Fox is leading the charge for FCC deregulation backed by such media giants as Sinclair and Clear Channel. In a statement to the FCC Fox contends that "opponents of relaxing the media ownership rules continue to advance the spurious claim that deregulation is some sort of 'threat' to democracy" and "their argument is unsupportable, because it wholly ignores the power of the Internet - without doubt the most democratizing technology in the history of human invention."
Let us disregard the several statements of FOXNews conservative so-called journalists who regularly display open disdain for the very idea of plurality in the United States and consider the statement at face value. FOXNews disparages the "spurious claim" that relaxing ownership rules on media "is some sort of 'threat' to democracy" and suggest that the argument that plurality will not be preserved is "unsupportable." This flies in the face of the FCC report in 2004 whose study "suggest that locally owned television broadcast stations air more local news than network owned-and-operated and non-locally owned stations" possibly because "economics of scale in program distribution favor non-local content." Those same economics of scale "induces a smaller owner to favor local content."
Of course, this report was never made public.
Fox is attempting to convince the FCC to not listen to their own publicly funded study on media consolidation. Not to mention that Fox suggests that the claims against deregulation need support while not offering any support of their own to the contrary.
The internet is certainly "the most democratizing technology in the history of human invention." However, the idea that we should give up avenues for affecting democracy simply because new avenues open up is simple beyond the scope of logic. We would still be giving up an avenue that has a great influence over the public. We won't even mention that there should never be an occasion when we feel restful enough to let any avenue for democracy close. Nor will we mention the new war major communications corporations like Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth are waging against "net neutrality" which could dull the teeth of this new "democratizing technology." Nor will we mention that Fox owner Ruppert Murdoch has already gained a foothold on the internet with the purchase of the wildly popular MySpace.com. And we most certainly need not mention that self-appointed FOXNews spokesman, uninformed pundit, and all around windbag, Bill O'Reilly, constantly rails against this "democratizing technology" with truly spurious claims that bloggers, the most succinctly vocal users of the internet, "are hired guns..." and "...these are people hired — being paid very well to smear and try to destroy people." The Big Business sentiment for "democratizing technology" is quite clear.
Public support for media ownership regulations was made abundantly clear three years ago. After Michael Powell led the partisan decision to deregulate the public outrage was so loud that the FCC had to back down.
Fox, in the tradition laid down by it's "Fair and Balanced" cable news network, continues to push forward an agenda regardless of public opinion and the facts.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
We Wanna Be Anarchy...
I want to make the case for Anarchy. I do this to gain a deeper understanding of anarchist principles, the history of anarchy and collectivization, and to, hopefully, disseminate a similar understanding to readers.
First of all, I want to rid from the readership any misconceived notions about the nature of anarchy and anarchism. The word anarchy is rooted in the Greek words an meaning "without" and archon or arkhos meaning "authority." Therefore the anarchy is literally "without governance" or (for out philosophical purposes) "without government." This is not to say, as many would have the conventional wisdom to be, that it is chaos. Contrarily, anarchy can, is, and has been, a very sophisticated and complex social phenomenon.
The anarchist philosophy takes the literally meaning several steps further with the postulation that there should be no governing authority, that all external governing authorities are inherently illigitimate (a concept I'll discuss later), and that authority should be in the hands of the individual interdependent to the collective. For this reason anarchy is not a socialist or communist movement. Though it may have some of the qualities of socialism and communism but is missing and critical of one key factor, which is the submission to a centralized authority.
Without an organized or centralized system of government, anarchy is inherently the only and truest form of democracy where individuals must act necessarily in a cooperative and collective manner.
In the case for anarchy I will critically analyze known systems of governance, which I believe can be easily categorized under three labels: Monarchy, Oligarchy, and Anarchy.
My thesis is that within the framework of modern industrial and post-industrial societies, the notion that even limited forms of governance are acceptible as a "necessary evil" is heavily biased in conventional wisdom and violates the universal ethic that liberty is the pre-existing condition of humankind.
I will also argue that all forms of governance, past and present, have failed to protect humankind's pre-existing condition and have necessarily devolved into cruel despotism and authoritarianism. With this failure of governmental institutions, the time has come to throw off unnessecary and archaic shackles to human existence, and with the advent of new technologies it will be possible to exist effectively outside the bonds of centralized authority. I will also show that, far from a necessary transition, it is an inevitable social evolution.
If you have a Myspace account feel free to join my Anarchy discussion and action group.
First of all, I want to rid from the readership any misconceived notions about the nature of anarchy and anarchism. The word anarchy is rooted in the Greek words an meaning "without" and archon or arkhos meaning "authority." Therefore the anarchy is literally "without governance" or (for out philosophical purposes) "without government." This is not to say, as many would have the conventional wisdom to be, that it is chaos. Contrarily, anarchy can, is, and has been, a very sophisticated and complex social phenomenon.
The anarchist philosophy takes the literally meaning several steps further with the postulation that there should be no governing authority, that all external governing authorities are inherently illigitimate (a concept I'll discuss later), and that authority should be in the hands of the individual interdependent to the collective. For this reason anarchy is not a socialist or communist movement. Though it may have some of the qualities of socialism and communism but is missing and critical of one key factor, which is the submission to a centralized authority.
Without an organized or centralized system of government, anarchy is inherently the only and truest form of democracy where individuals must act necessarily in a cooperative and collective manner.
In the case for anarchy I will critically analyze known systems of governance, which I believe can be easily categorized under three labels: Monarchy, Oligarchy, and Anarchy.
My thesis is that within the framework of modern industrial and post-industrial societies, the notion that even limited forms of governance are acceptible as a "necessary evil" is heavily biased in conventional wisdom and violates the universal ethic that liberty is the pre-existing condition of humankind.
I will also argue that all forms of governance, past and present, have failed to protect humankind's pre-existing condition and have necessarily devolved into cruel despotism and authoritarianism. With this failure of governmental institutions, the time has come to throw off unnessecary and archaic shackles to human existence, and with the advent of new technologies it will be possible to exist effectively outside the bonds of centralized authority. I will also show that, far from a necessary transition, it is an inevitable social evolution.
If you have a Myspace account feel free to join my Anarchy discussion and action group.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Hegemania!
I know what you've been wondering. What exactly is the Project for the New American Century and why do I need to care? You may be surprised to discover that this is a foundation founded in 1997 by the likes of Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Bennet, Dan Quayle, I. Lewis Libby, Steve Forbes, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, etc. who also penned there Statement of Principles. Curiously missing from this list is one George "Dubya" Bush.
Here is how they define themselves in a nutshell:
"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
According to their Statement of Principles these are their goals:
"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
In a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 they all but spell out their intentions for the Middle East:
"We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world."
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
"We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."
This letter is signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. This sentiment is repeated in a letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott after Clinton fails to act accordingly.
Curiously, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney are founding members. Cheney is now the Vice President, Jeb Bush is governor of the state where the election controversy occured. George Bush is now President of the United States, and his name is nowhere to be found accept within letters of commendation from the foundation praising him on his war in Iraq and his war on terror where they state:
"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate."
"A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending...We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war."
Wow. Does our President do any thinking of his own?
As much as I respect the fact that they are completely open and unapologetic about this idea, I have to express alarm at the swiftness in which all of this has come to pass. What they seem to have underestimated is the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq and the Middle East. Unfortunately, this realization, obvious to most, may escape their convoluted thought patterns, and it has not helped the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died in the cause of securing oil and U.S. interests in the Middle East.
It is frightening to think that many of the members of this foundation have been handed some of the most powerful positions in our government and for over 5 years have been able to make some of their wildest fantasies come true.
Here is how they define themselves in a nutshell:
"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
According to their Statement of Principles these are their goals:
"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
In a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 they all but spell out their intentions for the Middle East:
"We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world."
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
"We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."
This letter is signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. This sentiment is repeated in a letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott after Clinton fails to act accordingly.
Curiously, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney are founding members. Cheney is now the Vice President, Jeb Bush is governor of the state where the election controversy occured. George Bush is now President of the United States, and his name is nowhere to be found accept within letters of commendation from the foundation praising him on his war in Iraq and his war on terror where they state:
"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate."
"A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending...We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war."
Wow. Does our President do any thinking of his own?
As much as I respect the fact that they are completely open and unapologetic about this idea, I have to express alarm at the swiftness in which all of this has come to pass. What they seem to have underestimated is the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq and the Middle East. Unfortunately, this realization, obvious to most, may escape their convoluted thought patterns, and it has not helped the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died in the cause of securing oil and U.S. interests in the Middle East.
It is frightening to think that many of the members of this foundation have been handed some of the most powerful positions in our government and for over 5 years have been able to make some of their wildest fantasies come true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)