Slashdot Mirror
30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging
Cutie Pi writes "In a recent Rasmussen poll looking at the public's attitudes toward a possible revival of the fairness doctrine by the Democrats, a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates (originally intended for public airwaves) to cover the Internet as well. It is encouraging that a minority of people feel that way, but Democrats say 'hands-off the Internet ... by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.'"
If /. were fair and balanced would each posting as an AC be treated as +1 subscriber?????
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Aren't complete blithering idiots.
Hey, I'm just being "balanced"... if we're talking about 30% we have to talk about the other 70% too in order to be fair, right?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Editorials are opinion, not legitimate reporting of facts.
31% of Americans have no idea how the Internet works.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Because with only three blogs in the blog-o-sphere, the millions of Americans these blogs serve really deserve government-mandated balance.
Oh, what's that, there's more than three? How many, then? Five?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Conservative politicians want a smaller government. The previous Republican majority was not conservative.
Balanced is not equal to fair.
"Balanced" in this case means that only the democratic party and the republican party will have their voices heard.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
...that there's no way something this asinine could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. Especially since political speech is exactly the epicenter of that amendment. I would say that, but I also witnessed all three branches of the federal government fail us spectacularly on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
Holocaust denial? Must both sides be given a equal voice by mandate? How about flat-earth theory? Or moon hoax hypothesis? Or is this where the government suddenly decides what is "mainstream" and what is kooky. If they decide that, where will the boundary be for other, much more legitimate ideas that Government may not like. Will it be that they suddenly decide what the bounds of fair discourse is by controlling the parameters?
Why is it that so many people think that the government, a large force with its own agenda, will do a much better job than many individuals not geared around a singular goal/entity? The Patriot Act was not patriotic, and the Fairness doctrine will not be fair.
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
Don't worry, so are they! How I long for the days when the Repulicans were for a government that took less of your money, and the Democrats were for a government that took less of your freedoms. Now both are pro-censorship, and both are for more government spending, and both are for more government power to combat scary things.
How would a "balanced internet" work in the first place? Can you not find a blog aready to cater to any political belief no matter how bizzare? Now I'm the one confused.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This is why education is a prerequisite for democracy. Or at least for democracy to work.
Crap like this combined with the evidence from the republicans that people have finally realized they can vote themselves infinite money either has to end now (hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea, just like a credit card! What could possibly go wrong!), or things are going to get really bad really quick.
It's a horrible, horrible idea and would certainly end up being racist as well, but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted. Like, requiring that you have a history of not failing personal economics in order to have any influence on national economics? Or basic understanding of science to be able to influence science policy? Maybe it's not possible to do this, but you have to wonder if anything else can work in the long run.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
That same 30% then asked...
wtf is a blog?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Given the multi-national congregation that is the net, I can't really see how this could be enforced anyhow. It could be easily circumvented by simply hosting your blog in Britain, or Congo, or anywhere else in the world without this rule. There's no law saying you can't blog about American politcs from abroad (and many people already do).
So are us Republicans. We vote for these guys, and then they act like Democrats.
Then we go vote for a staunch small government man like Ron Paul and find our votes (at least in New Hampshire) did not get recorded for whatever reason.
.. is not conducive to social evolution.
... in my opinion - which I would surely demand the continuing freedom to express.
We need new ideas, new ways of thinking about issues, each other, and ourselves in order to evolve as a society and as a species.
Now, for any organization that claims to be journalistic in nature *of course* balance is essential. That includes online news sites, which should not be trying to swaying opinion but rather about conveying facts in the most objective way possible in order to keep the public informed.
But bloggers are not news agencies. They are simply a measure of the attitudes and opinions of people at large, so I can think of no good reason to impose some kind of balance on that. Doing so would only stifle our evolution toward a better humanity.
Imposing balance on a blogger online is no different than imposing balance on someone standing on a soap box at the street corner. It's optional, not required.
At least that's the way I see it.
*steps off soap box*
I don't mean typical of Democrats or Republicans either. Typical of people that want to tell you what you think, act, feel, and say through government policy. The Fairness Doctrine was essentially bullshit from the beginning. Regardless of what the proponents of the Fairness Doctrine were trying to accomplish a half century ago, it cannot apply to the Internet.
This policy was originally meant to control content on the PUBLIC airwaves. It required broadcasters to act as "mediators" and notify all parties when an "attack" was made and offer equal time for a response. It was 100% political.
The Internet is not owned by the public. It is a privately owned infrastructure, that interestingly enough, has only a portion of it residing in the US. Any arguments that are based on the fundamental premise of a public owned medium to communicate fall flat.
"Blogging" is an incredibly vague term. It can represent entities from the average citizen with something to say, to corporate sponsored journalists. Some entities could own their own domain and pay for hosting services, while others could merely obtain free hosting through other companies. It is not possible to make the owners of the websites police all of their own content, track down any affected parties, and then donate web space and bandwidth for an opposing view. Attempting to create an infrastructure of control over the medium is laughable at best.
Government controlling content on the Internet is a slippery slope to be sure and is not even practical. In every instance the US government has attempted to exert control, the offending content has merely moved outside of the US.
This is about politically motivated people that want to control speech offensive to them and their position. Hiding their true motivations in an idealogical appeal for fair representation of all viewpoints is just covering the desire for censorship.
If there is an honest desire for fairness here, it should not be accomplished through controlling content on the Internet, but rather by the creation of public resources on the Internet. The government can have it's own resources and policies that govern those resources. Let all the political people go there and demand their 15 minutes each to slam each other.
Go by the term Classical Liberal then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Those want a limited government (which itself is a more correct term, a smaller government is the natural effect byproduct of a limited government but a smaller government isn't always more limited - i.e. outsourcing everything)
"Conservative" means nothing anymore, it's been so diluted. The biggest "conservatives" are nothing more but against taxes (passing staggering debt onto future generations while still paying for massive entitlements/porkbarrel is not more conservative than tax and spend), embrace war against drugs/crime/poverty/nations (war is the health of the state, thus anti-conservative) and lastly, wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
Plus the term liberal drives many of the unreasonable ones on edge. People like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh types that want to pidgeonhole everyone in their arguments.
I agree with you on everything but the smoking issue. Your right to smoke does not over rule my right to not breath in your smoke. And before you say "then you can leave", no, that's not the way the world works. I don't have to quit my job because you want to smoke.
If I remember right the fairness doctrine was the law from 1949 until sometime into Reagan's second term. Its repeal lead to the rise of talk radio and helped cable news. Probably indirectly led to the lack of regulation by the FCC of the internet.
Or perhaps the word I am looking for is "hypocritical".
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
a) Less than 1/3 of all Americans support the censorship of political blogs.
b) 70% of Americans do not support regulation of political blogging.
Same data, different spin.
I think that it basically boils down to, the Republicans don't care about you because you don't have enough money and the Democrats don't care about you because you don't have enough money. The Libertarians care about you, but they have such a minority you will probably not see a Libetarian president in your lifetime.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Why are so many supposedly liberal-minded people so ... illiberal? Is it because they think a fairness doctrine would only be used against Republicans?
It's like they want to attack their enemies by removing the oxygen out of the air, without considering how they themselves will breath.
A pox on all their houses! Any idiot that thinks either the Democrats or Republicans is going improve their way of life is deluded. Anything run by a commitee is sure to F up just about anything they set out to do. Government is a big commitee. I tend to be more Libertarian and just want to be left alone by all those busy bodies. Let them start to control speech on the Internet and were all doomed. Heck, we're probably doomed already. Yes we need them to regulate road traffic and national defense. But don't give them anymore power. Ugh!
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
What exactly was small about massive defense spending, and trying to legislate morality?
You might want to read up on a concept we've got called Private Property. Bans on smoking in buildings owned by government? Fine by me. But dictating to an owner of private property that emitting certain types of smoke is illegal goes against the concept of autonomy and ownership. And don't even try the "But employees have a right to a smoke-free workplace!" line. It's simply not a justification for using the coercive power of the state. Should cops have a right to not worry about being shot? Should garbage collectors not have to deal with stinky decaying waste all day? If you choose to work in a bar, or a restaurant that allows smoking, then you are knowingly assuming some level of risk.
The previous Republican majority was not conservative.
If by "previous" you mean "previous several, and current, and probably the next several". And to avoid coming off as simple flamebait, I know that just because all republican politicians are for expanding government control, that doesn't mean all republican voters are. Just like all democratic politicians are pussies, but not all democratic voters are.
Though really, if you're identifying yourself as either, you're voluntarily lumping yourself in with one crowd or the other, so don't get angry when assumptions are made. It's your own damned fault in that case.
What rubbish. I'd imagine that most Democrats are socialists who look towards the Nordic welfare states.
All laws legislate morality. If you don't want government to legislate morality, there shouldn't be laws against murder, theft, rape or child molestation.
Republicans are fascists who want a few large corporations to take power, so they can claim people have freedom (even though they don't, because they're being oppressed by the corporations).
The difference is that government power has the force of law, and you cannot escape. With "corporate power", it's entirely voluntary to be under it. And if you don't like it, you can always start your own entity. Example: The Democrats decide to ban "hate" music because it hurts people's feelings. You can go to jail and there is no escape. On the other hand, don't like the policies of the oh-so-corporate RIAA? Listen to independent music. Or create your music.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If the United States didn't have jigsaw puzzle elections, more moderate voices would gain prominence and the extremists would be pushed to the outskirts.
(I presume you're talking either about the Electoral College system or something else related to election by states rather than general popular vote.)
If the US didn't have "jigsaw puzzle elections" a corrupt political machine in a major urban area would be able to swing enough bogus votes to control the national government.
The election of the congress critters by district, senators by state, and president by state electors is one of the firewalls against tyranny.
(It's also part of the deal by which states with small populations were persuaded to federate with more crowded ones, which could totally swamp their interests if federal elections were by polling the whole mass rather than the jigsaw pieces. Change that and you might see another secessionist movement.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I call "no true scotsman" fallacy.
The previous Republican majority called itself conservative. They were lauded by media folks who called themselves conservative.
There were no voices saying that the previous Republican majority wasn't conservative until after the government failed miserably at everything it tried to do.
Editorials are opinion, not legitimate reporting of facts.
So? Opinion isn't exempt in the Fairness Doctrine. In fact most of the application of the doctrine on the airwaves has traditionally been against editorial content. The argument goes that there's only so much broadcast bandwidth out there, and so since the government licenses the airwaves, they have a responsibility to see that all viewpoints get a fair shot.
Never mind that with the huge selection of opinion avenues... radio, TV, satellite, print, the Internet... the idea of bandwidth scarcity is essentially obsolete, especially for the Internet. But that hasn't stopped the doctrine's backers from trying to bring it back from the dead anyway, and worse, they want to apply it to non-broadcast media.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies, or at least quiet them down some. The doctrine is nothing but government nannyism, and its death was too long in coming. For those of you that are so eager to bring it back, think long and hard about that. Sooner or later, someone you don't like is going to get elected, and use it against you.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Yep, the part about massive defense spending is part of my point. But that's actually a Democratic thing. Remember, LBJ (who kept us in Vietnam) was a Democrat. Republicans have been anti-defense spending until recent decades.
The only reason that the fairness doctrine was needed was because media outlets were owned by a few rich and powerful people. Opposing points of view couldn't get to the public otherwise.
Literally anyone can start their own blog for free and talk about anything they want. If a blogger is saying something that you disagree with, there is no need to force him to display your opinions on his blog. Just start your own.
Technoli
...that there's no way something this asinine could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. Especially since political speech is exactly the epicenter of that amendment. I would say that, but I also witnessed all three branches of the federal government fail us spectacularly on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
All it takes is enough sympathetic judges, and viola, it's Constitutional... even if it isn't Constitutional.
One thing both political sides seem to increasingly agree on these days is that the judicial branch may be the weak link in the design of our Constitutional guarantee of rights. If a judge says so, it's so, even the the Constitution directly contridicts it. All you need is a majority of SCOTUS opinions, and what's done is done. Once SCOTUS rules, unlike a Congressional Bill or an Executive Order, there's no way to appeal it. It's done. Final. You'd have to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to change that ruling, and if the issue came back before SCOTUS, they could simply void the meaning and spirt of the amendment with a stroke of their pens.
Increasingly, the written opinions of the Supreme Court is our real constitution, not the 200+ year old document itself.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Corporate power is backed by the government; that's why it's insidious. Without a government granting a corporate charter, and making laws favorable to large corporations (over small ones), they wouldn't have the power they do. So their backers can claim, falsely, that you have a choice. Yeah right.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly. The government has granted them a monopoly, though they're regulated. In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly. Even if the government hasn't explicitly given power to large corporations, the fact that they're large gives them enormous power over any would-be competitors. It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under. Large companies have an inertia effect that insulates them from the negative effects of bad decisions. Just like at Microsoft: their products are shoddy crap, yet they have the industry tied up due to their size, business connections, software compatibility issues, etc. If some small company had made a disastrous product like Vista, it would have gone bankrupt. But for MS, it's no big problem. How would another company compete against a behemoth of that size? Open-source is only doing it because it's completely changing the playing field, and we all had to suffer with MS's crap for many years before distros like Ubuntu came out providing a viable alternative.
True, it's easier to compete against an evil corporation than an evil government, but it's not that much easier. At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
The Libertarians care about you...
A Libertarian cares about him/her/itself. Libertarians aren't going to be upset when something wrong is happening to me, they are going to upset because that wrong thing might happen to them.
Morality is just the frozen ethics of a long-dead half-savage civilization. Ethics is alive.
Blar.
I don't think many democrats are even that far left, unfortunately.
So Catholic priests are Democrats who say they are Republicans?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Ironically, those states consistently rank higher than the US in "quality of life" and in fact, are starting to rank higher than the US in "per capita income" as well as economic stability indicators, among other things.
Doh!
"Conservative" means nothing anymore ... . ... "conservatives" are nothing more but against taxes ... embrace war against drugs/crime/poverty/nations ... and lastly, wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
Not to (borrowing your term) pidgeonhole anyone or anything...
wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
You know, that's how I feel whenever I see people with bumper stickers slathered all over their cars (who are, imho, 99% of the time liberal). Why is it so important that other people know that you're a vegan, are pro-abortion, etc, or, my personal favorite, are mad that the US was "One pretzel away from getting rid of Bush." ~shrug~
The Libertarians care about you, but they have such a minority you will probably not see a Libetarian president in your lifetime.
No, they don't care about you or anyone else; they care about abstract principles.
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
At least, that's the honest Libertarian response. Depending on who you're talking to, you might hear something else instead, like "That's impossible, the market always provides for everyone! You must not be looking hard enough!" or "Surely there are plenty of charities that can help you out!"
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
As a citizen of one of said Nordic welfare states, I think most of us (including those who agree with their ideologies) consider both your major parties to be right-wing.
Accusing the Democratic party of being communist is like accusing Hugo Chavez of being a libertarian anarchist.
So you would have to have a side to balance out the other, okay.
So we have the Conservative and Liberals, ok, that is two sides, But what about the Libertarians?
OK, so who counters the Libertarians? The Socialists, what about the Anarchists, you counter those with the Nationalists?
Who gets to decide who needs to be countered and who is "neutral", what counters neutral?
Does the FCC get to decide who is Conservative and who is Liberal? Do we really want the government to control who can be a spokesperson for different groups?
Right now you have a bunch of pissed off Liberals who are pissed they can't get get entertaining hosts to spout their propaganda. The Conservatives are just happy to have some sorta outlet for their propaganda ie. non-public talk radio, web sites, etc... They don't want to give up what they have gained on the internet or on the airwaves.
As a Capitalist Libertarian I kinda agree with the former group. If conservative talk radio didn't have an audience, then why are advertisers paying good cold hard cash for time advertising on Rush'a, Hannity's and Savage's shows?
If there was a large audience for Liberal talk radio then Air America would have succeeded, but it didn't. Maybe that is because they already had Liberal radio in the form of NPR and the NPR listeners didn't want to tune out the public radio stations for the commercial Air America, then it failed.
Be is commercial or public, I don't want some stuffed shirt government bureaucrat telling me who to listen to.
Sure they can enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" but what is going to happen. Take the following scenario.
K-FCC Radio Schedule
12-3pm Rush Limbaugh
3-6pm Rhandi Rhodes
Will the core audience of Rush Limbaugh listeners listen to Rhandi Rhodes, no they won't they will just tune to another station that has a conservative host after his show is over.
To "Enforce" the "spirit" of the fairness Doctrine and make sure both get equal time will the FCC have to find a way to force the Rush Limbaugh listeners to listen to Rhandi Rhodes for the same amount of time.
Ok, so you have taken away people's rights to choose, nice to enforce "spirit of fairness' you have become totalitarian.
Same goes for the Internet. So if I post a blog saying I have Conservatives do i then have to have a section on the same page where I have to have someone post that they hate Liberals?
Where does it end? Could "clink and clack" on NPR say they don't like a certain car have to have someone one that then praises the same car they derided?
Can I make the easy jazz station play hard rock because I hate easy jazz? That is kinda what the FCC would be doing here. If they pass this I am calling all of those oldie station and demand they play new age techno, because I am too fucking lazy to turn the goddamned knob on the radio.
The people who want the "Fairness Doctrine" need to realize that it is against the the whole idea of freedom of speech.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Sheesh, any time the concept of business is defended, I must be a "Randian". Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Libertarians (and "Objectivists"_ are simplistic and deluded.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly.
First of all, electric power is a *government* monopoly. Second of all, I can generate my own power anytime I want. Ever heard of private generators? Solar? The reason power is a monopoly is because of the wiring issue.
In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly.
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it. In any case, the whole point of patents is to protect the individual inventor. Don't like corporations dominating an industry? Try a world without patents.
It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under.
Exactly! You understand, yet don't like patents? That's just bizarre. Anytime a small inventor invents something, the big companies would simply out-manufacture them instantly and put them out of business.
How would another company compete against a behemoth[Microsoft] of that size?
Incredibly easily, actually. The problem is that no one has had the balls to produce a redesigned, absolutely, positively, 100%-compatible Windows clone. And don't give me the old wrong answer about "Microsoft will just change Windows to make it incompatible." That's always been crap. Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products, and you can also keep an antitrust war chest to sue Microsoft if they tried to make Office incompatible.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
The "people" is not just you, it's also everyone else. Even if the government listened to "the people", that doesn't mean you agree with whatever the whims of "the people" happen to be. With a corporate world you don't need to beg politicians to do whatever you want. And also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
At the start of Vietnam both parties had hawk and dove factions. Nixon was originally elected on his claim to have a secret plan to end the war!
During the LBJ administration the Hawk faction in the Democrats lost influence and they were routed almost entirely during Nixon. But there is an additional layer of complexity there as Nixon's big idea was detente with Russia and re-opening relations with China.
The big change came during the Carter administration with the invasion of Afghanistan. Both parties turned considerably more hawkish. Carter began the weapons build-up but as a tactical reaction to the Soviets. For Reagan the increase in military spending was strategic and ideological.
During the Bush administration the foreign policy has been directed by the neo-imperialist wing of the Republican party. They like wars, the more the better. Their war in Iraq has been a fiasco, which is why they want a new one in Iran, or Georgia.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
With sufficiently predatory lending practices and things of that nature, it becomes far less than "voluntary" too.
Good example! "Predatory"? Who held a gun to the head of these idiots who got loans they couldn't afford? As I said, being exploited by a corporation is entirely *voluntary*.
On the other hand, try opting out of various laws that you don't like. I'm sure I don't need to make a list of various laws that are stupid, yet you have no choice to suffer them.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
States need to start handing out their electoral votes based on results from the individual representative districts, with the statewide winner getting both 'senate' votes. The "winner takes all" rule is so bizarre, and causes certain states (those with a moderate to high amount of electoral votes and razor-thin state-wide margins) to become more important than other states. I live in California, and Republican presidential candidates don't even bother coming here, and Democratic candidates use us as an ATM machine. They both know that all 55 electoral votes are going Democratic. Those people voting Republican in northern districts aren't being represented in the electoral college vote.
Of course, the second people started talking about using this district-based system, the Democrats started whining, because they knew this would cost them around 20-25 electoral votes that they currently don't have to work for.
I wonder what would happen if a state decided to secede without military force. If South Carolina seceded again, but instead of putting up a military, they just stopped paying the feds and accepting help and whatever else they'd have to do, then when the US military came in to stop them, they all just sat down and let the military walk by. If the military were to start shooting people who weren't defending themselves, I'm pretty sure that would be a disaster of epic proportions. In that situation, what could the US do to stop a seceding state? I would guess nothing. Maybe they could try to start a rebellion in the state to get the locals wanting to rejoin the rest, but that's about all.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying the above is a good idea, just wondering.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
Whereas a democrat would say, "Stab Bill Gates, take his money and live in his house instead." Republicans would just slaughter your children and bathe in their blood because they are pure evil.
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others. Virtue shouldn't be forced. Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart. Almost everyone has friends that can help them out or family that can give them a place to stay. A typical response would be that you can't live off of wal mart's pay, to which I reply that you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
And rightfully so. There have been recent attempts here in California to make our electoral votes be distributed proportionally instead of all or nothing. Naturally this was proposed by the Republicans since they would then get 20 or 25 electoral votes they currently have no chance at. Obviously this would unfairly handicap the Democrats since they would still get 0% of the electoral votes from big Republican states like Texas.
On the other hand, I support the national popular vote system where states agree to continue with the current system until states with more than half of the electoral votes are signed on. This is the only fair way to implement a proportional system, and no surprise the Democrats in California's legislature sponsored the bill which has been passed by both houses. All we need is for Schwarzenegger to sign it.
BTW, it certainly is funny that people are for the electoral system saying without it small states would be ignored. I don't follow how small states being ignored is worse then our current system where big states like Californa, NY, and Texas get ignored. Isn't more people being ignored worse then less people being ignored? Small states shouldn't be ignored, but the attention they get should be proportional to their population.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
When tax money funds my server and connection, I'll let people who disagree with me guest-post in my Slashdot trolling.
Until then, fuck those guys.
The Fairness Doctrine cannot be applied to Internet blogs because it violates the basic tests that the Supreme Court has come up with for regulating speech:
* TV and radio can be regulated because they are "pervasive" (the signal comes into your house whether you want it or not) and "scarce" (there is only so much useful spectrum in any given area, so only so many voices can be heard.) Internet blogs are not pervasive (you have to seek them out) and they certainly aren't scarce (anyone who wants to can build a blog using free tools.)
* Commercial speech can be regulated. Not applicable here.
* Dangerous/inciting/traitorous speech ("fire in a crowded theater", "clear and present danger") can be regulated. Not applicable here.
* Obscenity. Not applicable here.
Note that, unlike the Internet taxation issue, this is a basic Constitutional problem. Unless one of the rules above is violated, the Supreme Court will knock down any attempt to regulate speech on the Internet. So I don't think this much matters. Even if this were a majority of people rather than just 30%, they're not going to get any kind of law passed to regulate Internet blog speech.
Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s.
Republicans haven't wanted smaller government since at least Nixon. Heck even Republican President Eisenhower, who talked about the Military-industrial Complex, made government bigger. Before him, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt expanded government.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Congratulations on winning a debate that we weren't even having. Who talked about the feds "withdrawing"? Of course government is necessary to step in and maintain law and order, and other protections of civil rights. That doesn't mean that I don't prefer, all things being equal, to voluntarily dealing with a corporation than involuntarily dealing with the government.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?
It is absolutely more fair than the alternative. Let's say you're the CEO of Ford, and someone has an accident and dies in one of your cars. Should the CEO be brought up on charges of Involuntary Manslaughter? On every single accident? Basically, every company CEO would be *personally* responsible for everything that ever happened in the company, whether they personally designed anything or not. Does that seem fair? You might be thinking, "Good! Then they'll be extra careful!" Except that it's literally impossible for anyone to be perfectly in charge of everything.
So make those directly in charge responsible? So, basically, you're saying that any engineer that works on a car is at risk of going to jail for any defect? Or any programmer that works on medical equipment? How would do it?
In the world you want, nothing risky would ever get created. Certainly no one is going to try creating a new drug -- you'd have to be insane, if the risk was murder charges. And look at the false charges from the silicone breast implants -- that was totally fraudulent. In your world, the designers and/or CEO all would've gone to jail.
There is a reason corporations exist. It's because society couldn't function without them.
In the free market, a *true* free market, there are no special protections awarded to people.
In a "true" free market, society falls apart.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Ah! I understand, now. On my left, I find... bullshit. On my right, I find... more bullshit! Is it any wonder I don't vote? My choices are between bullshit and bullshit. Well, shit!
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Much as we see "neoconservatives" people who despite touting the conservative label are all about big government, there seems to be "neoliberals". Basically their idea is "You have the freedom of speech to say something that I agree with." If you say things they don't like, they want to silence you. The funny thing is they'll do this while claiming to be supporting free speech. See the problem is you are "bigoted" or "close minded" and thus what you want to say shouldn't be said.
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812. I seriously doubt that it'd work out, and right now we can't do it anyway. But at least it would be the right thing to do.
Then again, I also don't care of those "break away" provinces break away -- let them for all I care. I also support Chechnya, the Basques and a slew of other things. Freedom good, Empire dickish.
Well, the President appoints those judges. And I think that Congress can impeach Supreme Court judges (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), although it's rarely if ever done.
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others.
Heh. You do realize that you've simply restated my point, right? Sure, you used gentler words to do it, but that "real philosophy" boils down to exactly what I said earlier.
"Nobody should be forced to ... give up their money to help others" implies that when no one wants to help you out of the kindness of their hearts (as is often the case), you're just screwed.
Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart.
Many, many people who have jobs still don't make enough to really support themselves and their families. They're one illness or injury away from bankruptcy and destitution.
Your response to that is "you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more." In other words, it's just what I said: "make do with the smaller paycheck" is another way to say "sucks to be you", and getting those extra skills is often impossible when you still need to work full-time to support your family.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
But obviously they can't help everyone themselves, so what happens next?
Libertarians would have us believe that when charity fails, it's better to let those unfortunate people starve than to require the richest among us to give up a tiny fraction of their wealth to help them. They believe that their "freedom of choice" (i.e. the freedom not to pay taxes) is more important than whether or not someone else can put food on the table or send his kids to school.
That's one reason why they don't win elections: because most people just don't share those priorities.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
(who are, imho, 99% of the time liberal)
Back it up. If you give statistics, I want references. If you wish to avoid scrutiny, use the weak vague language made for such bullshitting occasions.
"..you're a vegan, are pro-abortion, etc.."
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who are "pro-abortion." Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter is a far cry from jumping for joy each time a poor girl in a terrible situation walks into a clinic.
What this means in practice is that you have freedom of speech, as long as you agree with whoever is currently in power. (Both parties agree that it's only fair when it agrees with their current platforms.)
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
No, government can be shaped by the people to reflect their needs and values, corporations cannot.
Which has a more direct effect:
A single vote among two candidates that represent a broad spectrum of issues (some I agree with, some I don't)... OR
Choosing DSL because my Cable Internet is too expensive, AND choosing the iPhone because I like the browser better instead of Nokia, AND driving a Honda instead of an American car brand because of better quality, AND going to the gas station across the street from the other one because it's 10 cents cheaper, AND... a thousand other daily decisions that DIRECTLY influence the behavior of various corporations because of the power of my money spending decisions.
Why people feel this powerlessness with the eeeevil corporations is beyond me. You have ultimate power, because you have what they desperately want: money.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I hope you don't think the Democrats are anything like fair and balanced, either. They're actually rather unbalanced.
Hate the middle class? Hmmm. Who wants to raise taxes on the middle class? Obama. Pelosi. People like that. Democrats.
Red Bushies? The Democrats are way more Red than the Republicans. I'm not saying the Republicans aren't Red, but c'mon.
Not that I support Bush. I'm sick of him. I'm also sick of the fact that yet again, the only two candidates with a chance of winning leave me with a choice of picking the one who sucks less (that would be McCain, for anyone confused on that issue).
Circling back to fair and balanced, I don't much care if a given paper, radio station, TV network, whatever, is fair and/or balanced. What I do care about is that so many of them (including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, etc.) *pretend* to be fair and balanced (with Fox explicitly calling itself that) while being nothing of the kind. Agendas are fine. It's hidden agendas that bug me, and I'd like to see all the media declare their allegiances openly. If they do so, fairness and balance will take care of themselves.
There is nothing humble about my opinion. Humble opinions are crap. Of course, there's nothing humble about yours, either. You just lied and said there was.
Why should they be forced to? Someone who makes the right choices in life (get an education, not get pregnant at 15, etc...) and becomes successful should now be forced to support those who made the poor choices? One of the reasons we're in this credit/housing mess right now is that we aren't letting people take the punishment for their poor choices. It's easy to take extreme risks when you think the government will always come to bail you out. Keep in mind I'm pointing at everyone from the greedy hedge fund guys on wall street to the hair dresser who buys an overpriced house 'because real estate goes up 20%/year.'
The richest among us give tons to charity and to taxes. The richest among us also spend A LOT of money (which actually provides...JOBS). As far as the sob story for the poor..save it. There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor. People are simple creatures and will tend to gravitate towards what's the most beneficial to them. When you give more money for putting out more kids, give them subsidized housing, free food, and other freebies you're not teaching them to get a job.
It's sad that we've basically turned into a 'take care of me' society. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. It's always someone else's fault. If people took more responsibility for themselves and not worry so much about everyone else the entire country would be a better place.
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812.
I don't know about Georgia being a legitimate war for the US, unless you mean someone invades Atlanta and we defend it.
Unless some massive political manipulation went on behind the scenes, it seems like the Georgians attacked their "breakaway region" of South Ossetia, because Ossetia is pro-Moscow. They killed a fair number of people, though according to South Ossetian doctors interviewed today on NPR, the Russian claim of thousands of dead South Ossetian civilians isn't true at all, the reality being hundreds of mostly wounded Ossetian militia and Russian peacekeepers.
Georgia's action was pretty bad. They started this conflict, and I can't imagine they didn't expect Russia to react. Why did they do it? Did Russian spies instigate it to give Russia an excuse? I doubt it. I'm also guessing Americans didn't prompt it, or at least didn't want the Georgians to do anything at that time, since America seems to have been caught off guard. Of course, that could be an act, but I digress.
Then Russia overreacts, or crosses the line, or whatever you want to call it, and not only do they go occupy the pro-Moscow region, but they verifiably do kill a lot of civilians. Then they agree to a cease fire demanding that they withdraw to Ossetia and immediately follow up by deploying throughout Georgia, and they bring along Ossetians who are drunk with power and alcohol as they follow behind the Russian military forces burning towns, killing people, and generally showing themselves to be sick assholes. Until then I'd say the Ossetians had whatever moral high ground could be had in this situation, since they started it all off by being attacked by surprise, but you don't win a lot of sympathy by massacring your neighbors.
Now America has the choice of fighting in Georgia. It won't do it because it knows it would be terrible for the economy and probably require pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention possibly prompting World War III. But even if there were no repercussions outside of Georgia, I disagree with you about this being a "legitimate" war for America. Georgia is an American ally and America has been rather public in urging Georgia to do things to spite Russia. Then Georgia attacked part of its own territory filled with people who want to be part of Russia, who are ethnically linked to the Ossetians across the border in Russia, and they did so probably because they thought they could pull a fast one while Russia was looking elsewhere. Russia certainly earns a ton of evil points, maybe as many as the U.S. did in invading Iraq, for its response. Then Russia earns a lot more evil points for their occupation. Yeah, America has been in Iraq for a lot of years now, which is very bad, but its managed to mostly, not entirely, but mostly be focused on rebuilding and improving local security. Also, despite a lot of expectations around the country and the world, America hasn't stolen Iraqi oil. Most economic trickery pulled off by the Bush administration in Iraq has been stealing money from American taxpayers and giving it to the companies run by or formerly run by Bush's cabinet and friends, while Iraq has been raking in oil money. I'm surprised that Bush has managed to resist the proverbial cookie jar that's right there protected by his own military.
So America has evil points for Iraq, Russia has, let's say, a comparable amount of evil accumulated in a very short period in Georgia, and they got those points by escalating a conflict with a vastly asymmetric response. Any American involvement in a Georgian war would necessarily be a further unjustifiable escalation, and I don't think America can handle being any more evil right now.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
What exactly was small about massive defense spending, and trying to legislate morality?
Supposedly not raising our taxes to do it.
You clearly know nothing of the history of the Vietnam War. During the Eisenhower administration, there were a handful of CIA propagandists serving the Diem regime, that's it. Kennedy, who basically bought into the Cold War policy of Eisenhower, drew the line against Communism in Vietnam since the Bay of Pigs was a colossal failure, as was the Berlin Wall and Cuba. In 1960, Kennedy sent the first 1500 troops into Vietnam, and it is accepted by most historians that the US involvement in actual combat was from 1963-1975. If you think the '54 election Diem canceled (not Eisenhower) resembled democracy, you are a living a fantasy. Ho Chi Mihn had a peasant revolt on his hands, and was becoming increasingly unpopular. You wanted to slime Republicans but just made yourself look ignorant instead. Use facts next time. Oh, and here's another fact: it was a Republican president who finally withdrew all American troops from Vietnam.
Sigs cause cancer.
I don't disagree with you at all. Using your car to proclaim your political beliefs doesn't know any partisan boundaries.
HOWEVER, I've actually kept track at times, and I think my estimate of 99% liberal is not that off (at least in some of the places I've lined in the past 5 years--Chicago (duh), VA/DC (duh), North Carolina (not exactly "blue state")). Not at all arguing that nobody conservative puts on bumperstickers (my favorite example "Hippie Peace -- More dangerous that nuclear war") but that they do so in much, much smaller number than liberals. Furthermore I can't remember the last time I saw a car with:
a) multiple conservative bumper stickers (there's one with multiple liberal bumper stickers parked across te street from me right now!)
b) anti-liberal politican bumper sticker (on the contrary, I see many that specifically target bush, or cheney, etc)
Also, I've noticed, purely anecdotal imho, but anybody with multiple bumper stickers (even if they're non-partisan stickers) seems much more likely to be a bad driver :-P
You know have noticed the internet acronym "IMHO" in my post. Not exactly a common internet acronym i guess, though you see it fairly often on slashdot etc. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imho (in short, in my humble opinion). Emphasis on the opinion. I'd be fascinated by any statistics, but I don't have any. I'll google around a little bit, but it's hard to track this kind of thing.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine works for the Democratic Party in NC, and a number of years ago they briefly stopped selling bumper stickers, only to face a lot of popular discontent from people who were big fans of the bumper stickers (and reversed their decision). ~shrug~
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who are "pro-abortion." Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter is a far cry from jumping for joy each time a poor girl in a terrible situation walks into a clinic.
That's true to a degree, but ultimately, whether you consider yourself "pro-choice," "pro-life," whatever, you're arguing over one action--aborting a fetus. And those on one side want that to be legal, and the other want it to be illegal. The rest is just semantics.
"Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter" seems to me a bit disingenuous. I don't see many (and I'll bow to your preferences and use the term "pro-choice") pro-choice people arguing against the government's vital role in funding Planned Parenthood for instance. If you're really taking a libertarian view, one should probably argue against planned parenthood's dependent relationship. Not trying to put words in your mouth here, maybe you're consistent in your position, but most people I've met haven't made that argument.
The Dems were never very organized to start with. Will Rogers has a quote about that.
The problem is that, while quite a lot of Dems and a Repubs are really in their party for a single issue, the Republicans' single issues conflict with each other, and the Democrats' do not. You can't be a theocrat and a libertarian at the same time, or in favor of small government and unending war, or anti-immigration and pro-big-business...
And those are just examples where the wheels have recently come off. There are actually a few more that should hit soon. For example, the small government people and the unending war people have a near trifecta incompatibility with the right-wing environmentalists, who are rapidly showing up from the religious right (Apparently, some of them have noticed humans are supposed to be the stewards of the earth.) All three of them disagree with the other two.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Bad things happen to good people. People pick themselves up with the resources they have and get moving again. At this point I have enough friends that I could find a job if needed and could help them if needed. None of us are 'rich.' I'm not sure why I should expect the government to help me if something bad happens to me, even if it was out of my control.
I've been there. Growing up we qualified for food stamps and the like, but my parents refused to take them. Instead my dad worked his full time job and then had endless side jobs selling anything he could (firewood in the winter, oysters in season, shrimp, etc...). I often had to help in order to get all the work done. We didn't have central heat or air. It sucks big time waking up and filling a kerosene heater in the freezing cold, but I've done that too. All all this was before I was 14. My parents taught me 3 things growing up. Work hard, get an education, and don't get a girl pregnant (my mom was pretty creative at this lol). So don't tell me I don't know poor or know how to get out of it.
At some point you have to get off your ass and do it yourself. I've written software for call centers. Basically entry level places for people who only went to HS. What's funny is that there is a lot of advancement opportunity and the ability to make good money, but that requires people to actually show up. Once there they can't start fights with one another over 'my babys daddy is her babys daddy.' As a society how do we fix that? It's definitely not a money issue.
I would argue if people don't like being poor they would be more proactive about getting out of it. The first thing they could do is stop popping out kids they can't afford.
There were no voices saying that the previous Republican majority wasn't conservative until after the government failed miserably at everything it tried to do.
That, honestly, is the real difference between the parties. The Republicans are always 'conservative' until they inevitably fail, at which point they've never been conservative.
That's worse than the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. That fallacy, for those who don't know, is when you say 'No true X has the characteristics of Y', and then, when someone finds an X that does indeed have Y, you assert that this X isn't really an X...it's an exception, or a bad example for some reason, and shouldn't be considered an X.
But, with 'conservatives', it's like we've started that fallacy and have managed to eliminate half the population of Scotland, and not found a single one yet. It's like the claim here is 'no true Scotsman is from Scotland' or something, and we've had to discard Every. Single. Scotman we've run across.
The one that hasn't been kicked out of the party, Ronald Reagan, is still a 'conservative' because he didn't fail, despite not actually following any of the characteristics of 'conservativism'.
Meanwhile, Democrats do get called on their behavior. They are constantly accused of being too far to the right by, well, the whole damn internet. The actions they do that are inconsistent with the left are criticized at the time, not later, when they've failed horrible and everyone's looking for a reason to that it isn't their fault.
Just ask Joseph Lieberman. He got kicked out of the damn party. Not for failure, not retroactively, but because he votes like a Republican, period.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
That specific morality "for many" is based on a 2000+ year old religious text in its various incarnations used by Abrahamaic religions and on other religious beliefs. That ancient Greeks, who practiced a different religious system of beliefs before being conquered by Rome, strengthens the argument that the bias is a religiously-based moralistic choice rather than an ethical one.
There are no ethical reasons against same sex relationships. However, due to the higher risk of STD transmission, there are ethical reasons against unprotexted sex with multiple partners (as with hetero sexual sex, but higher due to the higher risk of disease transmission in anal sex).
It depends on your definition of usury. Not everybody is happy with the payday loan people and loan sharking is still not legal. The "any interest is proscribed usury" definition tends to be the religious moral one. The ethical one is that some expectation of interest for the loaning of capital to begin new projects is acceptable, but that the expected return must be proportional to the risk and should not result in de-facto indentured servitude for the lendee.
Generally I would have to say that ethics are derived based on an expectation of fairness and balance between individual and societal needs.
Morality claims to be the same thing - and often coincides - but is imposed by a religious oligarchy who may include their self-interest foremost.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor.
Again, you're blaming people for circumstances which are often beyond their control. If you've never been poor and don't know anyone who is, it can be hard to understand the difficulty of getting out of that situation, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I was born poor. I came from a low income family, my dad was enlisted in the US Air Force from which he retired, and my mom worked her way through a 2 year technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital. While raising 3 children, I have 2 sisters. Even though we were poor, all three of us went on to college, luckily our mother taught us we could be almost anything we wanted to be as long as we worked at it and encouraged us to get an education. So, my older sister and I went into the military then to college after we got out. My younger sister worked full tyme while attending college. The older sister in now a nurse and the younger one earned her Masters and became a Certified Public Accountant. Not only does she run her own accounting firm, she also owns a few rental properties, including the apartment building I live in now.
People don't stay poor because they like being poor, or because welfare pays better than working
Bullshit! At one employer though I worked full tyme I didn't have insurance, the employer didn't offer it, so I looked into getting my own. Unfortunately because I made only a little above minimum wage and there's no free market in health or medical insurance, I couldn't afford to get any myself. So someone suggested I try medical assistance in the county I lived in. There they told me I made too much but if I quit my job I'd be able to get medical assistance. I would have also been able to get food stamps. Financially speaking I would have been better if I quit however I believe each person has to try to make it on their own and not sponge off of society.
Should there be a Law?
It should be noted that President Clinton cut the military - manpower, order of battle, the whole show - some 40%.
Not quite in half, but close enough.
The results have been on display in Georgia for about a week.
There were no voices saying that the previous Republican majority wasn't conservative until after the government failed miserably at everything it tried to do.
Not true. Many conservatives called the Bush Administration out for No Child Left behind being decidedly un-conservative. Clearly anti-federalist - a big chunk out of state & local rights/control. Beyond that, there were many compelling arguments by conservatives (liberals at the time we very much in favor of NCLB though they later changed) that NCLB was unconstitutional and as a result, at most, participation was optional.
Personally, it's always been about fiscal responsibility money/spending being about as objective of view of government reach as we have. Right or wrong, to some extent, I've always been able to partially justify Reagan's deficit spending because it was necessary for the times and ultimately deserves at least some credit for winning the cold war. Where the circumstances of the times give Reagan some justification (excuse) the Bush administration never had any such reason other than they just liked to spend money.
Vote Quimby.
like legal abortion, Planned Parenthood is about increasing one's ability to make informed choices about reproduction.
Yes, that is certainly part of Planned Parenthood's mission. Let's not forget that it's also an organization that was originally called the Birthcontrol League and that PP performs the majority of all abortions in the US. Ergo, when the Government funds PP, it funds a lot of abortions. I am very torn about abortion, and have argued both sides in the past, and don't particularly feel like taking a position now (lame, I know..) ... however, I think you illustrate very well the typical pro-abortion (or pro-choice if you prefer..) viewpoint that I mentioned to the GP. If you really think the Government should not legislate morality and should butt out, then that includes butting out for the things you like as well as the things you don't. Frequent problem with both the left and the right.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy when your "no P is a Q" is a synthetic proposition, rather than an analytic one. If one were to say "no bachelor is married", and then someone stood up and said "I'm a married bachelor!", the first speaker would be perfectly correct in replying "if you are married, then you are not a true bachelor, despite what you may call yourself".
Of course, that's not incredibly helpful for us here because most of the qualities people take to be inherent in anyone rightly labeled "conservative" are actually synthetic rather than analytic qualities. About the only true "no true conservative..." sentence is "no true conservative favors rapid change", since the meaning of "conservative" is "opposed to rapid change". It just so happens that western societies and governments have recently (for the past century or two) been moving away from a very libertarian, capitalist model, and so those in favor of slowing or reversing that change get called "conservatives". But there's an even older flavor of "conservative" who was never happy with the move to that libertarian model in the first place, who are still trying to put a stop to the so-called "moral decadence" that it brought about. Two very different viewpoints, both calling themselves, and getting called, "conservative" - so who are the true conservatives then?
You can be a "true conservative" and support just about anything position that has any presence in the present, as to be a "true conservative" is just to want to conserve such things they way they are. Calling any particular political platform (aside from "lets be cautious with the changes here") "conservative" is like a Vietnamese person calling a European atheist a "Christian" (because European = Christian in his mind), or a medieval European calling an Indian Buddhist a "Hindu" (because Indian = Hindu in his mind). It's a sloppy substitution based on an inaccurate correlation. "European" and "Christian" do not mean the same thing, even though many or most Europeans may be Christians, so they cannot be used as synonyms like that. If you tried to do so and use that in support of an argument - e.g. "Most Englishmen are Protestant -> no true Englishman is Catholic" - then you would be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
But coming back from that tangent, my point is that words have a sort of historical inertia of meaning that persists despite peoples' misuse of them. Just because a bunch of authoritarian radicals (a radical being an extreme progressive, someone who wants lots of change made very quickly, the very opposite of a conservative) call themselves "conservatives" does not mean that they are, in fact, conservative. People with similar ideologies may have been conservative in times past, but since that ideology is a world different from how things are today, such people are not conservatives but in fact radicals.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I think it is basically a good idea; the only problem being how to define and enforce fairness. Several countries in Europe have something similar, which is why European news seem so much more varied than American news. The broadcasting services in Europe seem to have originated mostly as public services, and building in some sort of 'fairness-doctrine' only seemed natural, since the state is supposed to be the servant of the whole of the population, not just the party that happens to be in power.
The sad fact is that American news services are anything but balanced, which at the end of the day harms democracy. How can the electorate make an informed choice about anything when the news are all distorted? People aren't stupid - they can see that each broadcaster has its own agenda, so they give up trying to find out what really goes on and only tune in on the channels that don't challenge their chosen belief; and in effect politics, political news and political ideologies have become irrelevant backgroud noise, replaced by indifferent gossip about the politicians - like "Obama sounds like Osama, hur hur".
How can we repair America? That what I'd like to know. I know from experience that Americans are good and decent people; so why is the American nation such a vile bastard in many ways? Whatever else the explanation is, it is clear that the government of America is not a true representation of its people.
One minor adjustment, if you please: The day I was born in 1955, my father was serving with the U. S. Navy in . . . Vietnam. So the involvement was substantially earlier than the official historian's line would suggest.
..is that Democrats have thought about the issue much less so than Republicans. Democrats advocate "fairness" in everything (wealth distribution, access to heathcare, etc.), but don't think about the perils of government-enforced fairness in a completely open medium like the Internet. If you turned the question on its head, and asked about government regulation of "objectionable" content on the Internet, I suspect the numbers would flip the other way, with Republicans not thinking how some of their own ideas might get caught up in the "objectionable" net.
First off conservatism isn't defined by GW Bush. He's no exemplar of conservative thought or policy and has been consistently criticized from the right. Most people aren't terribly consistent in their political ideology, ESPECIALLY politicians since they must appeal to a broad coalition of support and most people have only the fuzziest political ideals. He no more defines conservatism than Clinton defined liberalism. You could make a decent case that as a practical matter Clinton who declared the "end of big government" and who's signature domestic policy ended up being welfare reform was more conservative than Bush who's signature domestic policies where massive increases in Education and Medicare spending. There's a strong pull on Presidents to achieve political success by stealing plays from their opponents playbook - you get your opponents votes because they actually agree with your policy and your own parties votes out of party loyalty. So Bush was able to get a "No Child Left Behind" policy sponsored and largely drafted by Ted Kennedy enacted with more Democratic than Republican votes... that didn't stop the Democrats who voted for it from castigating it as another "conservative" blunder by Bush once it proved unpopular though.
That being said, the classical liberal ideology that's often associated with conservatism in the US considers defense and police powers as the ONLY legitimate use of government power. The logic is something like this: Government governs by force (ultimately by violence or the threat of it). Therefore, government is only legitimate when acting in situations where the use of force is morally justified which basically boils down to defense. "(Law) is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." - Bastiat
So from that classically liberal ideology spending on defense is at least within the proper scope of government whereas most of the other stuff government does is illegitimate.
Well, those trying to "legislate morality" aren't usually the same as those calling for smaller government. Political parties are coalitions, the libertarian right one usually thinks of when talking about the desire for smaller government aren't exactly the same folks as the religious right one would think of wanting to "legislate morality". I think it says something though that the libertarians have at least in the past found the religious right more palatable as political allies than the Left. The RR's desire to "legislate morality" was less offensive to small government types than the left's desire to legislate everything else. Indeed it seems to me that as a practical matter at least as much of the legislation of morality is coming from the left as from the right. "Sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms and regulations about who, when, where and how they may be used are all coming from the left. Even in disputes directly between the left and the religious right it is almost as often the left that is using government to impose a moral judgement on someone who doesn't share that same moral code. Take the example of an evangelical that doesn't want to rent property to a gay couple. Which party in the dispute wants government to impose it's moral judgements on a private individual that doesn't share them?
On a slight side note, you don't think personal freedom is a type of morality? I do! I think you would find many people and governments around the world that would argue that individual freedom above all else is IMMORAL. What about the greater good? An individual's free choices are not always the best choices for everyone else.
You talk about UN resolutions that were issued a long time ago (many over a decade ago). The problem is that these resolutions give very little justification for a unilateral response by America.
What we had were very weak legal arguments and an administration eager to flex its muscle before the law could restrain it. I'm not saying the administration made the right or wrong decision (before you accuse me of being partisan).
I am saying that the argument that UN resolutions justified our invasion of Iraq is a very weak justification because the UN resolutions were likely intended to govern multilateral UN actions, not unilateral US actions.
Because "religious" and "liberal" are mutually exclusive.
If there's one thing Democrats royally screwed up on this century, it's allowing the Republicans to use abortion as the only True Test of religion. As opposed to "turn the other cheek" (anti-Iraqi-conflict), "do unto others" (pro-diplomacy-with-Iran), "love thy neighbor as thyself" (pro-gay-marriage), "Render unto Caesar" (maybe pro-taxes or pro-separation-of-church-and-state?), and to top it off environmentalism ought to be the most Christian of all issues (protecting God's creation, as we did get dominion over it in Genesis).