George takes a swipe at Big Bird

[The Shadoe]

I find it interesting that people accuse the Right of moving to the right.

Michelle Malkin wrote a book (I've only read a little of it), about the left moving towards the extreme left, and how the party of John F Kennedy, Hubert Humphery, etc. has become the party that is driven by people like Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan.

She doesn't provide an explanation (her book is meant to be more entertaining about the Unhinged, such as Al Franken sticking his finger in the face of the producer of Laura Ingraham's show, or those who decide to attack conservatives), but I listen to the news, and I wonder how on earth the party went in the direction that it did. It seems like they are controlled by the most extreme elements. I have a feeling that the Democrats are going to implode soon and split into two parties... the extremists will be one party, and we'll have another party that will be more like the Democratic party before Reagan was president.

The country definately "has moved". It's clearly evident when the south, which ALWAYS used to vote Democrat now is voting Republican. Or when our neighbors in Canada start voting Conservative.

I would go as far to say that in order to be winning elections again, the Democrat party will have to purge itself of the extreme elements. When Cindy Sheehan hangs out with Hugo Chavez who vows to bring the United States down, when Michael Moore calls Americans the stupidest people in the world, and articles appear in the Washington Post say that Mrs. Alito (who looks like a normal person) criticize her clothing for looking like furniture fabric, they will continue to alienate people. Which is why I see a split coming.

As far as my own personal beliefs go, I received this message on another board I post at:

You're a Libertarian (sp?). Limited control of government over social and economic factors. Limited government overall. I respect these people a lot, because, in general, these people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves without getting the government involved.

.

[Alex]

I don't see how cutting funds to the CPB prevents access to the channel other than saying that without pupblic funding nobody would pay to have the content produced.

Regardless of whether CPB is funding specific content, the channel still exists and is equally accessible. Whether the rest of commercial broadcasting is owned by one giant company or 2,173 smaller ones is irrelevant to public broadcasting having a place in which to broadcast (whether anybody is willing to spend the money to develop content for broadcast in that space is a different matter entirely and not one I think the government should really be involved in).

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by mousepod on september 9 2005

Many years ago, when I lived in NYC, I switched party affiliation from Democrat to Libertarian. While I always vote on a person-by-person or issue-by-issue basis, I felt that it was a good way to show my disgust at the current 2-party system and also gave me the opportunity to help nominate someone other than a wacko into a third-party candidacy. I don't think I've ever voted Libertarian in any Presidential election yet, and sometimes I lament the fact that I've taken myself out of the Democratic Primary loop. I'm not sure what the answer is, but to paraphrase Dylan, it's blowin'.

I'm enjoying this conversation - but my biggest fear here is how being affilliated with a party forces me to support something I don't entirely believe in. Likewise, it suggests to others that my beliefs might be something other than they are.

When it comes to the Arts (with a capital "A"), I'm a radical supporter of free speech and down on government suppression (I'm not using the "c" word here). Do I think that cutting money to public television is a move toward truly reducing public spending? In face of the amazingly expensive war machine, I know that's ridiculous. However, I understand how the government's oversight would be less justified if public money was pulled - so it could be a boon on that front.

Darn it.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Regardless of whether CPB is funding specific content, the channel still exists and is equally accessible.

But is it really? It seems to me that Rupert Murdock or the Walt Disney Corporation has more access than I do? How do I get my channel?

[€uroMeinke]

Oh just as an aside, I believe anything publicly funded should be considered "work for hire" and placed into the public domain as far as copyright is concerned - but that's another issue

[Alex]

On the personal level, your ability to have an idea and get it distributed globally is greater now than it has ever been in history and this is fully independent of whether CPB gets funded.

Now, if you want to talk about distributing your idea over the specific channels of broadcast television or broadcast radio access to the channel is no different whether you have one megacorporation or hundreds of small ones. But government assurances of publicly accessible sections of the broadband does not happen through funding of CPB but through regulation by the FCC.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Now, if you want to talk about distributing your idea over the specific channels of broadcast television or broadcast radio access to the channel is no different whether you have one megacorporation or hundreds of small ones. But government assurances of publicly accessible sections of the broadband does not happen through funding of CPB but through regulation by the FCC.

Cool, so give me my channel, and I'll yield on CPB

[Alex]

I don't see what they have to do with each other. Nor do I see why you should be given a TV channel. You have the same access to one as everybody else.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I don't see what they have to do with each other. Nor do I see why you should be given a TV channel. You have the same access to one as everybody else.

I thought you were the one who linked the CPBs creation being a reaction to the limited selection of the 3 networks? I'm just saying I don't see much change as far as the broadcast spectrum goes.

Isn't that the tit for tat way government funding goes? At least I get to listen to NPR - no one's offered me a ride on a B2 yet and I think I paid way more for that thing.

As long as there are special interests, I want mine represented and pandered to. The rest of you libertarians can refund the governemnt your particular subsidy.

[Alex]

Yes, and CPB no longer does the infrastructural and channel management stuff it used to. Now it is almost purely a tool for content subsidization.

Also, the number of pipelines has so broadly increased as to make the physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum mostly meaningless.

Hell, Mousepod half a dozen friends are essentially running their own small radio stations (illegally due to copyright infringement) and mousepod is creating his own radio show and distributing them to a potentially global audience without relying on access to limited broadcast frequency.

I'll point wendybeth to your post when next she complains about bridges to nowhere.