MY APOLOGIES FOR THIS RATHER LONG POST, BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT READ. SO DON'T BE SO FUCKING LAZY, CAMPERS, YOU'RE NOT DYSLEXIC. READ, DAMMIT! AN UNINFORMED PUBLIC IS AN EASILY MANIPULATED PUBLIC!
[copy/pasted from the latest NWOPC email digest]
MAKING MEDIA MONOPOLY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION
by Robert W. McChesney, ZNet InterActive May 15, 2003
*Robert W. McChesney is the co-author, with John Nichols, of OurMedia, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media (Seven Stories).
As I write this, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to vote on June 2 to relax several longstanding media ownership rules. By nearly all accounts it will lead to a wave of media mergers and market consolidation that is unprecedented in U.S. history. In my view, such moves would be a disaster for our society. If you know about this and want to register your opposition, go to www.mediareform.net, where there are links to all the major campaigns to stop the FCC, along with links to news articles and considerable background information on the topic. Public pressure can stop the FCC. The www.mediareform.net site also has a comprehensive index to all of the groups working on media reform issues in the United States, as well as a complete list of the issues these groups are working on.
If you want an overview of the current situation, stay here and read on.
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Reform Act, which amended the Communications Act of 1934. The 1996 Telecom Act was a corrupt piece of work, being the product of the largest corporate lobbies all salivating at the prospect of rewriting the law to provide them a larger slice of the action. The best way to grasp how the communications law was passed is to imagine the classic scene from The Godfather II, when Hyman Roth, Michael Corleone and several other American gangsters meet on a rooftop in Havana to divide up the island between them in pre-Castro Cuba. They do so by ceremoniously each taking a slice of a cake with the outline of Cuba on it, and while they are doing this, Hyman Roth intones, "Isn't it great to be in a country with a government that believes in a partnership with private enterprise." The 1996 Telecom Act was drafted on that proverbial rooftop, only instead of mob families there were trade associations like the National Association of Broadcasters and corporations like News Corporation and Viacom. The public played no role in the Telecom Act, and it received virtually no news media coverage, except in the business and trade press where it was covered as an issue of importance to owners and investors, not citizens in a democracy. The powerful lobbies - much like Roth and Corleone - were duking it out with each other for the largest slice of the cake, but they all agreed that the public had no right to participate in the process. It was their cake.
One of the major aims of the corporate communication lobbies in the 1996 law was to scrap longstanding ownership laws that prevented them from getting larger. These ownership restrictions had been historically about the only meaningful regulations on large media firms. They prevented, among other things, firms from owning multiple TV stations in the same community, TV stations in every community in the nation, or TV stations and radio stations and newspapers and cable TV systems in the same community. The theory behind these ownership restrictions was that when the government granted firms monopoly rights to scarce TV or radio channels, it needed to place restrictions on what media the firms could own, so that the firms would not use their monopoly profits (owning a TV or radio station has historically been the closest thing to having the right to print money in our economy, except, perhaps, for the right to own a monopoly newspaper) to corner the market on all media. That would be a very bad thing for democracy.
One might logically ask how these media ownership restrictions could have ever come into existence, if the system was so corrupt that the Havana rooftop analogy captures the policy making process. To some extent it was because there was (and is) such a deep seated hostility to concentrated media ownership in the American population. It simply violates every core tenet of a free society to have a small number of powerful media owners. To the extent there has been popular involvement in media policy making, it has been to push for more competitive media markets. Even more important, there were powerful commercial interests that wanted restrictions on media ownership. Companies that owned a small number of radio or TV stations, for example, understood that if ownership limits were lifted, huge firms would be able to muscle them out of the market. And while firms wanted to see ownership limits removed in some markets, they were very happy to have them in other markets, where, for example, they were selling their products.
By 1996, however, the largest media firms had grown so large they thought their power could tip the balance and remove the ownership limits. They miscalculated. The powerful lobbies could not reach a consensus on which ownership laws to scrap and which ones to relax. Accordingly, the 1996 law called for the five-member FCC to merely review the ownership rules every two years with an eye to eliminate them when conditions permitted. The theory was that eventually, when the Internet and digital TV worked their multi-channel magic, the media system would be so awash in media voices that there would be no reason to be concerned about media monopoly. So at that time it would be absurd, not to mention unfair, so saddle some media firms, those that worked in radio, TV and cable, with ownership limits, while other media firms were not so encumbered. The FCC's job was to determine when the time of technological plenty had arrived and then dump the media ownership rules.
This process is often referred to as "deregulation," but it is nothing of the kind. The framing of the issue as one of "regulation" versus "deregulation" or "free markets" is ideologically loaded propaganda that obscures what is happening in total. When media ownership rules are eliminated, there is still plenty of regulation. If you or I persist in trying to broadcast on a frequency licensed to Clear Channel, we will be arrested and sent to prison. That is serious regulation. Regulation is going to exist no matter what. Even a so-called free market media system requires massive regulation. The real framing is whether there will be regulation that makes some effort to serve the public interest or broad publicly determined values, or whether regulation will be done exclusively to the benefit of corporate interests without any public involvement. It is the latter that has been misnamed "deregulation."
There was only one media industry in 1996 where a consensus could be reached to relax media ownership rules, and that was radio. In radio broadcasting the small station owning firms lost their resolve or their ability to fight the big station owning groups and the 1996 act lifted the national limit on the number of stations a single company could own. It also let a single company own up to eight stations in a single market. The results have been catastrophic for everyone except the owners of the handful of massive companies like Clear Channel (which now owns over 1,200 stations) and Viacom that have come to rule the roost in radio. In the past seven years, U.S. radio has become vastly more commercial and has lost much of its localism and any commitment to covering the news. Ironically, what by all rights should be our most decentralized and democratic medium -- because it is so inexpensive to produce a good signal -- has become our most regimented and standardized. You could be airdropped into any city in the United States and hear the same oldies song or the same right wing blather. And this has nothing to do with the natural workings of any "free market;" it is the direct result of corrupt policy making.
What has happened in radio is about to be visited on the balance of the media system. We know what many of you are thinking -- "hey, the media system sucks, it can't get any worse." But one look at radio should tell you otherwise. It can get worse, much worse. And it will, unless we stop the FCC. Moreover, the political power these ever larger media firms will accrue, will make any prospective media reform down the road that much more difficult.
The FCC conducted biennial reviews of the ownership rules in 1998 and 2000, and determined the rules should remain in place. At this point the biennial review was regarded as a benign and unreviewable process. The industry lobby went through the court system to get the rules thrown out. In 2002 a right wing federal appeals court demanded that the FCC provide a justification for keeping the ownership rules, or else they would have to be thrown out. Be clear that it was the appeals court, acting as the advocate of corporations that put the new aggressive pro-industry spin on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The appeals court interpreted the law to mean that unless the FCC could provide compelling, even overwhelming, evidence to justify keeping media ownership rules, they should be scrapped. The Court construed the statute as a one-way street, with a strong presumption in favor of deregulation. This put Michael Powell, the Chair of the FCC in an unusual position. He was supposed to go before the courts and make the case on behalf of keeping media ownership rules in the public interest. Powell was famous for his pro-industry rah-rah sentiments, and his hostility to regulation in the public interest. Having him be responsible for defending media ownership rules was along the lines of putting Katherine Harris in charge of Al Gore's Florida recount team in 2000. Powell responded by authorizing a formal FCC review of the six main media ownership rules.
At this point, the spring and summer of 2002, the odds that the FCC would dump the rules without much of a fight were very high. Traditionally the FCC has been a corrupt body, not in the sense that its members are explicitly bribed to make specific decisions, but in the broader ethical sense of the term. The five FCC members are unknown to the general public and have virtually no contact with them. They are surrounded instead by corporate CEOs, lawyers and lobbyists. As one FCC Chairman put it, "the job of the FCC is to regulate fights between the super wealthy and the super super wealthy. The public has nothing to do with it." Over time, logically, the FCC has come to see its mission as being an advocate for the very firms it is regulating; the more profitable they are, the better the job the FCC is doing. This worldview has been encouraged by the tradition that members of the FCC tend to move on to extremely lucrative careers working for the very firms they once regulated. As it is often put, when a firm comes before the FCC, FCC members do not know whether to regard it as an entity to be regulated or as a prospective future employer. This applies across the board, to Republicans and Democrats alike. The FCC Chair who preceded Michael Powell, Democrat William Kennard, has gone on to making big bucks working on telecommunication deals for the Carlyle Group.
In theory, and in law, the FCC merely implements the will of Congress. It should be the job of Congress to force the FCC to act in the public interest, and prevent cronyism and corruption. In practice, Congress has done almost the opposite. The powerful communication corporations traditionally have the relevant committee chairs in the House and Senate wrapped around their fingers, thanks, in part, to massive campaign contributions. Media firms also have a very powerful weapon at their disposal: control over the news media. This means that debates over media policy rarely get covered in a manner that might question the legitimacy of the corporate system, and that politicians are especially sensitive to staying on good terms with the corporate media lobby.
In this context, it certainly looked like the fix was in when FCC Chair Michael Powell announced the formal review of the media ownership rules in 2002. But history has taken an unpredicted turn. Two of the five members of the FCC have shown themselves to be remarkable public servants, of a caliber found on the FCC perhaps only three or four other times in its 69 year history. This was a fluke. The two members, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, were patronage appointments to fill the two Democratic slots on the five member FCC. It just so happened that they had a degree of backbone rarely found in that far from august body. Copps, especially, insisted that it would be inappropriate for there to be any change in the media ownership rules without extensive public input. He pressed Powell to hold public hearings around the nation on the matter. Powell attended a portion of the first unofficial hearing in New York in January and convened one official public hearing in Richmond in February. But otherwise he has refused to attend any of the ten public hearings on the media ownership rules that have been held subsequently all across the nation. None of the three Republicans has attended any of these ten hearings. Copps, on the other hand, has attended all of them, and Adelstein some of them. These hearings are historically unprecedented and mark a turning point in media activism in the United States. Many of them have been jam packed with people. After seeing hundreds of people hanging from the rafters in Vermont for an April hearing, one congressional aide remarked that there is more interest concerning media policy than on almost any other issue.
There is a very good reason why Powell and the Republicans on the FCC have boycotted the public hearings: the sentiment there, from thousands and thousands of citizens from all walks of life, has been almost unanimously opposed to relaxing or eliminating the ownership rules. Indeed, much of the sentiment has been in favor of strengthening the ownership rules, especially in radio. Likewise, as of May 8, 2003, a comprehensive analysis of the 9,065 statements on media ownership submitted to the FCC by citizens unaffiliated with a self-interested corporation or trade organization found that only 11 of these submissions supported changing the rules. Eleven! That means something like 99.8 percent of the statements opposed what Powell and the Republicans on the FCC are proposing to do! One could argue that there is as much support for putting Osama bin Laden's bust on Mount Rushmore as there is for letting fewer and fewer massive corporations own more and more media. Even conservative groups, like the National Rifle Association and Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, oppose gutting the media ownership rules.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this has nothing to do with free markets or a free press, but that it is all about cronyism and corruption. The massive media firms that have bankrolled and supported the Bush administration want their payback and the administration is determined to give it to them, the public be damned. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans wrote to Powell telling him to move full speed ahead with the rules changes regardless of Congressional or public opposition.
Powell has explained his absence from the ten media ownership hearings on the grounds that he is too busy too attend them and that he knows enough about what the public thinks. At the same time, Powell finds time to address the corporate media trade association meetings and he has an open door policy for corporate media CEOs like Rupert Murdoch. The research that the FCC has developed to justify relaxing the media rules has been kept top secret; members of Congress and leading media scholars have asked to see it and been turned down. Copps and Adelstein have raised their concerns about the lack of research and debate over the proposed changes to Powell but they have been ignored and marginalized.
Powell and the Republican members of the FCC repeatedly make one claim, and only one claim, to justify relaxing the media ownership rules: That the massive increase in media channels through multi-channel television and the Internet has eliminated the need for ownership regulation of broadcast media, because the scarcity of the airwaves is no longer a relevant issue. The reality of media today, the argument goes, is that the media system is no longer oligopolistic, but, instead, it is hyper-competitive. The granting of monopoly rights to broadcast channels no longer confers monopolistic market power in the marketplace. Media ownership regulation is justified on the grounds that spectrum scarcity meant the government had a duty to regulate the amount of ownership to protect the public interest. In this era of abundance, owning multitudes of broadcast stations is no longer monopolistic or a threat to diversity and should not be prohibited. The market will be a better regulator than the government. Or, to put it another way, Powell and his colleagues argue that corporations are no longer getting scarce and valuable beachfront property when they receive a monopoly license form the FCC; rather, they are merely getting one grain of sand on the media beach. If the claim is wrong, however, then the movement to eliminate these rules can be seen as little more than an opportunistic effort by powerful special interests to alter regulations to suit their naked self-interest. The problem with this claim is that it is not true. The Internet has changed much about our world, but it has not undermined the tremendous market power granted by federal license to use scarce broadcast spectrum. In ten years of the commercialized Internet, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, arguably not a single original commercially viable media content site has been launched. Not one. More important, the value of radio and TV stations continues to grow at a much faster rate than the rate of inflation. If the Internet and digital technologies were indeed undermining the value of scarce radio and TV channels, we would expect TV channels to be approaching the point where they would have much less value in the market because of all the new competition. It would be irrational to spend, say, $100 million for a mere TV station when the same money could create scores of incredible websites. But this mythological era of media abundance does not exist in any meaningful sense. These licenses to TV and radio channels still confer considerable, even extraordinary, market power. That is why their value continues to shoot up. Hence the legal justification for the media ownership rules is fully intact. Congress understood that it was only when the new communication technologies generated an increase in bona fide commercial competition that the FCC should eliminate or relax the ownership rules. That is why the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not eliminate those rules and Congress advised the FCC to do so down the road when the market conditions had changed. It is clear, as of now, they have not changed in such a way to justify the elimination of media ownership rules. That day remains off in the future, as far as anyone can tell. And if the FCC lets the giant firms get even larger, it will go a very long way toward letting these firms have the market power to ward off any threat of new competition.
Powell has called for a June 2 vote on his proposed media ownership rules changes. Until then all attention is focused on getting Congress to force the FCC to desist from this plan. Here, too, we are beginning to see considerable movement to oppose the FCC, though we have a very long way to go. A large coalition of journalists, labor, musicians, civic organizations, peace groups, consumer groups, and organizations representing women and minority groups has begun organizing in earnest around this issue. The crucial ingredient now is to generate as much popular comment as possible. Emails, letters and phone calls need to be sent to members of Congress and the FCC. As I note at the top of this piece, the website www.mediareform.net provides an easy-to-use index of all the leading campaigns, including those of MoveOn, Common Cause and Consumers Union. It is imperative that everyone who reads this piece circulate it, or at least the website, to everyone that they know. Even if we lose on June 2, this is not the final battle in the war. Instead, it is the first battle in what is emerging as a broad democratic movement to popularize media policy-making with the aim of generating a more diverse and competitive media system with a strong and independent nonprofit and noncommercial sector.
Saturday, May 17, 2003
UM, WHERE'S THE COMMENTS? THE VOTES? ANYONE? ANYONE? BUELLER?
Don't forget to scroll down and peruse the nominees for Best Post from Year 1 of The Pond. Meanwhile, got a new Pick To Click: My fellow peacenik and war tax resister (and almost-mayor of Toledo) Mike Ferner tipped me off to a guy named Mark Morford who writes for SFGate.com. Below is just a sample of his work. For more, the link's over by there.--->
***
President John F. Kennedy had an affair with a 19-year-old intern who traveled with him on official trips, according to a new biography. "She had no skills. She could answer the phone," Robert Dallek, author of "An Unfinished Life," told "Dateline NBC". "Apparently, her only skill was to provide sexual release for JFK on those trips and maybe in the White House." Dallek learned of the affair from a White House aide, Barbara Gamarekian, whose oral history was recently unsealed. President Bush, who obtains sexual release from dry humping a mangy taxidermied colt named Binkers while snorting premium Peruvian blow through the hollow case of an ExxonMobile ballpoint pen, was visibly appalled and shaken at the news, unless that was just the lithium and Demerol, as was Dick Cheney, whose idea of sexual release is, of course, a dozen gin/Viagra Martinis and cranking the defibrillator on 10 and having Lynney stuff used nylons into every orifice and then coating his body with liver-flavored kibble and letting a swarm of rabid Chihuahuas in heat run all over his mounds of milky white cottage cheese while Lynney jumps on a trampoline and does a sloppy heavily Paxiled strip-tease and belts out 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' through a megaphone.
***
Don't forget to scroll down and peruse the nominees for Best Post from Year 1 of The Pond. Meanwhile, got a new Pick To Click: My fellow peacenik and war tax resister (and almost-mayor of Toledo) Mike Ferner tipped me off to a guy named Mark Morford who writes for SFGate.com. Below is just a sample of his work. For more, the link's over by there.--->
***
President John F. Kennedy had an affair with a 19-year-old intern who traveled with him on official trips, according to a new biography. "She had no skills. She could answer the phone," Robert Dallek, author of "An Unfinished Life," told "Dateline NBC". "Apparently, her only skill was to provide sexual release for JFK on those trips and maybe in the White House." Dallek learned of the affair from a White House aide, Barbara Gamarekian, whose oral history was recently unsealed. President Bush, who obtains sexual release from dry humping a mangy taxidermied colt named Binkers while snorting premium Peruvian blow through the hollow case of an ExxonMobile ballpoint pen, was visibly appalled and shaken at the news, unless that was just the lithium and Demerol, as was Dick Cheney, whose idea of sexual release is, of course, a dozen gin/Viagra Martinis and cranking the defibrillator on 10 and having Lynney stuff used nylons into every orifice and then coating his body with liver-flavored kibble and letting a swarm of rabid Chihuahuas in heat run all over his mounds of milky white cottage cheese while Lynney jumps on a trampoline and does a sloppy heavily Paxiled strip-tease and belts out 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' through a megaphone.
***
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
A FEW EXCERPTS FROM THIS WEEK'S NWOPC E-MAIL NEWSLETTER:
***
If the U.S. chooses to occupy other lands and set up puppet governments then the U.S. will encounter resistance. This is creating an ongoing world war that will last decades. Other countries in the area and around the world will seek to act to stop empire building. If you are going to build and maintain a world empire then it is reasonable that there will be opposition, that the U.S. military will be in constant battles around the world to maintain the empire, and that there will be attacks on U.S. soil. Certain actions will bring about certain reactions. This isn't that hard to understand.
***
According to the Canadian Web site Straightgoods.ca, the Bush administration (a) failed to protest when the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years; (b) proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs that provide school funding for children of military personnel; and (c) ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
But the guy looks great in a flight suit, doesn't he?
***
THE CHINA SYNDROME
By Paul Krugman
From NY Times Op-Ed, May 13, 2003
(MY OWN COMMENTS ARE INSERTED THUSLY.--DJP)
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality." (HEY, SOUNDS LIKE CLEAR CHANNEL!--DJP)
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV (AND RADIO--DJP) networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP).
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.
In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.
Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP), punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television (AND RADIO--DJP) is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.
A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP). The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP) eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.
The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naive not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news executive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that executive that the administration could punish any network running that story.
Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.
We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP) have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.
***
If the U.S. chooses to occupy other lands and set up puppet governments then the U.S. will encounter resistance. This is creating an ongoing world war that will last decades. Other countries in the area and around the world will seek to act to stop empire building. If you are going to build and maintain a world empire then it is reasonable that there will be opposition, that the U.S. military will be in constant battles around the world to maintain the empire, and that there will be attacks on U.S. soil. Certain actions will bring about certain reactions. This isn't that hard to understand.
***
According to the Canadian Web site Straightgoods.ca, the Bush administration (a) failed to protest when the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years; (b) proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs that provide school funding for children of military personnel; and (c) ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
But the guy looks great in a flight suit, doesn't he?
***
THE CHINA SYNDROME
By Paul Krugman
From NY Times Op-Ed, May 13, 2003
(MY OWN COMMENTS ARE INSERTED THUSLY.--DJP)
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality." (HEY, SOUNDS LIKE CLEAR CHANNEL!--DJP)
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV (AND RADIO--DJP) networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP).
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.
In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.
Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP), punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television (AND RADIO--DJP) is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.
A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP). The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP) eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.
The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naive not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news executive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that executive that the administration could punish any network running that story.
Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.
We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies (I.E. CLEAR CHANNEL--DJP) have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.
Monday, May 12, 2003
OOPS. WE MISSED THE PARTY. OH WELL, THERE WAS NO CAKE ANYWAY.
Um, yeah. Silly me, I thought today was the one-year anniversary of The Duck Pond. But I checked the archives to make sure and, heh heh, turns out it was Saturday. My bad. (Hey, at least I knew it was May, the date started with a 1, and it was an even number. So give me SOME credit.)
So, to save face, let's just label this Duck Pond Anniversary Week! Wait, shit, can't do that. That would have been last week. Aw, fuck it, the week started Saturday, dammit. So there. Anyone got a problem with that? Blow me.
Anyhoo, stay tuned, sometime this week I'll give yas a chance to vote for the best post from the Pond's first year of operation.
Um, yeah. Silly me, I thought today was the one-year anniversary of The Duck Pond. But I checked the archives to make sure and, heh heh, turns out it was Saturday. My bad. (Hey, at least I knew it was May, the date started with a 1, and it was an even number. So give me SOME credit.)
So, to save face, let's just label this Duck Pond Anniversary Week! Wait, shit, can't do that. That would have been last week. Aw, fuck it, the week started Saturday, dammit. So there. Anyone got a problem with that? Blow me.
Anyhoo, stay tuned, sometime this week I'll give yas a chance to vote for the best post from the Pond's first year of operation.
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
Hey campers, just wanted to post a reminder about the upcoming lunar eclipse this Thursday night. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO
Hey campers, just wanted to post a reminder about the upcoming lunar eclipse this Thursday night. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO
Friday, May 02, 2003
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ROY!
A posthumous birthday greeting goes out to the late great Roy Orbison, who would have turned 67 today.
Hey, my dad turns 67 today! Happy birthday, Dad!
Okay, so the secret's out: my dad is actually Roy Orbison's evil twin. Kinda hard for people to spot it, of course, since Dad never wears the dark glasses or the black wig.
Hey, today is Shirley Temple Black's birthday too...um, uh oh. Oh bloody hell, I don't even wanna know.
A posthumous birthday greeting goes out to the late great Roy Orbison, who would have turned 67 today.
Hey, my dad turns 67 today! Happy birthday, Dad!
Okay, so the secret's out: my dad is actually Roy Orbison's evil twin. Kinda hard for people to spot it, of course, since Dad never wears the dark glasses or the black wig.
Hey, today is Shirley Temple Black's birthday too...um, uh oh. Oh bloody hell, I don't even wanna know.
Saturday, April 19, 2003
Thursday, April 17, 2003
STEAL THIS BLOG
A couple more thots from the protest the other day...
Mind you, most of the response was positive, or at least polite. The few obnoxious assholes do tend to stick in one's memory, however, so let's address these cretins, shall we?
First off, you gotta love how the hawk types rarely stick around to debate. Their point is usually something well thought out like "You suck!" and then VROOM! Off they go. Hey, come back, let's discuss the issue. Nope, sorry, they gotta get home in time to watch WWE Smack-off.
A couple of my other faves:
"Losers!" Excuse me, you can't lose a war if you don't fight it in the first place. So I can't lose. Besides, in a war there are no winners. So who's the real loser here?
"Get a real job!" I have a real job, but it's third shift. When I'm helping promote peace, I usually do it in my spare time. Hey, we all need a hobby.
"Go home!" Thanks, but I already AM home. I'm right here, snug as a Doug in your rug, in my very own country. AKA: ME! I am my own country, in and of myself. These 290 pounds of bone and blood and meat are my country. And I cannot and will not ever be conquered, overthrown or annexed. Ah, home sweet home.
Then there was the drunken frat boy (go fig) who kept yelling "George Bush!" in much the same way one might yell "Go Marlins!" Yeesh. Guess it's the way CNN etc. cover the war as if it were a sporting event. "Here's Howie Long to analyze Iraq's secondary." Which pushover opponent is next? It's as if Ohio State's schedule this year was nothing but high school teams.
But the most disturbing comment I heard that day? "I support war!" Um, yeah. Look, even though I disagree either way, it's one thing to say you support the war, or a war, or this particular war. I hear that a lot. But you are achieving a whole new level of mental illness when you say you "support war". So, you mean, you like war in general, as a basic concept? Hmm, interesting. You might want to seek professional help, Bubba.
Anyhoo, whatever. So Napoleon drove Snowball off the farm. Whatever. Take a peek in the window of the farmhouse in a few weeks and get back to me.
As the Pearl Jam lyric says in the song "Bushleaguer", "Born on third, thinks he got a triple."
That's all for now. Peace, out!
A couple more thots from the protest the other day...
Mind you, most of the response was positive, or at least polite. The few obnoxious assholes do tend to stick in one's memory, however, so let's address these cretins, shall we?
First off, you gotta love how the hawk types rarely stick around to debate. Their point is usually something well thought out like "You suck!" and then VROOM! Off they go. Hey, come back, let's discuss the issue. Nope, sorry, they gotta get home in time to watch WWE Smack-off.
A couple of my other faves:
"Losers!" Excuse me, you can't lose a war if you don't fight it in the first place. So I can't lose. Besides, in a war there are no winners. So who's the real loser here?
"Get a real job!" I have a real job, but it's third shift. When I'm helping promote peace, I usually do it in my spare time. Hey, we all need a hobby.
"Go home!" Thanks, but I already AM home. I'm right here, snug as a Doug in your rug, in my very own country. AKA: ME! I am my own country, in and of myself. These 290 pounds of bone and blood and meat are my country. And I cannot and will not ever be conquered, overthrown or annexed. Ah, home sweet home.
Then there was the drunken frat boy (go fig) who kept yelling "George Bush!" in much the same way one might yell "Go Marlins!" Yeesh. Guess it's the way CNN etc. cover the war as if it were a sporting event. "Here's Howie Long to analyze Iraq's secondary." Which pushover opponent is next? It's as if Ohio State's schedule this year was nothing but high school teams.
But the most disturbing comment I heard that day? "I support war!" Um, yeah. Look, even though I disagree either way, it's one thing to say you support the war, or a war, or this particular war. I hear that a lot. But you are achieving a whole new level of mental illness when you say you "support war". So, you mean, you like war in general, as a basic concept? Hmm, interesting. You might want to seek professional help, Bubba.
Anyhoo, whatever. So Napoleon drove Snowball off the farm. Whatever. Take a peek in the window of the farmhouse in a few weeks and get back to me.
As the Pearl Jam lyric says in the song "Bushleaguer", "Born on third, thinks he got a triple."
That's all for now. Peace, out!
"I KNOW WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON, STUART! I KNOW IT'S THE QUEERS! THEY'RE IN IT WITH THE ALIENS! THEY'RE BUILDING LANDING STRIPS FOR GAY MARTIANS!"
Today's rather paranoid Pond entry is sponsored by SubShumDougWay: Eat fresh cat snatch. [jingle kicks in] "Cat snatch fever..."
Just a couple of thots in the wake of my taking part in a protest down at the main post office Tuesday, as a few of us, including Mike Ferner and myself, refused to pay our taxes...
The night before I dug out my Abbie Hoffman books for inspiration, maybe find a couple of relevant quotes in case I ended up on the local news. I never really did buy that bullshit about him committing suicide, did you? Trust me, the CIA knows how to hold a grudge. While I'm at it, it seems unlikely to me that Jerry Rubin getting hit by a car and killed was merely an accident. Mind you, I could go on to include John Lennon, M.L. King, etc., but I'm busy these days so I'll let you folks fill in the rest of the blanks.
Maybe next entry I'll have time to discuss the microchips implanted in our buttcheeks.
PS: A reminder: FRISBEE GOLF BECKONS!
Today's rather paranoid Pond entry is sponsored by SubShumDougWay: Eat fresh cat snatch. [jingle kicks in] "Cat snatch fever..."
Just a couple of thots in the wake of my taking part in a protest down at the main post office Tuesday, as a few of us, including Mike Ferner and myself, refused to pay our taxes...
The night before I dug out my Abbie Hoffman books for inspiration, maybe find a couple of relevant quotes in case I ended up on the local news. I never really did buy that bullshit about him committing suicide, did you? Trust me, the CIA knows how to hold a grudge. While I'm at it, it seems unlikely to me that Jerry Rubin getting hit by a car and killed was merely an accident. Mind you, I could go on to include John Lennon, M.L. King, etc., but I'm busy these days so I'll let you folks fill in the rest of the blanks.
Maybe next entry I'll have time to discuss the microchips implanted in our buttcheeks.
PS: A reminder: FRISBEE GOLF BECKONS!
Monday, April 14, 2003
*NOTE: Since I often go a long time between posts, I've taken steps to remedy the situation. Well, step. By now you've noticed (unless you read this thing bottom-to-top) the link above. Props to Lore and the Brunching Shuttlecocks for yet another stroke of genius. And now back to our regularly-skedded blog...
Today's Pond entry is sponsored by Subway: Eat fresh. And by Shumway: Eat cat. And by Dougway: Eat snatch.
SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER
Okay, so now what I can't figure out is why I used that song title instead of the song I'm about to quote? Whatever. It's the first really nice warm day this year, so let me hit you all with this yearly standard...
"Poisoning Pigeons In The Park"
by Tom Lehrer
Spring is here, spring is here, life is skittles and life is beer
I think the loveliest time of the year is the spring, I do, don't you? Course you do!
But there's one thing that makes spring complete for me, and makes every Sunday a treat for me
All the world seems in tune on a spring afternoon when we're poisoning pigeons in the park
Every Sunday you'll see my sweetheart and me as we poison the pigeons in the park
When they see us coming the birdies all try and hide, but they still go for peanuts when coated with cyanide
The sun's shining bright, everything seems alright when we're poisoning pigeons in the park
We've gained notoriety and caused much anxiety in the Audubon Society with our games
They call it impiety and lack of propriety and quite a variety of unpleasant names
But it's not against any religion to want to dispose of a pigeon
So if Sunday you're free why don't you come with me and we'll poison the pigeons in the park
And maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the park
We'll murder them all amid laughter and merriment, except for the few we take home to experiment
My pulse will be quickenin' with each drop of stricnine we feed to a pigeon
it just takes a smidgeon to poison a pigeon in the park!
Today's Pond entry is sponsored by Subway: Eat fresh. And by Shumway: Eat cat. And by Dougway: Eat snatch.
SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER
Okay, so now what I can't figure out is why I used that song title instead of the song I'm about to quote? Whatever. It's the first really nice warm day this year, so let me hit you all with this yearly standard...
"Poisoning Pigeons In The Park"
by Tom Lehrer
Spring is here, spring is here, life is skittles and life is beer
I think the loveliest time of the year is the spring, I do, don't you? Course you do!
But there's one thing that makes spring complete for me, and makes every Sunday a treat for me
All the world seems in tune on a spring afternoon when we're poisoning pigeons in the park
Every Sunday you'll see my sweetheart and me as we poison the pigeons in the park
When they see us coming the birdies all try and hide, but they still go for peanuts when coated with cyanide
The sun's shining bright, everything seems alright when we're poisoning pigeons in the park
We've gained notoriety and caused much anxiety in the Audubon Society with our games
They call it impiety and lack of propriety and quite a variety of unpleasant names
But it's not against any religion to want to dispose of a pigeon
So if Sunday you're free why don't you come with me and we'll poison the pigeons in the park
And maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the park
We'll murder them all amid laughter and merriment, except for the few we take home to experiment
My pulse will be quickenin' with each drop of stricnine we feed to a pigeon
it just takes a smidgeon to poison a pigeon in the park!
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
THE ROAD TO JUSTICE (AND THE ALF CUP) IS TWISTED
THE SHIELD lived up to the hype and the preseason forecast by soundly winning the 2003 ALF Cup Final last night against 4-time and defending champ This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
22M stumbled in a manner similar to 3 years ago when they rolled over and played dead with a clip show against Twin Peaks. This time, the clips all tied in with the doings in Iraq, and there were plenty of top-notch anti-Yank zingers, but a clip show is a clip show, and not a good strategy to employ in an ALF Cup Final.
The Shield, meanwhile, stayed right on the schedule that made them the season-long pick to win it all, posting up with an excellent season finale. As soon as it was announced last fall that the 2nd season would wrap up during the week of the Final, Vic and company were a virtual lock to take home the trophy.
"I'm a different kind of cop."
Still, a bit of luck was involved along the way. Sometimes, it's not who wins, but who loses (and when). 22M got to the Final by virtue of a semifinal win over a subpar ep of South Park, which got to the semis by virtue of a win over Royal Canadian Air Farce, which got preempted that week by CBC war coverage.
One surprise: Series star Michael Chiklis was figured to be an easy choice for playoff MVP, but instead that honor went to co-star Walton Goggins. This season was a real tour de force for his character, Shane Vendrell. Let us toast him with a yammy full of Georgia joy juice!
ALF CUP CHAMPIONS (playoff MVPs in parentheses):
1987-ALF (ALF)
1988-ALF (ALF)
1989-ALF (ALF)
1990-ALF (ALF)
1991-ALF (ALF)
1992-ALF (ALF)
1993-Mystery Science Theater 3000 (Michael J. Nelson)
1994-The Secret Life Of Machines (Rex Garrod)
1995-Animaniacs (Rob Paulsen)
1996-Due South (Paul Gross)
1997-Carson's Comedy Classics (Johnny Carson)
1998-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Mary Walsh)
1999-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Rick Mercer)
2000-Twin Peaks (Kyle Maclachlan)
2001-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Preston Manning)
2002-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Colin Mochrie)
2003-The Shield (Walton Goggins)
THE SHIELD lived up to the hype and the preseason forecast by soundly winning the 2003 ALF Cup Final last night against 4-time and defending champ This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
22M stumbled in a manner similar to 3 years ago when they rolled over and played dead with a clip show against Twin Peaks. This time, the clips all tied in with the doings in Iraq, and there were plenty of top-notch anti-Yank zingers, but a clip show is a clip show, and not a good strategy to employ in an ALF Cup Final.
The Shield, meanwhile, stayed right on the schedule that made them the season-long pick to win it all, posting up with an excellent season finale. As soon as it was announced last fall that the 2nd season would wrap up during the week of the Final, Vic and company were a virtual lock to take home the trophy.
"I'm a different kind of cop."
Still, a bit of luck was involved along the way. Sometimes, it's not who wins, but who loses (and when). 22M got to the Final by virtue of a semifinal win over a subpar ep of South Park, which got to the semis by virtue of a win over Royal Canadian Air Farce, which got preempted that week by CBC war coverage.
One surprise: Series star Michael Chiklis was figured to be an easy choice for playoff MVP, but instead that honor went to co-star Walton Goggins. This season was a real tour de force for his character, Shane Vendrell. Let us toast him with a yammy full of Georgia joy juice!
ALF CUP CHAMPIONS (playoff MVPs in parentheses):
1987-ALF (ALF)
1988-ALF (ALF)
1989-ALF (ALF)
1990-ALF (ALF)
1991-ALF (ALF)
1992-ALF (ALF)
1993-Mystery Science Theater 3000 (Michael J. Nelson)
1994-The Secret Life Of Machines (Rex Garrod)
1995-Animaniacs (Rob Paulsen)
1996-Due South (Paul Gross)
1997-Carson's Comedy Classics (Johnny Carson)
1998-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Mary Walsh)
1999-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Rick Mercer)
2000-Twin Peaks (Kyle Maclachlan)
2001-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Preston Manning)
2002-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (Colin Mochrie)
2003-The Shield (Walton Goggins)
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Sunday, March 23, 2003
IN THIS CASE, THE SIMPLE SOLUTION OF WAR IS SIMPLY THE WRONG ONE
by Steve Lopez, LA Times
H.L. Mencken should have been here.
"For every problem," he said, "there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
Sums it up nicely, if you ask me.
Like you, I have two hopes. That the war in Iraq goes quickly, and that the loss of life is minimal.
But that's exactly what brought us to the brink -- the simple-minded notion that against the laws of history and logic, and with minimal sacrifice, we can shape a world that suits our needs by the sheer force of military might, God's will be done.
We don't know what it will cost, but we're going to war.
We don't know what comes next, but we're going to war.
We can't find the money to equip police and fire units with the equipment they'll need to take on terrorists, but we're going to war.
We can't liberate millions of American children from failed schools or rescue millions of medically uninsured in this tanking economy, but we're going to war.
You have to admire the clarity. But President Bush didn't do it alone.
God is on his team, he tells us, which explains why he sleeps easy. He is wrapped in the swaddling embrace of evangelical imperative, and may God keep blessing America, as Bush intoned in his national sermon the other night.
The fundamentalists who killed 3,000-plus Americans were operating on a parallel conviction, by the way, so they sleep easy too. Particularly since Saddam Hussein, for reasons that remain a mystery, replaced them as Public Enemy No. 1.
Since last June, when I first started writing about the inevitable war of prevention, I've checked in periodically with USC professor Richard Dekmejian. At one point, I asked the author of "Islam in Revolution: Fundamentalism in the Arab World," if there is any way this war can make the world safer.
"Miracles can always happen," he said. "It is the holy land, after all.... But I see chaos and a massive increase of international terrorism ....Everything I know about Iraq ... tells me there will be near-term and long-term crisis after Saddam is defeated."
That's partly because in our rush to plant the seeds of democracy, we've trampled every international democratic institution in our path. The hypocrisy has alienated friends, which will make this mission all the more complicated, and allowed enemies to say, I told you so.
The planet rotates with a wobble because of an imbalance of wealth and power that fuels anti-American sentiment, and we respond with tax breaks for the wealthy and the mother of all bombs. My favorite line in the walk-up to war appeared in a story from Wall Street in which a broker was quoted on the rumored arrest of Osama bin Laden. Remember him?
"If they do get him," said the broker, "it's got to be good for a pop in equities and a decent pullback in bonds, say 10 basis points on the two-year yield. That's got the short-term crowd nervous."
Who needs David Mamet?
I'm short-term nervous and long-term too. Even if there's no chemical or biological disaster and the war goes smoothly, if there is such a thing, the hard part comes in a couple of weeks. That's when some dust-covered commander will be standing in the middle of the world's largest sand trap, looking at 25 million Iraqis and wondering, OK, now what?
If anyone in Washington has a good answer, it hasn't been heard.
But we're going to war.
To make things all the more interesting, our new next-door neighbor will be Iran, which, unlike Iraq, actually has a nuclear program to worry about.
But make no mistake, this risk carries certain rewards. The Blair Bush Project, should it succeed, puts guess who? -- America and Britain -- first in line at the oil trough.
That's right. A president and vice president with zero combat experience between them have guided us into war that will fatten the industries that made them rich, and turn Iraq into a subsidiary of Halliburton, Enron, or whoever.
I've got more combat experience than Bush and Cheney, and I wasn't even enlisted. In brief tours of Iraq and Bosnia, I saw just enough of what war is about to feel compelled to speak up for any alternative.
Congressional representatives, on the other hand, with only a handful of sons and daughters in the military, remain virtually mute, having long ago taken a vow of submission.
In its collective failure to make a compelling case for combat and draw more allies to the cause, Congress and the president have raised the danger level for troops sent to Iraq. And do not for one minute let them tell you this war was a hard choice.
Diplomacy is hard.
Peaceful resolution is hard.
Leading the world by earning its respect is hard.
Raining record numbers of megaton bombs on an absurdly overmatched foe is simple in the most elemental ways, and for this time and place, it is wrong.
*
(Steve Lopez writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at steve.lopez@latimes.com)
by Steve Lopez, LA Times
H.L. Mencken should have been here.
"For every problem," he said, "there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
Sums it up nicely, if you ask me.
Like you, I have two hopes. That the war in Iraq goes quickly, and that the loss of life is minimal.
But that's exactly what brought us to the brink -- the simple-minded notion that against the laws of history and logic, and with minimal sacrifice, we can shape a world that suits our needs by the sheer force of military might, God's will be done.
We don't know what it will cost, but we're going to war.
We don't know what comes next, but we're going to war.
We can't find the money to equip police and fire units with the equipment they'll need to take on terrorists, but we're going to war.
We can't liberate millions of American children from failed schools or rescue millions of medically uninsured in this tanking economy, but we're going to war.
You have to admire the clarity. But President Bush didn't do it alone.
God is on his team, he tells us, which explains why he sleeps easy. He is wrapped in the swaddling embrace of evangelical imperative, and may God keep blessing America, as Bush intoned in his national sermon the other night.
The fundamentalists who killed 3,000-plus Americans were operating on a parallel conviction, by the way, so they sleep easy too. Particularly since Saddam Hussein, for reasons that remain a mystery, replaced them as Public Enemy No. 1.
Since last June, when I first started writing about the inevitable war of prevention, I've checked in periodically with USC professor Richard Dekmejian. At one point, I asked the author of "Islam in Revolution: Fundamentalism in the Arab World," if there is any way this war can make the world safer.
"Miracles can always happen," he said. "It is the holy land, after all.... But I see chaos and a massive increase of international terrorism ....Everything I know about Iraq ... tells me there will be near-term and long-term crisis after Saddam is defeated."
That's partly because in our rush to plant the seeds of democracy, we've trampled every international democratic institution in our path. The hypocrisy has alienated friends, which will make this mission all the more complicated, and allowed enemies to say, I told you so.
The planet rotates with a wobble because of an imbalance of wealth and power that fuels anti-American sentiment, and we respond with tax breaks for the wealthy and the mother of all bombs. My favorite line in the walk-up to war appeared in a story from Wall Street in which a broker was quoted on the rumored arrest of Osama bin Laden. Remember him?
"If they do get him," said the broker, "it's got to be good for a pop in equities and a decent pullback in bonds, say 10 basis points on the two-year yield. That's got the short-term crowd nervous."
Who needs David Mamet?
I'm short-term nervous and long-term too. Even if there's no chemical or biological disaster and the war goes smoothly, if there is such a thing, the hard part comes in a couple of weeks. That's when some dust-covered commander will be standing in the middle of the world's largest sand trap, looking at 25 million Iraqis and wondering, OK, now what?
If anyone in Washington has a good answer, it hasn't been heard.
But we're going to war.
To make things all the more interesting, our new next-door neighbor will be Iran, which, unlike Iraq, actually has a nuclear program to worry about.
But make no mistake, this risk carries certain rewards. The Blair Bush Project, should it succeed, puts guess who? -- America and Britain -- first in line at the oil trough.
That's right. A president and vice president with zero combat experience between them have guided us into war that will fatten the industries that made them rich, and turn Iraq into a subsidiary of Halliburton, Enron, or whoever.
I've got more combat experience than Bush and Cheney, and I wasn't even enlisted. In brief tours of Iraq and Bosnia, I saw just enough of what war is about to feel compelled to speak up for any alternative.
Congressional representatives, on the other hand, with only a handful of sons and daughters in the military, remain virtually mute, having long ago taken a vow of submission.
In its collective failure to make a compelling case for combat and draw more allies to the cause, Congress and the president have raised the danger level for troops sent to Iraq. And do not for one minute let them tell you this war was a hard choice.
Diplomacy is hard.
Peaceful resolution is hard.
Leading the world by earning its respect is hard.
Raining record numbers of megaton bombs on an absurdly overmatched foe is simple in the most elemental ways, and for this time and place, it is wrong.
*
(Steve Lopez writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at steve.lopez@latimes.com)
Saturday, March 22, 2003
2003 GEAK TV ALF CUP PLAYOFFS
Well, this sucks.
I was afraid that the stupid war would fuck up my playoffs. My fears were realized Friday night when 3, count 'em, 3 playoff contenders got preempted by war coverage.
When I tuned in to my usual Friday night comedies on CBC, instead of seeing Air Farce at 8, all I got was Peter Mansbridge. At 9, An American In Canada got zonked as well. This turn of events handed wins to South Park and Made In Canada, which also got zonked, but got a win earlier in the week via a rerun. MIC would have advanced anyway by virtue of being seeded higher than AAIC.
The only question now is, will next week's new eps of 22M and MIC get zonked by war coverage, leaving them to fall back on their weekday afternoon reruns? Or will those reruns get zonked as well? The smart money is on a Shield-South Park final, as both are running new eps, and neither should be in any danger of getting preempted. But as Chris Berman always says, "That's why they play the games."
Semifinals--March 23-29:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes vs 4-South Park
3-The Shield vs 7-Made In Canada
Quarterfinal results:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes def. 9-Monk 2-0
4-South Park def. 5-Royal Canadian Air Farce 2-0
7-Made In Canada def. 18-An American In Canada 2-0
3-The Shield def. 6-The Simpsons 2-1
Meanwhile, time to unveil a new weekly feature here on the Pond...TMs Of The Week! Each week we'll have two winners, one in the Inbox division and one in the Outbox division. This week's winners:
Inbox: After sending several TMs (with no response) to Max while he was at his job on an overnight cleaning crew, he finally answered "CANT TM NOW IM USING ACID" which was followed about 10-15 seconds later by "CANT TM NOW IM USING ACID 2 CLEAN". Yeah, I was wondering how LSD would help in cleaning. I suppose the possibilities are endless. Woohoo! Toxic super freakouts!
Outbox: I was describing a dream I had earlier this week to my pals. In the dream, ALF and I went out to brunch. We had freedom toast, freedom fries with a side order of fredom onion chip dip, and freedom dip sub sandwiches. Then we went back to my place and started freedom kissing, and then, well, this brings us to the TMOTW: "THEN I FUCKED HIM IN THE ASS WEARING A FREEDOM TICKLER". (Granted, certain readers may be disturbed that I mentioned ALF in the joke. To them I say, hey, it could have been worse. Use your imagination, campers!)
Well, this sucks.
I was afraid that the stupid war would fuck up my playoffs. My fears were realized Friday night when 3, count 'em, 3 playoff contenders got preempted by war coverage.
When I tuned in to my usual Friday night comedies on CBC, instead of seeing Air Farce at 8, all I got was Peter Mansbridge. At 9, An American In Canada got zonked as well. This turn of events handed wins to South Park and Made In Canada, which also got zonked, but got a win earlier in the week via a rerun. MIC would have advanced anyway by virtue of being seeded higher than AAIC.
The only question now is, will next week's new eps of 22M and MIC get zonked by war coverage, leaving them to fall back on their weekday afternoon reruns? Or will those reruns get zonked as well? The smart money is on a Shield-South Park final, as both are running new eps, and neither should be in any danger of getting preempted. But as Chris Berman always says, "That's why they play the games."
Semifinals--March 23-29:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes vs 4-South Park
3-The Shield vs 7-Made In Canada
Quarterfinal results:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes def. 9-Monk 2-0
4-South Park def. 5-Royal Canadian Air Farce 2-0
7-Made In Canada def. 18-An American In Canada 2-0
3-The Shield def. 6-The Simpsons 2-1
Meanwhile, time to unveil a new weekly feature here on the Pond...TMs Of The Week! Each week we'll have two winners, one in the Inbox division and one in the Outbox division. This week's winners:
Inbox: After sending several TMs (with no response) to Max while he was at his job on an overnight cleaning crew, he finally answered "CANT TM NOW IM USING ACID" which was followed about 10-15 seconds later by "CANT TM NOW IM USING ACID 2 CLEAN". Yeah, I was wondering how LSD would help in cleaning. I suppose the possibilities are endless. Woohoo! Toxic super freakouts!
Outbox: I was describing a dream I had earlier this week to my pals. In the dream, ALF and I went out to brunch. We had freedom toast, freedom fries with a side order of fredom onion chip dip, and freedom dip sub sandwiches. Then we went back to my place and started freedom kissing, and then, well, this brings us to the TMOTW: "THEN I FUCKED HIM IN THE ASS WEARING A FREEDOM TICKLER". (Granted, certain readers may be disturbed that I mentioned ALF in the joke. To them I say, hey, it could have been worse. Use your imagination, campers!)
Saturday, March 15, 2003
2003 GEAK TV ALF CUP QUARTERFINALS
It's been quality over quantity in this year's ALF Cup playoffs. The forecast calls for plenty of fresh eps.
Quarterfinals--March 16-22:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes vs 9-Monk
4-South Park vs 5-Royal Canadian Air Farce
7-Made In Canada vs 18-An American In Canada
3-The Shield vs 6-The Simpsons
Second round results:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes def. 16-Futurama 2-0
9-Monk def. 8-The Sean Cullen Show 2-0
4-South Park def. 13-Inside Cup Racing 2-1
5-Royal Canadian Air Farce def. 12-TV Land Legends The 60 Minutes Interviews 2-0
7-Made In Canada def. 10-The Osbournes 2-0
18-An American In Canada def. 2-Survivor 2-1
3-The Shield def. 19-Frasier 2-0
6-The Simpsons def. 11-The Red Green Show 1-0
It's been quality over quantity in this year's ALF Cup playoffs. The forecast calls for plenty of fresh eps.
Quarterfinals--March 16-22:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes vs 9-Monk
4-South Park vs 5-Royal Canadian Air Farce
7-Made In Canada vs 18-An American In Canada
3-The Shield vs 6-The Simpsons
Second round results:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes def. 16-Futurama 2-0
9-Monk def. 8-The Sean Cullen Show 2-0
4-South Park def. 13-Inside Cup Racing 2-1
5-Royal Canadian Air Farce def. 12-TV Land Legends The 60 Minutes Interviews 2-0
7-Made In Canada def. 10-The Osbournes 2-0
18-An American In Canada def. 2-Survivor 2-1
3-The Shield def. 19-Frasier 2-0
6-The Simpsons def. 11-The Red Green Show 1-0
DEMOTIVATORS
If you haven't seen these before, go. See them. Now.
Demotivators
Once there, just check out all the links on the right.
(Personally, I think quite a few of these would look nice on the walls over at Convergys.)
If you haven't seen these before, go. See them. Now.
Demotivators
Once there, just check out all the links on the right.
(Personally, I think quite a few of these would look nice on the walls over at Convergys.)
Sunday, March 09, 2003
2003 GEAK TV ALF CUP PLAYOFFS
The first round, as usual, was pretty uneventful, though there were two upsets. The real action begins this week, as all the top seeds begin their quest for the Cup.
Second round--March 9-15:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes vs 16-Futurama
8-The Sean Cullen Show vs 9-Monk
4-South Park vs 13-Inside Cup Racing
5-Royal Canadian Air Farce vs 12-TV Land Legends The 60 Minutes Interviews
2-Survivor vs 18-An American In Canada
7-Made In Canada vs 10-The Osbournes
3-The Shield vs 19-Frasier
6-The Simpsons vs 11-The Red Green Show
First round results:
16-Futurama def. 17-Life & Times 1-0
13-Inside Cup Racing def. 20-Freakazoid 1-0
18-An American In Canada def. 15-The Crocodile Hunter 2-0
19-Frasier def. 14-Whose Line Is It Anyway 2-0
The first round, as usual, was pretty uneventful, though there were two upsets. The real action begins this week, as all the top seeds begin their quest for the Cup.
Second round--March 9-15:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes vs 16-Futurama
8-The Sean Cullen Show vs 9-Monk
4-South Park vs 13-Inside Cup Racing
5-Royal Canadian Air Farce vs 12-TV Land Legends The 60 Minutes Interviews
2-Survivor vs 18-An American In Canada
7-Made In Canada vs 10-The Osbournes
3-The Shield vs 19-Frasier
6-The Simpsons vs 11-The Red Green Show
First round results:
16-Futurama def. 17-Life & Times 1-0
13-Inside Cup Racing def. 20-Freakazoid 1-0
18-An American In Canada def. 15-The Crocodile Hunter 2-0
19-Frasier def. 14-Whose Line Is It Anyway 2-0
Saturday, March 01, 2003
2003 GEAK TV ALF CUP PLAYOFFS
A record low turnout of just 20 shows are set to do battle on the road to this year's ALF Cup championship. Nonetheless, it promises to be an interesting tournament...
First round--March 2-8:
16-Futurama (Fox/Toon) vs 17-Life & Times (CBC)
13-Inside Cup Racing (Speed) vs 20-Freakazoid (Toon)
15-The Crocodile Hunter (AniP) vs 18-An American In Canada (CBC)
14-Whose Line Is It Anyway (ABC/Fam) vs 19-Frasier (NBC/Syn.)
Second round--March 9-15:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (CBC) vs 16/17 winner
8-The Sean Cullen Show-R (CBC) vs 9-Monk-R (ABC/USA)
4-South Park (Com) vs 13/20 winner
5-Royal Canadian Air Farce (CBC) vs 12-TV Land Legends The 60 Minutes Interviews-R (TVL)
2-Survivor (CBS) vs 15/18 winner
7-Made In Canada (CBC) vs 10-The Osbournes-R (MTV)
3-The Shield-R (FX) vs 14/19 winner
6-The Simpsons (Fox/Syn.) vs 11-The Red Green Show (CBC/PBS)
Quarterfinals--March 16-22
Semifinals--March 23-29
2003 ALF Cup Final--March 30-April 5
A record low turnout of just 20 shows are set to do battle on the road to this year's ALF Cup championship. Nonetheless, it promises to be an interesting tournament...
First round--March 2-8:
16-Futurama (Fox/Toon) vs 17-Life & Times (CBC)
13-Inside Cup Racing (Speed) vs 20-Freakazoid (Toon)
15-The Crocodile Hunter (AniP) vs 18-An American In Canada (CBC)
14-Whose Line Is It Anyway (ABC/Fam) vs 19-Frasier (NBC/Syn.)
Second round--March 9-15:
1-This Hour Has 22 Minutes (CBC) vs 16/17 winner
8-The Sean Cullen Show-R (CBC) vs 9-Monk-R (ABC/USA)
4-South Park (Com) vs 13/20 winner
5-Royal Canadian Air Farce (CBC) vs 12-TV Land Legends The 60 Minutes Interviews-R (TVL)
2-Survivor (CBS) vs 15/18 winner
7-Made In Canada (CBC) vs 10-The Osbournes-R (MTV)
3-The Shield-R (FX) vs 14/19 winner
6-The Simpsons (Fox/Syn.) vs 11-The Red Green Show (CBC/PBS)
Quarterfinals--March 16-22
Semifinals--March 23-29
2003 ALF Cup Final--March 30-April 5
Thursday, February 13, 2003
EVERY OLD IDEA IS NEW AGAIN
For those of you who haven't been visiting StickFight.net on a regular basis (and if you haven't, what the fuck is wrong with you?!), you may have missed the rebirth of an old pet concept of mine.
Perhaps some of you remember "Survival Of The Least Objectionable". Perhaps not. Perhaps because when I tried it out on you, my precious posse of pals, you reacted to it with as much enthusiasm as Marvin The Paranoid Android at an "Up With People" Super Bowl halftime extravaganza.
The concept, for those who forgot, was to take a group of people (fictional or non-) deemed rather annoying by the general public, and vote to kill off the most annoying of all, one by one, until we are left with the least objectionable of the lot.
About a week ago I gave new life to SOTLO in the Stickfight forums, and it garnered a nice voter turnout. The contestants for Season One were The Castaways (Gilligan, Skipper, etc.), and much as I expected, Mary Ann emerged the sole survivor.
And so I have now rushed headlong into the second season with The Brady Bunch as the next group of victims...er, contestants.
To vote and weigh in with your thoughts, simply follow the StickFight link on the right, and you're sure to see the latest SOTLO round listed under "Latest Forum Threads".
For those of you who haven't been visiting StickFight.net on a regular basis (and if you haven't, what the fuck is wrong with you?!), you may have missed the rebirth of an old pet concept of mine.
Perhaps some of you remember "Survival Of The Least Objectionable". Perhaps not. Perhaps because when I tried it out on you, my precious posse of pals, you reacted to it with as much enthusiasm as Marvin The Paranoid Android at an "Up With People" Super Bowl halftime extravaganza.
The concept, for those who forgot, was to take a group of people (fictional or non-) deemed rather annoying by the general public, and vote to kill off the most annoying of all, one by one, until we are left with the least objectionable of the lot.
About a week ago I gave new life to SOTLO in the Stickfight forums, and it garnered a nice voter turnout. The contestants for Season One were The Castaways (Gilligan, Skipper, etc.), and much as I expected, Mary Ann emerged the sole survivor.
And so I have now rushed headlong into the second season with The Brady Bunch as the next group of victims...er, contestants.
To vote and weigh in with your thoughts, simply follow the StickFight link on the right, and you're sure to see the latest SOTLO round listed under "Latest Forum Threads".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)