ms. Jackson if your nasty, type of league. You get the broad picture of the logic train at least.
Number three, do you think the FCC is going to bust the streaker? For those of you were still gape jawed from the hooterific half time boobie bonanza, yes there was in fact a streaker. Though this time they went to a half time game statistic graphic (which you could also see right through). Good call production trailer dude! Got to keep those costly FCC fines to a dull roar. Seriously though, is this man going to be charged by the FCC. Though they didn't go to a close up of his unit, they did show the chase by security, event staff, players and possibly a mascot. Hey! FCC, the dude was NAKED! And might I add that it was for more than three seconds. What gives?
Monday, February 09, 2004
The Boob of the Month
I was at work the night of the superbowl and I recieved no less than 20 calls about Ms. Jackson and the giant clamp hanging from her nipple. Most of which were complaints from wives or mothers who thought we should have hit the delay switch. Did you guys know I have a delay switch? Because I must have lost it somewhere in my cluttered desk. It's probably over on Treptow's desk with the stop, pause and testicular electricution switch. Okay, so you saw a boob on tv. I don't care. You could have seen that boob without cable at all, it was on channel 12. Or in the case of Mike, you could see it on the main tv but not the one in the bedroom.
Is the FCC doing enough or too much?
This topic is brought about by two major things that the FCC has done (or not done in one of the two cases) in the last two weeks. First is the HUGE fine aimed at Clearchannel Broadcasting and shock-jock morning DJ Bubba "The Love Sponge." You may not have heard of it since it is only the second largest fine (the first was a tiny $1.2 million fine to Howard Stern) the FCC has handed out at $755,000. This number comes from $27,500 X 26 indecency violations + $40,000 for Clear Channel’s apparent failure to maintain certain required documents in the public inspection files of these stations.
Second, is the lack of a fine aimed at CBS, MTV, Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson and the NFL for the Super Bowl halftime fiasco which the "FCC acknowledges hundreds of thousands who have complained about Super Bowl halftime show" yet no investigation has been opened as of yet (FCC Chairman Powell said the day after the Super Bowl that he would open an investigation. His exact words in the press release were “I have instructed the Commission to open an immediate investigation into last night’s broadcast. Our investigation will be thorough and swift.”)
Second, is the lack of a fine aimed at CBS, MTV, Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson and the NFL for the Super Bowl halftime fiasco which the "FCC acknowledges hundreds of thousands who have complained about Super Bowl halftime show" yet no investigation has been opened as of yet (FCC Chairman Powell said the day after the Super Bowl that he would open an investigation. His exact words in the press release were “I have instructed the Commission to open an immediate investigation into last night’s broadcast. Our investigation will be thorough and swift.”)
Thoughts on the U.N.
I must say that I have enjoyed this discussion on everyone's (Mike and Terry) thoughts on what the U.N. is up to. Here is what I think.
I have to agree with Mike and Terry in saying that I do not like being called "a bad person" but as long as the U.N. has any say in it I will always be called that (or at least until I move to France because the French are all "good people." Never mind the fact they sell arms to known terrorists.) As long as I live in America I am a bad person? How does where I live make me bad? Oh wait, I remember another guy saying the same thing. What was his name? Oh yeah, it was a guy named Adolph Hitler! Remember what he did to the people of Poland! Now I'm not trying to compare the U.N. to the Third Reich (or am I?) but when a dictatorship looks like a dictatorship lets call it a dictatorship. Let's look at what I'm saying. We have a group of countries gathering together everyone has a voice but one nation can say "We think you are wrong so I say 'Veto'" (see France during almost anything we, as America, have tried to do in the last 10 years.) I do not think that we should pull all support out of this Nazi'esque regime but I do think we should stop floating 80 percent of the bill (in money, supplies and personnel) for the U.N. I do think we should start demanding a little more for our 80 percent. I realize we will never get 80 percent of the vote (France would just say we are forcing our commercialist ways down their throats and we are "bad people") but I do think we should start letting it be known that if every time someone wants to veto something we want to do, that someone out there is keeping count and they may just be a future President that says "Veto" when Germany decides to take over France again or when some crap-hole of a mud pit in Africa needs grain again.
I looked over some of the items in the link that Mike included in his first post and I was downright shocked (and I thought a lot of them were downright funny) about some of the things they "claimed" to have done. Lets take a few of them running down the list:
2. Making peace - They claim to have used "quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars" in the same number with ending the Iran-Iraq war. If I remember correctly the guy with the American flags on the side of their tanks ended that war long before the guys with the pretty, blue tanks ever rolled in. Well, I guess that is one of those "taking credit for something you didn't do" moments that the U.N. does because America is in the U.N. (that is unless it is something bad in which case it is all our fault.)
3. Promoting Democracy - I must say this is a good thing. That is, until we look at the list of countries that are below this statement. Is Cambodia still having democratic elections? Well, sorta. Let's look at their "Democracy Rating." Hmmmm, seems it's a 1. How does that rank you ask? It ranks 90th of 140. Compared to America we have a rating of 10 that puts us at 15th of 140 (we are ranked at 15th because there are about 30 countries that have a 10 rating so I guess they threw us in the middle of that pack.) Mozambique ranked 71st with a rating of 6. El Salvador ranks 50th with 7. Kosovo, Mozambique and South Africa actually rank rather well. If anyone was wondering these numbers were pulled from www.nationmaster.com
5. Promoting human rights - I must say that this was one of the ones that made my snicker. Not because I think that human right should not be promoted but the fact that the U.N. wanted to do nothing about the whole Saddam Hussein torturing people issue (actually it was France and Russia that wanted to do nothing. I guess the fact that they sell arms to Iraq had nothing to do with that fact though.) Hmmm, yet another hole in the "U.N. is the greatest thing since sliced bread" award (also known as the Nobel Peace Prize, which the U.N. just won in 2001.)
6, 27 & 28. Protecting the environment, Protecting the ozone layer & Curbing global warming - Since when did the U.N. become Green Peace? Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the U.N. was all about feeding the hungry and stopping evil dictators from taking over the world not making sure that the sun doesn't fry us all because of a big hole in the sky (Look in the air. It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's U.N. Man!)
34. Fighting drug abuse - When have opened the newspaper and seen a picture of a U.N. boat stopping a drug boat off the coast of Florida? Enough said.
And on and on and on. I could go through every number and pick in apart but, like Mike said, I don't want to be here for the next 10 years on this subject.
I will leave with some quotes:
"Without law and order our nation cannot survive." -Adolph Hitler
"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all, the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." -Adolph Hitler
"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State." -Benito Mussolini
"Choose your friends carefully. Your enemies will choose you." -Yassir Arafat
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -Bill Clinton
"God bless the America we are trying to create." -Hilary Clinton
"Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant." -Clint Eastwood
"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign. You must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth." -Mother Teresa
A thought:
I am one of the many free thinkers in America today. I can no longer be divided into two groups (those groups being called "democrats" and "republicans") because I do not think that way. I have ideas that would fall in the "liberal" way of thinking while others would fall in the "conservative" way of thinking. I will vote how I want and speak how I want. When you try to silence me, I only speak loader. When you beat me down, I will stand stronger. When you bring war to me, I will take the war to you. When you kill my innocent people in the name of Jihad, I will kill your terrorists in the name of freedom. When you try to stop me by vetoing me, I will shoulder all of the responsibility, all of the cost, all of the danger and all of the grief of making things right. When the smoke clears, I will be standing at the top of the hill with my brothers-in-arms, planting a flag that waves with the true colors of freedom. Red, White and Blue.
And a little funny that I read the other day:
Question: What is the most important item in the French military?
Answer: The rearview mirror, so that they can watch the war.
I have to agree with Mike and Terry in saying that I do not like being called "a bad person" but as long as the U.N. has any say in it I will always be called that (or at least until I move to France because the French are all "good people." Never mind the fact they sell arms to known terrorists.) As long as I live in America I am a bad person? How does where I live make me bad? Oh wait, I remember another guy saying the same thing. What was his name? Oh yeah, it was a guy named Adolph Hitler! Remember what he did to the people of Poland! Now I'm not trying to compare the U.N. to the Third Reich (or am I?) but when a dictatorship looks like a dictatorship lets call it a dictatorship. Let's look at what I'm saying. We have a group of countries gathering together everyone has a voice but one nation can say "We think you are wrong so I say 'Veto'" (see France during almost anything we, as America, have tried to do in the last 10 years.) I do not think that we should pull all support out of this Nazi'esque regime but I do think we should stop floating 80 percent of the bill (in money, supplies and personnel) for the U.N. I do think we should start demanding a little more for our 80 percent. I realize we will never get 80 percent of the vote (France would just say we are forcing our commercialist ways down their throats and we are "bad people") but I do think we should start letting it be known that if every time someone wants to veto something we want to do, that someone out there is keeping count and they may just be a future President that says "Veto" when Germany decides to take over France again or when some crap-hole of a mud pit in Africa needs grain again.
I looked over some of the items in the link that Mike included in his first post and I was downright shocked (and I thought a lot of them were downright funny) about some of the things they "claimed" to have done. Lets take a few of them running down the list:
2. Making peace - They claim to have used "quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars" in the same number with ending the Iran-Iraq war. If I remember correctly the guy with the American flags on the side of their tanks ended that war long before the guys with the pretty, blue tanks ever rolled in. Well, I guess that is one of those "taking credit for something you didn't do" moments that the U.N. does because America is in the U.N. (that is unless it is something bad in which case it is all our fault.)
3. Promoting Democracy - I must say this is a good thing. That is, until we look at the list of countries that are below this statement. Is Cambodia still having democratic elections? Well, sorta. Let's look at their "Democracy Rating." Hmmmm, seems it's a 1. How does that rank you ask? It ranks 90th of 140. Compared to America we have a rating of 10 that puts us at 15th of 140 (we are ranked at 15th because there are about 30 countries that have a 10 rating so I guess they threw us in the middle of that pack.) Mozambique ranked 71st with a rating of 6. El Salvador ranks 50th with 7. Kosovo, Mozambique and South Africa actually rank rather well. If anyone was wondering these numbers were pulled from www.nationmaster.com
5. Promoting human rights - I must say that this was one of the ones that made my snicker. Not because I think that human right should not be promoted but the fact that the U.N. wanted to do nothing about the whole Saddam Hussein torturing people issue (actually it was France and Russia that wanted to do nothing. I guess the fact that they sell arms to Iraq had nothing to do with that fact though.) Hmmm, yet another hole in the "U.N. is the greatest thing since sliced bread" award (also known as the Nobel Peace Prize, which the U.N. just won in 2001.)
6, 27 & 28. Protecting the environment, Protecting the ozone layer & Curbing global warming - Since when did the U.N. become Green Peace? Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the U.N. was all about feeding the hungry and stopping evil dictators from taking over the world not making sure that the sun doesn't fry us all because of a big hole in the sky (Look in the air. It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's U.N. Man!)
34. Fighting drug abuse - When have opened the newspaper and seen a picture of a U.N. boat stopping a drug boat off the coast of Florida? Enough said.
And on and on and on. I could go through every number and pick in apart but, like Mike said, I don't want to be here for the next 10 years on this subject.
I will leave with some quotes:
"Without law and order our nation cannot survive." -Adolph Hitler
"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all, the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." -Adolph Hitler
"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State." -Benito Mussolini
"Choose your friends carefully. Your enemies will choose you." -Yassir Arafat
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -Bill Clinton
"God bless the America we are trying to create." -Hilary Clinton
"Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant." -Clint Eastwood
"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign. You must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth." -Mother Teresa
A thought:
I am one of the many free thinkers in America today. I can no longer be divided into two groups (those groups being called "democrats" and "republicans") because I do not think that way. I have ideas that would fall in the "liberal" way of thinking while others would fall in the "conservative" way of thinking. I will vote how I want and speak how I want. When you try to silence me, I only speak loader. When you beat me down, I will stand stronger. When you bring war to me, I will take the war to you. When you kill my innocent people in the name of Jihad, I will kill your terrorists in the name of freedom. When you try to stop me by vetoing me, I will shoulder all of the responsibility, all of the cost, all of the danger and all of the grief of making things right. When the smoke clears, I will be standing at the top of the hill with my brothers-in-arms, planting a flag that waves with the true colors of freedom. Red, White and Blue.
And a little funny that I read the other day:
Question: What is the most important item in the French military?
Answer: The rearview mirror, so that they can watch the war.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
Globalism Follow Up
"Citizenship, national pride and/or patriotism will never allow another government to rule. That is why gobalism will never happen."
Terry, I'd give anything if you could guarantee that. I really would. To people like you and me, the Pledge of Allegiance still means something. "Live Free or Die" isn't just a slogan on a biker's tattoo. Voting isn't something we do because MTV told us to. Freaks like us still believe in "outdated concepts" like majority rule and patriotism and loyalty. And we are a rapidly dying breed.
Once again, please resist the temptation to label me as a conspiracy theorist kook when I say that there is a whole power structure bent on bringing this republic down. There is a widening conspiracy, for lack of a better word, that is committed to brushing aside American sovereignty and joining up with this happy-go-lucky, utopian, hand-in-hand, one-world, peaceful global community. Go tell one of them that joining their global Valhalla would mean giving up control of our country and I'll bet you at least half of them would say, "So what?"
Honestly, the United Nations is the least of our worries on the subject of globalism. I just grazed the surface in talking about the U.N.'s role as a globalist tool.
We need to start listening to the liberal politicians when they give speeches that glorify the "global community." No, I don't think Bill Clinton or John Kerry and others really want to destroy the United States. But how easy would it be for a President John Kerry, for example, to adopt policies that recognize anti-American international laws or penalize our economy for productivity? Ask Bill Clinton. He actually did those things. Well meaning liberals can reach for the high ideal of peace on Earth only to discover they've given control of our country over to the "global community." If no one is watching, it can happen so quietly that we don't even know what happened until America as we know it has just faded away.
Another thing we need to start watching is the opinions of our jurists. Liberal judges have begun to demonstrate an alarming willingness to legislate from the bench. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was recently quoted as saying that a big challenge in the future will be to see "whether our Constitution [fits] and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations." Justice Breyer, I could give a rat's ass whether our Constitution is convenient for France. I do care, however, that you are taking the needs of the "global community" into account when you pass on the Constitutionality of U.S. laws. That scares the hell out of me.
Look guys, I don't mean to hog this forum with yet another four-page article. Suffice it to say that I could go on and on and cite example after example of the dangers of globalism and the "enemies within." We could discuss this topic for years.
I guess the bottom line is that the once proud and mighty America has lost all sense of itself. Our ancestors risked their lives and homes and property for such "outdated concepts" as freedom of religion, free speech, free elections, representative government, and--dare we say it--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The men and women who came before us shed their blood not only to ensure these things for America and her children, they also fought to bring these high principles to the peoples of other nations.
And now we're supposed to throw all that away because it doesn't fit in with the European concept of a "global community?" I'd laugh at that except that there is an ever-growing number of people who just don't give a damn. These people are ready to throw open the doors, cast aside our self interests and live in the global hippie commune they all dream of. You don't have to go to Berkeley, California to find these people either. The enemy is apathy, and make no mistake, it is among us.
Terry, I'd give anything if you could guarantee that. I really would. To people like you and me, the Pledge of Allegiance still means something. "Live Free or Die" isn't just a slogan on a biker's tattoo. Voting isn't something we do because MTV told us to. Freaks like us still believe in "outdated concepts" like majority rule and patriotism and loyalty. And we are a rapidly dying breed.
Once again, please resist the temptation to label me as a conspiracy theorist kook when I say that there is a whole power structure bent on bringing this republic down. There is a widening conspiracy, for lack of a better word, that is committed to brushing aside American sovereignty and joining up with this happy-go-lucky, utopian, hand-in-hand, one-world, peaceful global community. Go tell one of them that joining their global Valhalla would mean giving up control of our country and I'll bet you at least half of them would say, "So what?"
Honestly, the United Nations is the least of our worries on the subject of globalism. I just grazed the surface in talking about the U.N.'s role as a globalist tool.
We need to start listening to the liberal politicians when they give speeches that glorify the "global community." No, I don't think Bill Clinton or John Kerry and others really want to destroy the United States. But how easy would it be for a President John Kerry, for example, to adopt policies that recognize anti-American international laws or penalize our economy for productivity? Ask Bill Clinton. He actually did those things. Well meaning liberals can reach for the high ideal of peace on Earth only to discover they've given control of our country over to the "global community." If no one is watching, it can happen so quietly that we don't even know what happened until America as we know it has just faded away.
Another thing we need to start watching is the opinions of our jurists. Liberal judges have begun to demonstrate an alarming willingness to legislate from the bench. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was recently quoted as saying that a big challenge in the future will be to see "whether our Constitution [fits] and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations." Justice Breyer, I could give a rat's ass whether our Constitution is convenient for France. I do care, however, that you are taking the needs of the "global community" into account when you pass on the Constitutionality of U.S. laws. That scares the hell out of me.
Look guys, I don't mean to hog this forum with yet another four-page article. Suffice it to say that I could go on and on and cite example after example of the dangers of globalism and the "enemies within." We could discuss this topic for years.
I guess the bottom line is that the once proud and mighty America has lost all sense of itself. Our ancestors risked their lives and homes and property for such "outdated concepts" as freedom of religion, free speech, free elections, representative government, and--dare we say it--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The men and women who came before us shed their blood not only to ensure these things for America and her children, they also fought to bring these high principles to the peoples of other nations.
And now we're supposed to throw all that away because it doesn't fit in with the European concept of a "global community?" I'd laugh at that except that there is an ever-growing number of people who just don't give a damn. These people are ready to throw open the doors, cast aside our self interests and live in the global hippie commune they all dream of. You don't have to go to Berkeley, California to find these people either. The enemy is apathy, and make no mistake, it is among us.
Thoughts on Globalism
Globalist, or wanting to be aware of your worldly surroundings? If there is one thing that I could never understand, it was the branding of people as globalist. Give a rest already people. Firstly, nobody in any country should worry about Globalism. Why, first and foremost because it doesn't work. Never has, never will. Globalism is a pipe dream, a theory, a scribble on a white board in some political think tank. We can barely get the leaders of these nations in the same room little alone get them to sign off on the same idea. So for all the people bunkered down in their homes thinking that soon we will all be countrymen in arms...Jesus H. Christ, please get in touch with a history book. Do you honestly think that our country (or any country for that matter) is going to abolish the government and set up shop in the Hague as the new world government palace? Not going to happen, for the simple reason if you read the previous post. Mike's powerful coda to his post said it all, this is my country and my home. I am a citizen of this country, not another. Ok, heard that one before. Went a little something like this, "By the people, for the people." Citizenship, national pride and/or patriotism will never allow another government to rule. That is why gobalism will never happen.
As always, let's look at the other side of the coin. The want to be aware of your global surroundings does not warrant you being branded a globalist. Do I claim to be some globally aware free thinking guru that will save us all from atop a pyramid, draped in sun god ropes with legions of scantly clad women throwing pickles at me. Yeah right!
Note to our faithful readers: As a disclaimer, I have not in the past, present or foreseeable future had visions, hallucinations, fantasies, day dreams or outer body experiences about me standing on a pyramid, draped in sun god robes with women (either scantly clad, nude or fully clothed) lobbing pickles at me.
No little hombres and hombrettes, if your thinking I'm the answer we are all f***ed. Nuff said. I'm just a guy that would like to think that there is more happening that we need to be aware of. Just don't read the news about what is happening in your community. Try to find out what is happening in the country, what is happening around the world. It might just be something that will affect you. Awareness of your surroundings makes you an asset. Learning about someone else's surrounds make you thinking person...not a globalist.
As always, let's look at the other side of the coin. The want to be aware of your global surroundings does not warrant you being branded a globalist. Do I claim to be some globally aware free thinking guru that will save us all from atop a pyramid, draped in sun god ropes with legions of scantly clad women throwing pickles at me. Yeah right!
Note to our faithful readers: As a disclaimer, I have not in the past, present or foreseeable future had visions, hallucinations, fantasies, day dreams or outer body experiences about me standing on a pyramid, draped in sun god robes with women (either scantly clad, nude or fully clothed) lobbing pickles at me.
No little hombres and hombrettes, if your thinking I'm the answer we are all f***ed. Nuff said. I'm just a guy that would like to think that there is more happening that we need to be aware of. Just don't read the news about what is happening in your community. Try to find out what is happening in the country, what is happening around the world. It might just be something that will affect you. Awareness of your surroundings makes you an asset. Learning about someone else's surrounds make you thinking person...not a globalist.
The United Nations: Instrument of Globalism
What Is Globalism?
In the 1950s we called it Communism. In the 60s it was Flower Power. In the 70s it was Socialism. In the 80s it was Blame America First. In the 90s it was called International Cooperation. In the 00s we are calling it a Global Community. However you want to sugar coat it, globalism calls for punishing America for its "mistakes" and raising up the "oppressed peoples of the Earth." And what wise and thoughtful body will be the Politburo in this New World Order? The United Nations.
Globalism involves living in an "interdependent world of open borders, easy travel, mass migration, universal access to information and technology, drenched in global media." Sounds pretty cool, huh? There's more.
"The number-one task of the world today is to move from interdependence, which can be good and bad, to an integrated global community in which there is a shared future, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity and, most important, shared values." What a noble idea! Let's stop looking out for our own interests and concentrate on what is good for everyone. That really gives you a warm, cuddly, cozy feeling, doesn't it?
"We must move from interdependence to integration because our common humanity matters more than our interesting differences and makes the expression of those differences possible; because every child deserves a chance, every adult has a role to play and we all do better when we work together." Amen! Let's set aside our petty ambitions and all pull together to hug a child! We live in a global community of love!
Unfortunately, we don't all share the same vision of what the world should be. We evil imperialist Americans can't get with the program. We haven't learned to turn a blind eye when the Hitlers, Castros, Ho Chi Minhs, Pol Pots, Husseins, and others drop their people into wood chippers. We haven't realized that the way to make the global economy strong is to "return" the wealth the U.S. "stole" from poor countries. We haven't learned that only Europe and Africa can point the way to true prosperity and happiness. We haven't realized that the world will be mired in conflict until we throw open our borders and start hugging the children with the bombs strapped to their chests. Clearly, until America can "integrate" itself into the world community, only war, starvation, unhappiness, conflict and turmoil will result.
Incidentally, the three warm, touchy-feely quotes above came from former President Bill Clinton. They were made not during his conscientious objector days of the 60s, but during a 2002 speech to the British Labour Party.
The Role of the United Nations
Again we hear from former President Clinton: "The prospect for a truly global community of people working together in peace with shared responsibilities for a shared future was not institutionalized until a little less than 60 years ago with the creation of the United Nations and the issuance of the universal declaration of human rights."
Wow. That quote hits the globalist nail squarely on the head. The chosen institution for the administration of globalism is the U.N. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I would imagine there are some shadowy figures who are pretty uncomfortable with that level of honest talk.
Here is some more honest talk. Try to indentify the person who said these things:
America must embrace "a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush administration."
America must reject "the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out" and start "forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security."
America must make a "choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate 'us' from 'them.'"
America must reject the "blustering unilateralism" of the Bush administration, which "is wrong, and even dangerous."
So how do we make the world a happier, safer place? According to the speaker quoted above, we start by appeasing our foes, opening our borders, making friends with our enemies, yield to the New World Order, and above all, stop standing up for things we believe in. Standing firm on principles is wrong and dangerous.
Think I'm overracting and misinterpreting those quotes? Go back and read them again. They say the way to foster international love and prosperity is to put the needs of nations like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Palestine, Cuba and France ahead of our own. Read it again, right now. Make your own judgement.
So who was the person who suggested that America, and specifically President Bush, clean up their act and get with the program? Was it Saddam Hussein? Kofi Annan? Jacques Chirac? Kim Jong Il? Fidel Castro? Michael Moore? Nope. It was Senator John Kerry. See ya November 2nd, Senator.
But let's not pick on John Kerry. He's just repeating the company line. What did presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich say early last year? "I think there may be a point that if Saddam Hussein continues to be noncooperative, the world community has to make a decision." The Congressman thinks we need to go to the "world community" and ask permission to defend ourselves and do the right thing. And he's not alone in the Democratic Party in that thinking.
Well, actually, we did ask permission. The U.S. assembled a world community of 34 nations that committed troops to fight an uncooperative Saddam. Another 98 nations pledged support in other ways, varying from economic aid to simple good wishes. And what did the United Nations do? Debate, delay, obfuscate, posture and condemn. Not just for a period of months as the war debate was pushed onto the table. They drug the conflict out for eight years. Not eight weeks--eight freaking years. (Both terms of the Clinton administration.)
And in the end, did the U.N. condemn Saddam Hussein? No. He blatantly ignored 17 U.N. resolutions on arms inspection and disarmament, but he was pressured. Did they censure him for torturing his citizens, violating sanctions and threatening the stability of the Middle East? No, there were "ongoing conflicts" that created those problems. Did they kick Iraq out of the United Nations? No, they let it chair the Disarmament Conference. But the U.N. did finally take action. In the end, they condemned the "blustering unilateralism" of the United States. If only we had given peace a chance! Another eight years of fruitless discussion and weapons inspection (in limited areas) might just have done the trick.
Does this sound like an institution that should be charged with "working together in peace with shared responsibilities for a shared future?" If you are one of the great many oppressive, murderous, violent dictatorships that belong to the U.N., sure. Why not? But if you value a world in which freedom and human rights are sacred, then you need to get with the global program and adopt a "world vision for peace."
Why Not Give Peace A Chance?
We do. The United States is a very active member of the United Nations. When confronted with evidence of Saddam's WMD programs, President Bush's first move was to go to the U.N. Security Council. Secretary Colin Powell presented our case to the Security Council while the ambassadors from France, Russia, Germany and China sat around the table and protested. That started weeks of negotiation while we haggled with Chile and Pakistan and Spain for their support (you need 9 of 15 votes to get a proposal past the Security Council). When it became obvious that France was going to veto any U.S. proposal, we finally had to walk away and tend to business.
Is that to say that we should bypass the U.N. and do the things that need doing? No, of course not. So often, the support of the international community is vital to getting the job done. At the very least, countries like Chile and Pakistan and Spain deserve the opportunity to be heard. But when they use their votes as an excuse to haggle for foreign aid from the U.S., as many U.N. members do, it prostitutes the whole peace process.
"America, we'll stand aside and let you shed your blood to rid the world of a violent dictator if you pass us a few hundred million dollars in development loans."
"Mother, I'll let you clean my room if you give me a cookie first."
Is the U.S. giving peace a chance? In the case of Cuba, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Zimbabwe and a whole alphabet of other countries, yes. Diplomatic solutions are being advanced and peace is taking shape. We don't rush to the sword, as Bill Clinton and John Kerry would lead you to believe. On the other hand, we can't wait eight-plus years everytime something international needs to be done. We can't let Russia and France veto U.S. foreign policy with the excuse that we aren't operating in the best interests of the world.
Who Should Run The New World Order?
There shouldn't be one! We don't need a one-world government to tell us how to live our lives and run our country. We don't need to be lectured on what is right and what is wrong. We don't need to be told we are evil and bad global citizens. We don't need our pockets picked from Paris or Beijing or Brussels, and we sure don't need it coming from 46th Street.
There is a role for the United Nations in the international community. It should continue to be a forum for all nations to speak out. It should continue its commendable work of supplying distressed countries with needed aid. But before the U.N. starts lecturing the United States on our internal policies, they might turn an eye or two toward the truly oppressive and violent policies it ignores in some of its other members.
While we're at it. someone might point out to Senator Kerry that the "bold, progressive" internationalists might do well to take a page or two from America's book of "myopic" vision. We live in a strong, open, free, democratic, prosperous, fun-loving society. Our grandfathers chose to live in America rather than Russia. For all its flaws, I choose to live in America rather than a "utopian" world run by the U.N. I'll choose that until the day I die.
In the 1950s we called it Communism. In the 60s it was Flower Power. In the 70s it was Socialism. In the 80s it was Blame America First. In the 90s it was called International Cooperation. In the 00s we are calling it a Global Community. However you want to sugar coat it, globalism calls for punishing America for its "mistakes" and raising up the "oppressed peoples of the Earth." And what wise and thoughtful body will be the Politburo in this New World Order? The United Nations.
Globalism involves living in an "interdependent world of open borders, easy travel, mass migration, universal access to information and technology, drenched in global media." Sounds pretty cool, huh? There's more.
"The number-one task of the world today is to move from interdependence, which can be good and bad, to an integrated global community in which there is a shared future, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity and, most important, shared values." What a noble idea! Let's stop looking out for our own interests and concentrate on what is good for everyone. That really gives you a warm, cuddly, cozy feeling, doesn't it?
"We must move from interdependence to integration because our common humanity matters more than our interesting differences and makes the expression of those differences possible; because every child deserves a chance, every adult has a role to play and we all do better when we work together." Amen! Let's set aside our petty ambitions and all pull together to hug a child! We live in a global community of love!
Unfortunately, we don't all share the same vision of what the world should be. We evil imperialist Americans can't get with the program. We haven't learned to turn a blind eye when the Hitlers, Castros, Ho Chi Minhs, Pol Pots, Husseins, and others drop their people into wood chippers. We haven't realized that the way to make the global economy strong is to "return" the wealth the U.S. "stole" from poor countries. We haven't learned that only Europe and Africa can point the way to true prosperity and happiness. We haven't realized that the world will be mired in conflict until we throw open our borders and start hugging the children with the bombs strapped to their chests. Clearly, until America can "integrate" itself into the world community, only war, starvation, unhappiness, conflict and turmoil will result.
Incidentally, the three warm, touchy-feely quotes above came from former President Bill Clinton. They were made not during his conscientious objector days of the 60s, but during a 2002 speech to the British Labour Party.
The Role of the United Nations
Again we hear from former President Clinton: "The prospect for a truly global community of people working together in peace with shared responsibilities for a shared future was not institutionalized until a little less than 60 years ago with the creation of the United Nations and the issuance of the universal declaration of human rights."
Wow. That quote hits the globalist nail squarely on the head. The chosen institution for the administration of globalism is the U.N. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I would imagine there are some shadowy figures who are pretty uncomfortable with that level of honest talk.
Here is some more honest talk. Try to indentify the person who said these things:
America must embrace "a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush administration."
America must reject "the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out" and start "forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security."
America must make a "choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate 'us' from 'them.'"
America must reject the "blustering unilateralism" of the Bush administration, which "is wrong, and even dangerous."
So how do we make the world a happier, safer place? According to the speaker quoted above, we start by appeasing our foes, opening our borders, making friends with our enemies, yield to the New World Order, and above all, stop standing up for things we believe in. Standing firm on principles is wrong and dangerous.
Think I'm overracting and misinterpreting those quotes? Go back and read them again. They say the way to foster international love and prosperity is to put the needs of nations like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Palestine, Cuba and France ahead of our own. Read it again, right now. Make your own judgement.
So who was the person who suggested that America, and specifically President Bush, clean up their act and get with the program? Was it Saddam Hussein? Kofi Annan? Jacques Chirac? Kim Jong Il? Fidel Castro? Michael Moore? Nope. It was Senator John Kerry. See ya November 2nd, Senator.
But let's not pick on John Kerry. He's just repeating the company line. What did presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich say early last year? "I think there may be a point that if Saddam Hussein continues to be noncooperative, the world community has to make a decision." The Congressman thinks we need to go to the "world community" and ask permission to defend ourselves and do the right thing. And he's not alone in the Democratic Party in that thinking.
Well, actually, we did ask permission. The U.S. assembled a world community of 34 nations that committed troops to fight an uncooperative Saddam. Another 98 nations pledged support in other ways, varying from economic aid to simple good wishes. And what did the United Nations do? Debate, delay, obfuscate, posture and condemn. Not just for a period of months as the war debate was pushed onto the table. They drug the conflict out for eight years. Not eight weeks--eight freaking years. (Both terms of the Clinton administration.)
And in the end, did the U.N. condemn Saddam Hussein? No. He blatantly ignored 17 U.N. resolutions on arms inspection and disarmament, but he was pressured. Did they censure him for torturing his citizens, violating sanctions and threatening the stability of the Middle East? No, there were "ongoing conflicts" that created those problems. Did they kick Iraq out of the United Nations? No, they let it chair the Disarmament Conference. But the U.N. did finally take action. In the end, they condemned the "blustering unilateralism" of the United States. If only we had given peace a chance! Another eight years of fruitless discussion and weapons inspection (in limited areas) might just have done the trick.
Does this sound like an institution that should be charged with "working together in peace with shared responsibilities for a shared future?" If you are one of the great many oppressive, murderous, violent dictatorships that belong to the U.N., sure. Why not? But if you value a world in which freedom and human rights are sacred, then you need to get with the global program and adopt a "world vision for peace."
Why Not Give Peace A Chance?
We do. The United States is a very active member of the United Nations. When confronted with evidence of Saddam's WMD programs, President Bush's first move was to go to the U.N. Security Council. Secretary Colin Powell presented our case to the Security Council while the ambassadors from France, Russia, Germany and China sat around the table and protested. That started weeks of negotiation while we haggled with Chile and Pakistan and Spain for their support (you need 9 of 15 votes to get a proposal past the Security Council). When it became obvious that France was going to veto any U.S. proposal, we finally had to walk away and tend to business.
Is that to say that we should bypass the U.N. and do the things that need doing? No, of course not. So often, the support of the international community is vital to getting the job done. At the very least, countries like Chile and Pakistan and Spain deserve the opportunity to be heard. But when they use their votes as an excuse to haggle for foreign aid from the U.S., as many U.N. members do, it prostitutes the whole peace process.
"America, we'll stand aside and let you shed your blood to rid the world of a violent dictator if you pass us a few hundred million dollars in development loans."
"Mother, I'll let you clean my room if you give me a cookie first."
Is the U.S. giving peace a chance? In the case of Cuba, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Zimbabwe and a whole alphabet of other countries, yes. Diplomatic solutions are being advanced and peace is taking shape. We don't rush to the sword, as Bill Clinton and John Kerry would lead you to believe. On the other hand, we can't wait eight-plus years everytime something international needs to be done. We can't let Russia and France veto U.S. foreign policy with the excuse that we aren't operating in the best interests of the world.
Who Should Run The New World Order?
There shouldn't be one! We don't need a one-world government to tell us how to live our lives and run our country. We don't need to be lectured on what is right and what is wrong. We don't need to be told we are evil and bad global citizens. We don't need our pockets picked from Paris or Beijing or Brussels, and we sure don't need it coming from 46th Street.
There is a role for the United Nations in the international community. It should continue to be a forum for all nations to speak out. It should continue its commendable work of supplying distressed countries with needed aid. But before the U.N. starts lecturing the United States on our internal policies, they might turn an eye or two toward the truly oppressive and violent policies it ignores in some of its other members.
While we're at it. someone might point out to Senator Kerry that the "bold, progressive" internationalists might do well to take a page or two from America's book of "myopic" vision. We live in a strong, open, free, democratic, prosperous, fun-loving society. Our grandfathers chose to live in America rather than Russia. For all its flaws, I choose to live in America rather than a "utopian" world run by the U.N. I'll choose that until the day I die.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
The United Nations: Guns, Butter and Rhetoric
Things the U.N. Does Well
I'd like to start with some praise. There are some things the U.N. does very well. Anytime we have a developing nation in crisis--be it a political, medical, humanitarian, or human rights-related crisis--you can't beat the U.N. when it comes to rolling up their sleeves and taking action. This is what they were chartered to do and they have become quite proficient at it. Here are about 50 examples of things the U.N. thinks it does right, even if I do strongly disagree with some of them:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm
Granted, other organizations such as the Red Cross can do the same jobs, but not with the resources and global support that the U.N. can muster. We can hardly be expected to be greeted with open arms when the U.S. Army touches down to distribute food or medicine. The U.N. has that sort of global trust and can operate effectively in the "icky" parts of the globe where no one else cares to go.
Although I was unable to summon an example, I'd also like to say that the U.N. is probably good at effecting political solutions to global conflicts on occasion. I'm sure that at some time, somewhere, where the U.N. has stopped a war or headed off an invasion or a trade war or something. If you know of such an example, please let me know.
In short, I think the U.N. is great when it comes to handing out food, distributing medicine, chastising mass murderers, and showing people how to boil water to avoid dysentery.
Other Things the U.N. Does Well
Anyone? Anyone?....
If it makes you feel any better, I actually did pause here and try to think of something else they do effectively. I'm trying to think of a single foreign policy success the U.N. has had in the past 58 years....Still thinking....
Cypress? No, that country was partitioned and is an occasional threat to Mediterranean stability.
China-Taiwan? No, that is one of the world's all-time great stalemates.
Suez Canal? Nope, that ended in a short but bloody war.
Korea? They actually sent troops to that one! No, that country was partitioned and is a present day threat to global security.
The Iran-Iraq War? Nope.
Palestine/Israel? God, no.
Panama? Well, the U.N. was happy we gave the Canal away, but they were strangely silent when Manuel Noriega and his drug running salsa band had to be rounded up.
Wait, wait! I thought of something the U.N. is really good at: Anti-American rhetoric. If you need an organization that can give a speech telling the world's most successful nation how wrong it is about everything, then you just can't beat the U.N.! They really do a bang up job of cashing our checks and telling us that we're bad global citizens.
How Do We Fix the U.N.?
How do you fix an organization that allows Iraq to chair the Conference on Disarmament after they have ignored 17 resolutions on weapons inspection? How do you reform a group whose Human Rights Commission consists of some of the most egregious human rights violators on the planet, such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China and Uganda? And forgive the irony here, but how do you fix a group who has France as a veto-wielding member of its "Security" Council? Good God!
I used to be part of the "let's walk away from it" crowd. The U.N. is utterly worthless, it's expensive and all they do is bash on the United States. Why should we support that? Two reasons:
First, as I said earlier, the U.N. does a good job of humanitarian aid. The U.S. Army can't and shouldn't try to fill that role. It would be too expensive and too cumbersome for our military to undertake, in my opinion. Sorry to be negative, but I can see a military mission to feed six million starving people in Zimbabwe turning into a $100 million boondoggle, complete with aircraft carriers, hovertanks and sharks with freaking laser beams strapped to their heads, when all you really need is some grain, a shovel and a big truck.
Second, we should stay in the U.N. to protect ourselves from it. Don't forget the United States has veto power on the Security Council. As we recently found out from our pals in France, one veto can bring the whole U.N. show to a grinding halt, no matter what the majority of its members might wish to do. The best way to protect ourselves from the anti-American crowd is to smack them with a stone cold veto every time they try to hurt us.
Beyond that, we really should try to fix the darn thing. The little countries of the world need a forum to air their grievances and call for help. The bigger nations can likewise benefit from an international stage on which to debate the issues of the day and work out some compromises. The U.N. isn't all bad, provided it can apply some common sense and stick to its charter, which does not include trying to create a one-world government.
I guess the first thing I'd do to fix the U.N. is to reexamine its purpose. Lay down a reasonable set of human rights requirements, for example, and insist that all members stick to it. Fidel shot another 17 dissidents this year and buried them in shallow graves? Cuba, you're expelled. China censors its media? Well, we don't like it, but we talked about it and decided that's their business. Kim Jong Il sells depletable uranium to Pakistan? North Korea, you're kicked out. The U.N. needs to tell its members that either they act right or they're gone. They don't get to shoot their own people without due process and then chair a symposium on human rights. That should be blindingly obvious.
I could write a whole freaking book on what's wrong with the U.N. For our purposes here, let's just say the thing is horribly flawed. But before we walk away from it, let's consider fixing it and making it focus on what it does right.
I am going to follow up in a day or so with a related article on globalism. The one-world crowd is hot in the loins to make the U.N. the center of our world government and I think that bears some closer examination since we're on the subject. Stay tuned.
I'd like to start with some praise. There are some things the U.N. does very well. Anytime we have a developing nation in crisis--be it a political, medical, humanitarian, or human rights-related crisis--you can't beat the U.N. when it comes to rolling up their sleeves and taking action. This is what they were chartered to do and they have become quite proficient at it. Here are about 50 examples of things the U.N. thinks it does right, even if I do strongly disagree with some of them:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm
Granted, other organizations such as the Red Cross can do the same jobs, but not with the resources and global support that the U.N. can muster. We can hardly be expected to be greeted with open arms when the U.S. Army touches down to distribute food or medicine. The U.N. has that sort of global trust and can operate effectively in the "icky" parts of the globe where no one else cares to go.
Although I was unable to summon an example, I'd also like to say that the U.N. is probably good at effecting political solutions to global conflicts on occasion. I'm sure that at some time, somewhere, where the U.N. has stopped a war or headed off an invasion or a trade war or something. If you know of such an example, please let me know.
In short, I think the U.N. is great when it comes to handing out food, distributing medicine, chastising mass murderers, and showing people how to boil water to avoid dysentery.
Other Things the U.N. Does Well
Anyone? Anyone?....
If it makes you feel any better, I actually did pause here and try to think of something else they do effectively. I'm trying to think of a single foreign policy success the U.N. has had in the past 58 years....Still thinking....
Cypress? No, that country was partitioned and is an occasional threat to Mediterranean stability.
China-Taiwan? No, that is one of the world's all-time great stalemates.
Suez Canal? Nope, that ended in a short but bloody war.
Korea? They actually sent troops to that one! No, that country was partitioned and is a present day threat to global security.
The Iran-Iraq War? Nope.
Palestine/Israel? God, no.
Panama? Well, the U.N. was happy we gave the Canal away, but they were strangely silent when Manuel Noriega and his drug running salsa band had to be rounded up.
Wait, wait! I thought of something the U.N. is really good at: Anti-American rhetoric. If you need an organization that can give a speech telling the world's most successful nation how wrong it is about everything, then you just can't beat the U.N.! They really do a bang up job of cashing our checks and telling us that we're bad global citizens.
How Do We Fix the U.N.?
How do you fix an organization that allows Iraq to chair the Conference on Disarmament after they have ignored 17 resolutions on weapons inspection? How do you reform a group whose Human Rights Commission consists of some of the most egregious human rights violators on the planet, such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China and Uganda? And forgive the irony here, but how do you fix a group who has France as a veto-wielding member of its "Security" Council? Good God!
I used to be part of the "let's walk away from it" crowd. The U.N. is utterly worthless, it's expensive and all they do is bash on the United States. Why should we support that? Two reasons:
First, as I said earlier, the U.N. does a good job of humanitarian aid. The U.S. Army can't and shouldn't try to fill that role. It would be too expensive and too cumbersome for our military to undertake, in my opinion. Sorry to be negative, but I can see a military mission to feed six million starving people in Zimbabwe turning into a $100 million boondoggle, complete with aircraft carriers, hovertanks and sharks with freaking laser beams strapped to their heads, when all you really need is some grain, a shovel and a big truck.
Second, we should stay in the U.N. to protect ourselves from it. Don't forget the United States has veto power on the Security Council. As we recently found out from our pals in France, one veto can bring the whole U.N. show to a grinding halt, no matter what the majority of its members might wish to do. The best way to protect ourselves from the anti-American crowd is to smack them with a stone cold veto every time they try to hurt us.
Beyond that, we really should try to fix the darn thing. The little countries of the world need a forum to air their grievances and call for help. The bigger nations can likewise benefit from an international stage on which to debate the issues of the day and work out some compromises. The U.N. isn't all bad, provided it can apply some common sense and stick to its charter, which does not include trying to create a one-world government.
I guess the first thing I'd do to fix the U.N. is to reexamine its purpose. Lay down a reasonable set of human rights requirements, for example, and insist that all members stick to it. Fidel shot another 17 dissidents this year and buried them in shallow graves? Cuba, you're expelled. China censors its media? Well, we don't like it, but we talked about it and decided that's their business. Kim Jong Il sells depletable uranium to Pakistan? North Korea, you're kicked out. The U.N. needs to tell its members that either they act right or they're gone. They don't get to shoot their own people without due process and then chair a symposium on human rights. That should be blindingly obvious.
I could write a whole freaking book on what's wrong with the U.N. For our purposes here, let's just say the thing is horribly flawed. But before we walk away from it, let's consider fixing it and making it focus on what it does right.
I am going to follow up in a day or so with a related article on globalism. The one-world crowd is hot in the loins to make the U.N. the center of our world government and I think that bears some closer examination since we're on the subject. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Your thoughts and feelings on the U.N.
I must apologize to everyone out there wondering where this (and last) week's topic is. I really have no other excuse than my wife and I were very sick and sleep and getting better were at the top of the "things to do" list. Last week there was not much discussion but I think that was primarily due to the fact that Mike hit the nail of the head with his statements. I do have to say that I believe the media influences jury trials all of the time. It may be after the fact (in the OJ trial he was innocent of his criminal charges but still had to pay the family of his ex-wife a butt-load of money in the civil trial) but the media usually always makes us choose a side before the trial has usually begun. The way that information is sped to our very mind (the internet has helped a huge amount in that aspect but I am still waiting for the brain implant to be standardized so that I can get info 24/7) it is hard to form an opinion before anything takes place in the courtrooms of America. I'm still trying to figure out how they chose jurors for the Martha Stewart (see "The Devil" in the dictionary) trial after waiting so long to actually start the selection process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)