Those who know me know that I am a Broadcast Engineer and a fan of Talk Radio. As usual durring an election year there is a war on conservitive/libertarian talk radio. Earlier I reported how a leftist group calling themselves Media Action Center were trying to backdoor the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine by invoking its bastard child, the Zapple Doctrine. Now a blogger claims that Walker is controlling the media.
The reach of these media outlets through syndication is virtually statewide; and is a flagrant use of on-air broadcast as a full-time campaign mechanism for the Walker Administration – outside of the campaign.
He uses emails that he obtained to back up his claims. The problem is that his emails are nothing but press releases and interview confirmations. Not one contains directives dictating the content of the shows. He makes the following statement.
In a statement to Badger Democracy, Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski raised grave concern over this practice:If it is not illegal it certainly is unethical for these broadcast corporations to be providing propaganda support in a scheme straight out of the Kremlin’s playbook. The employers at WTMJ and the other stations should explain how they are independent of the Walker administration and how their hours and hours of slavishly positive-and now, we see, coordinated-coverage fits within their own ethical guidelines and the rules and laws of Wisconsin and the United States.The idea that the government can so directly control broadcasters who use public airwaves represents a major crisis for Wisconsin journalism.As long as reporters and broadcast “journalists” are in collusion with conservative politicians like Walker, reporting political agenda as news, democracy is in serious trouble. Zielinski also points out that progressive talk show host John “Sly” Sylvester is never given “talking points,” and has, on many occasions, disagreed with Democratic Party officials and candidates.
Where it get’s interesting is his rant on a guy named Gus.
This has been going on since, when? 1987, I believe when the FCC eliminated a regulation it had no business making in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, as long as these corporations/ parties are doing things that I agree with, I don’t really care.
That’s where I jumped in. with one of my favorite Milton Friedman videos.
@ Badger, Corporate greed? Your kidding right? Perhaps you could learn a lesson or two from Milton Friedman.
I worry more about “crony capitalism” aka fascism then greed. You should view left wing talk show hosts with the same scrutiny that you apply to conservative.
Of course if he actually watched the Milton Friedman video he wouldn’t have made such a foolish statement. Only under capitalism has there been a strong middle class. Neither he nor his hero “Paul Krugman” can show any form other than capitalism where the middle class flourished. Then he really goes of the deep end accusing others of revisionist history. In response to another poster he sends people to another of his blog posts.
Can you give me some current news please? Got any? This is from over a year ago. Get your lawyers out and start suing everyone over this. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Do you have people still researching for mud and clinging to the past? What are you hoping to accomplish? Another recall? A shutdown of the radio stations? Is this what this party is all about? Where’s your forward thinking, your intelligence? All I hear is crying. What is your platform for the future of the Badger State, besides snipping and fighting?
So I followed the link and found a bit of revisionist history myself. He took a quote from Ben Franklin out of context and made him sound like a modern socialist.
“All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Public, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him live among the savages – he can have no right to the benefits of society.”
Of course you take Franklin’s quote out of context. He was not talking about economic justice. He was talking about people not paying their fair share of taxes. The entire letter can be seen in “The diplomatic correspondence of the United States of America” starting on page 375.
Mr Franklin would hardly approve of the modern welfare state in either the individual or the corporate level. Here is another of his quotes that illustrate that fact,
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Relating to prices and the poor, 1766
Now back to the original post. To risaO I responded.
You’ve hit it on the head. Nothing here but press releases and interview confirmations with enough spin to make it appear otherwise. While other progressives try to backdoor the FCC into resurrecting the “fairness doctrine” through it’s bastard child, “the Zapple doctrine”
As you can see, my last two comments have been awaiting moderation for two days. Of course progressivism never could withstand the scrutiny of logic and reason. it only works if you remain emotional and irrational.
Updated September 10,2012
Today Badger Democracy posted the following.
While your “Keynesian v. Austrian” video is intriguing…your characterization of Krugman’s 2008 book is misleading. Krugman knew that deregulation of banks and Wall Street was a precursor to another depression – he was right. Yes, Bernanke and many other economists (not all Keynesian) missed the impending housing bubble (a result of the aforementioned deregulating) – again Krugman acknowledged this, and points out in 2010 that the Fed didn’t learn anything from its mistakes in evaluating the situation: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/bernanke-and-the-bubble/ …oh yes, and in 2006, Krugman lamented the increasing housing bubble being ignored by Greenspan:
“Some say the worst is already over. Mr. Greenspan, who’s been an optimist all the way, now argues that the latest data on new-home sales and mortgage applications suggest that housing has already bottomed out. Business investment is still growing briskly, and so far consumers haven’t cut their spending. So maybe this is as bad as it gets.
But I think the pessimists have a stronger case. There’s a lot of evidence that home prices, although they’ve started to decline, are still way out of line. Spending on home construction remains abnormally high as a percentage of G.D.P., because banks are still lending freely in spite of rapidly rising foreclosure rates.
This means that home sales probably still have a long way to fall. And you don’t want to make too much of the fact that some housing indicators have turned up; those indicators tend to bounce around a lot from month to month.
Moreover, much of the good news in the latest economic report is unsustainable at best, suspect at worst. Almost half of last quarter’s estimated growth was the result of a reported surge in automobile output, which some observers think was a statistical illusion, not something that really happened.
So this is probably just the beginning. How bad can it get? Well, you don’t have to go far to find grim forecasts: Merrill Lynch predicts that the unemployment rate will rise from 4.6 percent now to 5.8 percent by the end of next year.”
Not saying Krugman is infallible…just pointing out that your continued allegiance to the theories of Milton Friedman is a bit misguided. On a macroeconomic scale, his theories have been a failure. They work well if you are part of the corporate elite/ownership class…but have always resulted in high unemployment, depressed earnings, and increased income inequity. Argentina, Chile in the 70′s? The Friedman “lab schools” in South America? It took those countries generations to recover – and in many ways they still are. The immorality and inequity that led to this current depression is why Friedman doesn’t work – left to their own self governance in the “free market” – corporations and the wealthy elite will destroy each other (and the economy) with their own greed. That has been proven time and time again.
As for your Franklin quote – it is not “fair” in your words to tax someone in poverty at the same RATE as one who is in the top 1%. 10% for someone in poverty is a significant burden – for someone who is a multi-millionaire, it is, quite literally, the very least they ought to do. Even Jefferson was wrong on some issues – particularly slavery. The Founders were not infallible. As the Constitution allowed for – the nation evolves. They set in motion a system of governance that has been turned on its head by many of the followers of Friedman and the “Chicago School;” who themselves profit in power and wealth from those policies.
You are quite welcome to your “every individual for themselves” philosophy. A society doesn’t function that way. Maybe in Vicky McKenna’s mind it does…but not in reality.
We are done here – in some manner, I would enjoy letting you have everything you want politically and economically so you can see the consequences. Say hi to Vicky for me.
I agree with Paul Krugman in part. He said “Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.” Of course he does not go into detail how “progressive” government control and regulation created the “Zoned Zone” Dr Thomas Sowell goes into great detail discussing the facts.
The the news backs up the statements made by Dr Sowell.
Now on to your comment.
Not saying Krugman is infallible…just pointing out that your continued allegiance to the theories of Milton Friedman is a bit misguided. On a macroeconomic scale, his theories have been a failure. They work well if you are part of the corporate elite/ownership class…but have always resulted in high unemployment, depressed earnings, and increased income inequity. Argentina, Chile in the 70′s? The Friedman “lab schools” in South America?
For starters neither countries have been free countries, they have either been dictatorships or military Oligarchy. But as Friedman frequently stated that it is free markets increase the lot in life of the common man and the facts bare that out.
CHILE’S ECONOMY ENJOYED a remarkable boom in the early 1990s, the result of a comprehensive transformation that began in 1974 with the adoption of free-market economic policies. Between the 1930s and the early 1970s, the Chilean economy was one of the most stateoriented economies in Latin America. For decades, it was dominated by the philosophy of import-substitution industrialization. Heavily subsidized by the government, a largely inefficient industrial sector had developed. The sector’s main characteristics were a low rate of job creation, a virtual absence of nontraditional exports, and a general lack of growth and development. In the early 1970s, the ruling socialist-communist Popular Unity (Unidad Popular–UP) coalition of President Salvador Allende Gossens (1970-73) attempted to implement a socialist economic system. The Allende experiment came to an end with the military coup of September 11, 1973. From that point on, Chile’s economic policies took a radical turn, as the military government undertook, first timidly and later more confidently, deep reforms aimed at creating a market economy.
In the early 1990s, politicians and analysts from around the world looked to the Chilean economy for lessons on how to open up international trade, create dynamic capital markets, and undertake an aggressive privatization process. In early 1994, Chile had the strongest economic structure in Latin America and, in large part because of the military government’s reforms, was emerging as a modern economy enjoying vigorous growth.
On to your comment.
As for your Franklin quote – it is not “fair” in your words to tax someone in poverty at the same RATE as one who is in the top 1%. 10% for someone in poverty is a significant burden – for someone who is a multi-millionaire, it is, quite literally, the very least they ought to do.
For starters the constitution calls for “equal protection” not your mythological “economic justice” See the 14th amendment. One thing I agree with Obama is that, “Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game,” Mr. Obama said during the interview, taped Saturday in Washington.
Economic and equal protection would call for everyone to pay the same percentage. By having everyone with equal skin in the game they have equal incentive to hold the government accoutable. The way things stand almost 50% pay nothing at all while “progressives” such as yourself call for even more taxes on the 1% ignoring the fact that that 1% already pays more then the lower 95% combined and you call that justice?
An analysis of IRS data by the Tax Foundation shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government, the highest percentage in modern history. While the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden.
And like I said almost 50% of taxpayers pay nothing!
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
I suggest you listen to Judge Andrew Napolitanoon the constitution, natural law and libido dominandi.