The world according to DJ

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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

 

 

+1

 

 

Terrible waste of a baby, that.

[Duchess Jack]

Additionally, two reports can say seemingly opposite things and both be 100% true.

Sure, there is some stuff that tends to chillax in the grey area, but then there are also things that for bold faced lies. Politifax does a good job finding a bunch of these things. Its a start at the very least.

 

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

Or perhaps follow up Rachel Maddow with Doctor Laura. I don't think I see any relation between Jon Stewart and Savage and its my understanding that this isn't for comedy. But if fixing this problem meant following the Daily Show with a comedy show of a different slant, than... I'd consider it, I guess

 

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.

I kind of hope that without folk in office having everything that they say or do motivated to stroking their base, filling their war chest and looking toward the next election that we may find out that as Americans we agree on something like 95 percent of things. Focusing on that five percent is great for TV and trying to get re-elected, but it doesn't get very much done. Perhaps without that five percent they won't feel so much like pounding their chests like apes and actually legislate for the American people.

[Azazello1313]

so you want government censors deciding what's comedy, what's news, what's right, what's left, who should go after whom, etc. and forcing broadcasters to program accordingly.

 

I very much prefer the model where the first amendment guarantees freedom and people watch what they feel compelled to watch.

[Duchess Jack]

so you want government censors deciding what's comedy, what's news, what's right, what's left, who should go after whom, etc. and forcing broadcasters to program accordingly.

 

I very much prefer the model where the first amendment guarantees freedom and people watch what they feel compelled to watch.

not censors, but fact checkers - and it does not have to be the government who does it. I understand that there is a lot of grey area, but there is ALSO stuff that is not in the grey area.

 

Putting how this could or should be done to the side - do you think a mechinism that could lead to more factual reporting news is a bad thing?

[Azazello1313]

not censors, but fact checkers

 

semantics. that's probably what pravda called them too.

 

and it does not have to be the government who does it.

 

then who else, pray tell, has the power to coerce people to put the "right" kind of content on TV?

[Duchess Jack]

Putting how this could or should be done to the side - do you think a mechinism that could lead to more factual reporting news is a bad thing?

[westvirginia]

 

 

It's like I said man, it's not that it isn't a good idea in theory. Socialism is too. But it shatters when it bangs against the hard wall of reality of human nature.

 

Az was very prescient in mentioning Pravda (from the Soviet days). That means "Truth" in the Russian language. Since the wall has fallen, we now know they lied to themselves as much as to their own people and the outside world. If you give the gov't control of the news, ALL the news will benefit gov't. You're an idealist, and there's nothing wrong with that, but man, the world doesn't always work the way it "should".

[bpwallace49]

DJ, is becomes difficult when there is a lack of what defines "objectivity". When the 24 hour news cycle was born, sensationalism to keep ratings 24 hours threw objectivity out the window. Now sensationalism and punditry entertainmnet pays much better than actual reporting. The free market has determined that pandering pays better than objective news, and it is to the point that people actually believe that the editiorials are "facts" rather than opinions supporting one side or the other. Money talks and objectivity walks.

 

having the gubmnet somehow edit that is also a terrible idea. Whoever is in control of the gubment at the time could selectively report what they want to report. Even if there were some way to do so that was completely impartial and objective (and I really, really dont believe that can be done, no matter how well-intentioned), the very concept will drive people into a frenzy with the implication that their rights are being violated.

 

It is a great concept, but unworkable in reality.

[Duchess Jack]

It's like I said man, it's not that it isn't a good idea in theory. Socialism is too. But it shatters when it bangs against the hard wall of reality of human nature.

 

Az was very prescient in mentioning Pravda (from the Soviet days). That means "Truth" in the Russian language. Since the wall has fallen, we now know they lied to themselves as much as to their own people and the outside world. If you give the gov't control of the news, ALL the news will benefit gov't. You're an idealist, and there's nothing wrong with that, but man, the world doesn't always work the way it "should".

Thanks WV. Again, I am not talking about censorship as I am not suggesting any voices be silenced. I am just suggesting that there be some sort of criteria for something to be called a "news" program.

 

And I am not so naive to suggest that the government should be the person administering it. Who? I don't know, but there is a lot to be said about the efforts of politifact.

 

And while I do understand that there is a lot of stuff up for interpretation. There are still lies. If I said that Ralph Nader raped Michelle Obama, that would be a lie.

 

Heck - I'd be happy with simply having one of those silly tickers at the bottom of the screen constantly posting corrections and retractions.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Duchess Jack

[westvirginia]

Thanks WV. Again, I am not talking about censorship as I am not suggesting any voices be silenced. I am just suggesting that there be some sort of criteria for something to be called a "news" program.

 

And I am not so naive to suggest that the government should be the person administering it. Who? I don't know, but there is a lot to be said about the efforts of politifact.

 

And while I do understand that there is a lot of stuff up for interpretation. There are still lies. If I said that Ralph Nader raped Michelle Obama, that would be a lie.

 

Heck - I'd be happy with simply having one of those silly tickers at the bottom of the screen constantly posting corrections and retractions.

 

 

You know, it's interesting you've mentioned politifact twice. There's a free-market solution that you've found on your own! Frankly, I don't think most people believe half of what they hear on any news program, or they know they aren't getting the whole story. I don't even watch much news for that very reason. I listen to Boortz, but that's because he can be damn funny (and I admit I'm a little more anarchist than even he is ) but not much, since I'm usually at work and I can't listen to it here. So mostly I listen to sports and get a lot of news from what folks post here. For everyone posting on the right there is a point/counterpoint from the left so that balance can be achieved. I think it's really less of a problem than it might seem to you. I know you personally, and I know your a guy who's big on justice, and you see certain things as an injustice. But throwing out the first amendment would be a MUCH graver injustice than what goes on now. With the ability of anyone to post anything on the internet, I'd say we have it better today than in the past.

[Azazello1313]

Again, I am not talking about censorship as I am not suggesting any voices be silenced. I am just suggesting that there be some sort of criteria for something to be called a "news" program.

 

well in the past, there were journalistic standards and ethics. over the past several decades, there was a slow perceived monolithic shift to the left in the mainstream media, then the advent of cable news and the 24 hour news cycle, then Fox comes along, then internet news and blogs and all the rest....to the point where now most people just seek "customized" news from their own little echo chamber. I'm not really any happier about this whole turn of events than you are....I'd love to see more of a strong, independent, self-correcting press that truly strives to present the best opinion from the primary sides of any debate. the "big" media can blame themselves though for losing any trust they may have once had with the public. of course, good, objective news coverage is still out there, you just have to seek it out. people nowadays get the "news" they want and mostly what they want is confirmation bias.

 

my only point though is that you can't "fix" peoples' tastes, least of all by some sort of government fiat. that chit would just makes things infinitely worse, IMO. if people are going to consume crap, it's much less morally offensive if it is crap they choose freely than if it is crap they are forced to consume by the coercive power of the state.

[westvirginia]

DJ, take a look at the following, especially from John Kerry:

 

•Obama’s 2012 campaign strategist/chief dogwasher David Axelrod says that this “a tea party downgrade.” He says that we would never have been in this position if the tea party hadn’t put up a fight in debate over raising our debt ceiling. Axelrod said, “It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point. It was something that should never have happened that clearly is on the backs of those who were willing the see the country default: those very strident voices in the tea party.”

•John Kerry echoed Axelrod’s comments about this being “a tea party downgrade.” He said on “Meet the Press”: “This is the Tea Party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered even the will of many Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal.” Remember that this is the same man who said that the tea party should not be given equal air time. On Friday’s “Morning Joe” he said, “The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual … It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do.”

•Howard Dean also chimed in to blame the tea party’s influence on the debt ceiling debate for the recent U.S. credit downgrade. He said on CBS's "Face the Nation”: "This is a tea party problem … They are totally unreasonable and doctrinaire and not founded in reality. I think they've been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it."

•The progs at MoveOn.org are upset with Dear Ruler for being too soft on the Tea Party, which is ultimately to blame for this mess. The executive director MoveOn.org Justin Ruben said over the weekend, “It’s hard to see how we avoid a Tea-Party recession if the president who has the biggest megaphone in the country is not willing to speak clearly on the issue.”

•New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blogged over the weekend: “On one hand, there is a case to be made that the madness of the right has made America a fundamentally unsound nation. And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency.”

 

You know as well as I do that these ideologues are as off the mark as any righty. But they only want THEIR side told... Very telling, I think.

[wiegie]

RE: term limits

 

It sounds great until you realize that all of the staffers are going to bail on their congressperson a few months or so before their term expires. And where will the staffers go? To work for lobbyists. And what happens after that? The only people with institutional continuity who actually know how things get done are the lobbyists. How do I know this? Because it happened in Michigan once term-limits were established. (I am basing my facts off of a conversation I had with the head political commentator for Michigan Public Radio and an economists who very often consults for lobbying firms--they both agreed that this was what happened in Michigan.)

 

You also lose the possibility of congresspersons building up longterm relationships across the aisle in which they have a give-and-take relationship.

[Azazello1313]

I've sorta favored some fairly loose term limits for a while (maybe something like 6 or 8 congressional terms and maybe 3 senate terms), but I really don't think they'll make a difference either way. it's a purely cosmetic thing, so I don't care strongly about it either way.

 

wiegie, and/or others, what do you think of my idea (actually not mine, I borrowed it from glenn reynolds) of a 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was? I think you'd have to limit it to elected officials and political appointees (no reason to ding, say, a government engineer who gets a better paying gig in the private sector).

 

I think it would sap a lot of the "profit motive" out of government service, which I think would be a good thing at combatting croneyism. look at all the former senators and such raking in 7 figure incomes on K street...and of course the glaring examples of dick cheney with halliburton, peter orszag at citibank, john ashcroft at blackwater (that ought to generate some lefty hard-ons ), and so on. obviously much of the value of these people to their new employers are their "connections".

Edited August 9, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

I've sorta favored some fairly loose term limits for a while (maybe something like 6 or 8 congressional terms and maybe 3 senate terms), but I really don't think they'll make a difference either way. it's a purely cosmetic thing, so I don't care strongly about it either way.

 

wiegie, and/or others, what do you think of my idea (actually not mine, I borrowed it from glenn reynolds) of a 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was? I think you'd have to limit it to elected officials and political appointees (no reason to ding, say, a government engineer who gets a better paying gig in the private sector).

 

I think it would sap a lot of the "profit motive" out of government service, which I think would be a good thing at combatting croneyism. look at all the former senators and such raking in 7 figure incomes on K street...and of course the glaring examples of dick cheney with halliburton, peter orszag at citibank, john ashcroft at blackwater (that ought to generate some lefty hard-ons ), and so on. obviously much of the value of these people to their new employers are their "connections".

Would this apply on any gig post-political career? Or just ones where there's a connection to the previous career? And if so, how is that defined?

[Chavez]

Would this apply on any gig post-political career? Or just ones where there's a connection to the previous career? And if so, how is that defined?

 

 

Eh, I'd say the 50% tax on the "over and above" is a fairly sensible idea. No one is forced to go into public service, and congresspersons, etc arent' exactly paid a pittance, either.

 

Think of it as similar to non-compete agreement in spirit.