The world according to DJ

[Duchess Jack]

I have always been of a mind that we - as Americans - agree on 95 percent of things. Sadly - we throw that 95 percent away to focus on and try to make points off of the 5 percent of things we disagree on.

[Duchess Jack]

and a reformed tax code, but I think everybody can hop abaord that.

[Zooty]

if you changed the 1st three there would be no motivation to become a politician

 

And really? There are people who think that lobbyist bribing congressman is a good thing?

[jetsfan]

And really? There are people who think that lobbyist bribing congressman is a good thing?

 

Hell Yes.

Open the Taps

[Duchess Jack]

I can see where getting a congressman's ear is important - but maybe it can be done in a way where it is done by petition. Basically - if enough people can sign onto it as being important, the elected representative will hear them. I can even see putting a cap on the number of petitions a person can sign on to a year (NRA, Logging Industry, Amnesty International, NAMBLA) so names can't be used again and again.

 

At the very least it would direct the money used to buy influence into the American public's pocket.

 

And with news organizations telling the truth - it seems like they should have a certain threshold for how many lies they are allowed to tell (if only to allow for mistakes) for a program or channel to keep the "news" distinction. Otherwise a network or show should have to tag itself as "Opinion" or "Entertainment". It might make the reporting of the news a little slower with fact checking and such, but that would be a good thing.

 

I guess with news agencies being held accountable for telling the truth - the fairness doctrine wouldn't be as needed.

[I Like Soup]

I strongly agreed with the first three, and disagreed with the last two.

 

Now, go make it happen.

[Duchess Jack]

Wow. I am surprised that there folk who don't agree with the idea of holding news orginizations accountable for telling the truth.

[SEC=UGA]

Wow. I am surprised that there folk who don't agree with the idea of holding news orginizations accountable for telling the truth.

 

Who determines what is the "truth"?

 

Also, the fairness doctrine is bunk as it can spread too far.

 

I agreed with the first three, as well, but disagree with the last two.

[Azazello1313]

how about a steep surtax on any earnings that former elected or appointed government officials earn in the private sector? something like 50% (or more) of the amount ABOVE your government salary for 5 years or something? might stop some of the revolving door scenario where former gov't officials get these enormous paydays at goldman sachs or huge k-street firms peddling influence and connections upon leaving office.

 

in any case, I believe your third one is already how campaign finance law works. and with respect to the last two...I strongly disagree that completely gutting the first amendment is a way to make the country better.

[Duchess Jack]

Who determines what is the "truth"?

 

Also, the fairness doctrine is bunk as it can spread too far.

 

I agreed with the first three, as well, but disagree with the last two.

Are you contending that there is no such thing as the truth, that it would be a hard thing to implement or that news outlets should be allowed to lie?

[Duchess Jack]

how about a steep surtax on any earnings that former elected or appointed government officials earn in the private sector? something like 50% (or more) of the amount ABOVE your government salary for 5 years or something? might stop some of the revolving door scenario where former gov't officials get these enormous paydays at goldman sachs or huge k-street firms peddling influence and connections upon leaving office.

 

in any case, I believe your third one is already how campaign finance law works. and with respect to the last two...I strongly disagree that completely gutting the first amendment is a way to make the country better.

 

I think I might be able to sign on to your first point.

 

As for hurting folks first amendment rights - all I am asking for is some sort of critera for folk to be able to call themselves "news".

 

They can say what they want but I think that news should be by and large - based in fact and when something is said that is wrong - I think that there needs to be a big effort to try to correct the mistatements. Its kind of like how there's a criteria for folk to call themselves a doctor or police-officer. Opinion fueled "News" Outlets can and are causing an amazing amount of damage to this country.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Duchess Jack

[I Like Soup]

I think I might be able to sign on to your first point.

 

As for hurting folks first amendment rights - all I am asking for is some sort of critera for folk to be able to call themselves "news".

 

They can say what they want but I think that news should be by and large - based in fact and when something is said that is wrong - I think that there needs to be a big effort to try to correct the mistatements. Its kind of like how there's a criteria for folk to call themselves a doctor or police-officer. Opinion fueled "News" Outlets can and are causing an amazing amount of damage to this country.

 

I agree with Az and that is why I disagreed with your last two questions. Remember, how do you prove what is true, etc? In whose eyes would that be? You and I could look at the same story and see it two different ways. You know, kind of like there are different ways to "interpret" laws that are on the books, etc. Hell, politician's and scholars can't even agree on points in the Constitution at times.

[westvirginia]

DJ, I'm with you on the first three (somewhat ambivalent on the corporate personhood, but can see both sides). Like others, I'm a fan of the first amendment. Next to property rights and the 2nd amendment, it's the most important we have. Also, the market is a good decider for news. Why do you think Fox is the biggest out there now? Clearly, prior to Fox, there was a left slant for MSM. You can't tell me an industry where 97% of people voted for one party for years and years didn't have bias. So you have ONE right-slanted news outlet and three (and this doesn't count newspapers) left-slanted ones.

 

Additionally, two reports can say seemingly opposite things and both be 100% true. Do you not see that in many arguments here on these boards? If you pick and choose your facts, and frame them carefully, you can make slant objective numbers into saying what you want them to say. As for the fairness doctrine, that just creates unprofitable hours for radio/tv stations. Music stations get to decide what music to play to tailor to their audience don't they?

[polksalet]

Serious question, in order to support the fairness doctrine to you support replacing rachel maddow with dr laura and john stewart with michael savage?

[bpwallace49]

Serious question, in order to support the fairness doctrine to you support replacing rachel maddow with dr laura and john stewart with michael savage?

 

Um . . you do know that John Stewart is a comedian on a network called "Comedy Central" . . . right?

[polksalet]

Um . . you do know that John Stewart is a comedian on a network called "Comedy Central" . . . right?

 

I consider his journalism as legit as Rachel the bull.

[westvirginia]

Um . . you do know that John Stewart is a comedian on a network called "Comedy Central" . . . right?

 

Nice deflection sweetie. Polk's point stands. You'd have Olberman replaced by O'Reilly (which MSNBC would like because ol' Kieth couldn't draw flies), Mad-cow replaced by Laura Ingram or some such, etc. The fairness doctrine, like socialism, is a great theory which breaks into millions of worthless pieces when it runs into the brick-wall reality of human nature.

[polksalet]

Nice deflection sweetie. Polk's point stands. You'd have Olberman replaced by O'Reilly (which MSNBC would like because ol' Kieth couldn't draw flies), Mad-cow replaced by Laura Ingram or some such, etc. The fairness doctrine, like socialism, is a great theory which breaks into millions of worthless pieces when it runs into the brick-wall reality of human nature.

 

Imagine Limbaugh on prime time CNN HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[westvirginia]

Imagine Limbaugh on prime time CNN HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

So many people have these great ideas that just don't work in theory. And since they can't make it in the real world they end up in government...

[bpwallace49]

I consider his journalism as legit as Rachel the bull.

 

John Stewart is not an journalist. just like Glenn Beck is not a journalist. Just like Olberman is not a journalist. Just like Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist.

 

They are entertainers that make money off editorializing.

 

The old schtick of everyone is biased except for right wing entertainers is old and tired.

[jetsfan]

John Stewart is not an journalist. just like Glenn Beck is not a journalist. Just like Olberman is not a journalist. Just like Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist.

 

They are entertainers that make money off editorializing.

 

The old schtick of everyone is biased except for right wing entertainers is old and tired.

 

I like Dan Rathers Reports on HDNet, but it is very depressing. Who knew the truth was so SHAM WOW!ty.

[Chavez]

You'd have Olberman replaced by O'Reilly, Mad-cow replaced by Laura Ingram or some such, etc. The fairness doctrine, like socialism, is a great theory which breaks into millions of worthless pieces when it runs into the brick-wall reality of human nature.

 

No, the "fairness doctrine" would simply mean both sides get equal time. Which would have Olbermann and O'Reilly sitting across from each other.

 

 

IMO where it falls apart is when you get blatantly stupid issues like people wanting to teach a Biblical literalist version of history in schools and then both sides are given credence, because it's "fair."

 

As it stands, most news outlets are generally willing to allow both sides to be heard on legitimate issues. Even if they aren't one should be able to construct their own count/pointercount argument these days, if they are intellectually curious.

[Chavez]

One thing that is not in favor of term limits is that there is a sense that people who are in Congress for a while build relationships and (in the past, at least) learn how to get things done.

 

Depending on how strict the term limits are, you could end up with bunches of ideologically pure representatives not legislating anything.

 

I'm certainly not in favor of the career politicians, but you don't necessarily want to go to far the other way on that issue, either.

[Chavez]

Oh, and one last thing - I think "corporate personhood" might be the biggest threat democracy has ever faced.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm certainly not in favor of the career politicians, but you don't necessarily want to go to far the other way on that issue, either.

Exactly. Term limits are a classic example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Oh, and one last thing - I think "corporate personhood" might be the biggest threat democracy has ever faced.

+1