Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Tom Harkin, at Iowa town hall meeting. Harkin attempts to dismiss protestor as a Republican pawn who was planted at the meeting, and then Harkin gets the smackdown of his life.
Shouting down the debate... that's not right or fair to others attending....I just have a standard of right and wrong that isn't based on party affilliation
This is awfully rich, given that the Web site of the Service Employees International Union, which backs ObamaCare [and which attacked the protesters in Tampa] urges its members to do just that:
We must fight back against lies and fear-mongering to drown out the opposition--and send the message that health care reform must happen this year.
My sister nailed it many years ago when she said, "Your basic human is not such a hot item."
Keep that filed in your head as I tell my little tale.
About five or six years ago, roughly, I was solicited to write a column every two weeks for the Sunday New York Times Business Section. I was really thrilled. I have written for the Washington Post (when I was a teenager), for the Wall Street Journal edit page under the legendary Bob Bartley, for Barron's, under the really great Alan Abelson and Jim Meagher, for my beloved American Spectator, under the great Bob and Wlady, and now having a regular column at the Times was going to be great stuff.
The column went well. I got lots of excellent fan mail and fine feedback from my editors, who, however, kept changing.
The first real super problem I had was when the movie I narrated and co-wrote, Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed, was in progress. A "science writer" for the Times blasted the movie on the front page and noted that I, whom she repeatedly called "...a freelance writer..." (not a columnist ) for the Times, was somehow involved. That was followed by a really fantastically angry blast against the movie by a reviewer who really hated it a lot. (I note that the Times also disliked Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hmm.)
Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me. But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously.
Some of them started a campaign against me in various forums, including letters to the Times.
At roughly the same time, I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the "investment bank" Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.
Still, my editor at the Times stood by me loyally and was steadfast, even inspiring.
Now, in the time I had been doing my column, roughly five or six years, I had done many commercials for goods and services. No one at the Times ever said a word negatively about these. In fact, when I did a series of commercials with Shaquille O'Neal, the legendary basketball star, one of my superiors at the Times asked me for souvenirs. No one ever told me in any way, by word, look, or gesture, not to do commercials.
Meanwhile, the haters connected with atheism and neo-Darwinism continued to attack me.
Then, two things happened to change and end my career at the Times. Well, maybe three. The Times told me they were forced by budgetary pressures to only run me every four weeks. This was a blow and I started to think about where else I might write. (I had been solicited by many major publications while at the Times but my editors had asked me not to write for them and I did as asked.)
But the two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.
They did let me run a piece querying what I thought was a certain lack of focus in Mr. Obama's world but that was it, and then came another issue.
I had done a commercial for an Internet aggregating company called FreeScore. This commercial offered people a week of free access to their credit scores and then required them to pay for further such access.
This commercial was red meat for the Ben Stein haters left over from the Expelled days. They bombarded the Times with letters. They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) They demanded of the high pooh-bahs at the Times that they fire me because of what they called a conflict of interest.
Of course, there was no conflict of interest. I had never written one word in the Times or anywhere else about getting credit scores on line. Not a word.
But somehow, these people bamboozled some of the high pooh-bahs at the Times into thinking there was a conflict of interest. In an e-mail sent to me by a person I had never met nor even heard of, I was fired. (I read the e-mail while having pizza at the Seattle airport on my way to Sandpoint.) I called the editor and explained the situation. He said the problem was "the appearance" of conflict of interest. I asked how that could be when I never wrote about the subject at all. He said the real problem was that FreeScore was a major financial company and I wrote about finance. But, as I told him, FreeScore was a small Internet aggregator, not a bank or insurer.
Never mind. I was history. "You should have consulted us," was the basic line.
Of course, there was not one word of complaint when I did commercials for immense public companies. By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)
I still do not see the conflict of interest. Credit reports on the Internet never was in my subject area. However, I don't sue newspapers. And the gig was getting to be so small that it really had a minor effect on my economic life. Still, I shall miss waking up on Sunday to see my column unless a neighbor here in Beverly Hills has stolen my paper. (No place, not one place, in Sandpoint sells the Times.)
The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. "There are a lot of people who have knives and forks," he said, "and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something."
I will miss writing my column for the Times but I miss many things. There were some great people there, really standup people. I got to love some of them. But as to the haters and the weak willed, I think my sister and Bob Dylan had it right.
You will still see my little thoughts, maybe in some big places. And I can put this Times gig on my résumé when I apply for Social Security. And, I really mean this, I will pray for those who use me despitefully, even if the neo-Darwinists think that's a waste of time. It's not.
One final thought. Well, maybe two final thoughts: first, it's sad that the Internet has become a backyard gossip freeway for the whole world's sick people to pour out their neuroses. I have seen a tiny fraction of all of the hate mail that's come in the wake of the NY Times announcement (which they promised they would not make in any event). Too many sick people out there on the web for comfort.
Second, among those who are not really such hot items, I fully include myself. Without doubt, I have made as many mistakes as a person not in custody can make. I make no claims to anything even remotely like perfection or even desirability as a role model. It is just that in this case, I didn't do anything wrong. In my life, I have done plenty wrong. I am not the master. I am the servant and a poor one at that.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu.
Shouting down the debate... that's not right or fair to others attending....I just have a standard of right and wrong that isn't based on party affilliation
This is awfully rich, given that the Web site of the Service Employees International Union, which backs ObamaCare [and which attacked the protesters in Tampa] urges its members to do just that:
We must fight back against lies and fear-mongering to drown out the opposition--and send the message that health care reform must happen this year.
Since you approve of these tactics why call them thugs?
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the townhalls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
I'm part of that "voice of the people" G-man. Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical Zick. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical Zick. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical Zick. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
I'm glad you oppose Obama's forced press conferences!
Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
what about pretending to have an open forum?
Quote:
Facing a barrage of questions Wednesday over the friendliness of the audience at President Obama's New Hampshire town hall meeting, the White House insisted that all questions were selected at random -- including one from an 11-year-old girl whose mother worked as an Obama organizer.
Julia Hall of Malden, Mass., grabbed the microphone Tuesday during Obama's town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., and told the president she saw signs "outside saying mean things about reforming health care" as she walked into the building.
"How do kids know what is true and why do people want a new system that can, that help more of us?" she asked Obama.
Kathleen Manning Hall, Julia Hall's mother and a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama during the campaign, was seated next to the girl as she asked the question -- prompting some to question whether Obama recognized the girl or her mother.
But thousands of organizers worked for Obama during the campaign, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said, dismissing suggestions that the president knew those who questioned him on Tuesday.
"The president selected questions at random, as he always does," Cherlin told FOXNews.com.
The friendliness of the audience at Obama's event was in stark contrast to the often rowdy and antagonistic crowds that attended similar events held around the country by members of Congress.
As an organizer and donor, Manning Hall had previously met first lady Michelle Obama, Obama daughters, Sasha and Malia, and Vice President Biden, according to a report published Wednesday in the Boston Globe. And her daughter also attended this year's White House East egg hunt, according to WCVB-TV, the ABC affiliate in Boston.
Yeah, funny how just about every "open" Obama forum "coincidentally" turns out to have "random" Democrats chosen to ask softball questions. Too bad Mr. Ripley's dead, otherwise this would make a great entry for "Believe it or Not."
As for this point:
Quote:
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
Actually, the whole point of "town hall meetings" is to be an open forum where people get to say what they want. So, anyone who chooses to attend is volunteering to be the audience for others' viewpoints. There's no "forcing others to be [one's] audience."
Now, if these protesters were breaking into meetings of, say, a Democrat Party caucus or a private event that would be a different story. But that isn't what's happening here. Instead, politicians are finding themselves confronted by their constituents which is SUPPOSED to be the point of such a meeting.
Yeah, funny how just about every "open" Obama forum "coincidentally" turns out to have "random" Democrats chosen to ask softball questions. Too bad Mr. Ripley's dead, otherwise this would make a great entry for "Believe it or Not." As for this point:
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
Quote:
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
Actually, the whole point of "town hall meetings" is to be an open forum where people get to say what they want. So, anyone who chooses to attend is volunteering to be the audience for others' viewpoints. There's no "forcing others to be [one's] audience."
Now, if these protesters were breaking into meetings of, say, a Democrat Party caucus or a private event that would be a different story. But that isn't what's happening here. Instead, politicians are finding themselves confronted by their constituents which is SUPPOSED to be the point of such a meeting.
Free speech is a right, having town halls isn't. You confused the one with the other. And there probably would be more town halls if there was less shouting and window pounding.
Free speech is a right, having town halls isn't. You confused the one with the other.
Not at all. My point has been clear. While there is nothing that forces a member of congress to hold a town hall meeting, once the decision has been made to hold such meetings, it is violative of free speech to start deciding who can or can't speak at them (or attend them) based on the views of the speaker.
The Democrats were all in favor of these meetings when they thought they would be orchestrated events with planted friendly questions. But as soon as people started showing up who were angry about the administration's proposals, we start hearing about how there shouldn't be such meetings and that the Democrats should "ram through" these unpopular proposals.
Deciding not to have a town hall isn't infringing on your free speech rights G-man. If republicans want them then they should start doing more of them.
You're too busy hauling the DNC bullshit wagon to actually read what people post, aren't you? I saw nowhere where G-man said that not having a town hall was an infringement on free speech. He stated that town halls are forums designed specifically for free speech and not just a place for a single party to spout off their talking points.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
... I saw nowhere where G-man said that not having a town hall was an infringement on free speech. ....
Try reading the posts yourself...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical MEM. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
If people want to shout and disrupt town halls then let them organize there own.
... I saw nowhere where G-man said that not having a town hall was an infringement on free speech. ....
Try reading the posts yourself...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
At this point I think the Dems should just give up on the town halls and ram a bill through when they get back.
At least you've finally admitted that this isn't about the voice of the people and is about the Democrats doing whatever hell they want.
Like many others I voted for those that campaigned for this reform. Since the townhalls just seem to be turning into a screaming match what's the point in having them? I think if the Republicans want to continue having them though they certainly should. I may even go to some myself
Typical MEM. He supports free speech for himself and like-minded Democrats but thinks that anyone with a differing viewpoint should be shut down and silenced.
That's not free speech G-man. Your right of free speech doesn't extend to forcing others to be your audience.
If people want to shout and disrupt town halls then let them organize there own.
I did read the posts, and I believe that G-man's reference to free speech being 'shut down and silenced' is in reference to this point he made earlier:
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
This is awfully rich, given that the Web site of the Service Employees International Union, which backs ObamaCare [and which attacked the protesters in Tampa]
But thanks for playing. Sorry, but there are no parting gifts for the loser.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I made it pretty clear that I didn't support people attacking others from either side of this, Doctor. G-man's denouncing me as with the free speech stuff doesn't fit.
Could you give me a link to all your posts denouncing the UAW, ACORN and the Black Panthers for threatening people with opposing views? I can't seem to find them.
Roadblocks Devised to Push Back Against Health Care Town Hall Protesters: Americans who want to express their opinions on health care reform at town halls across the country are encountering a host of roadblocks, ranging from fake schedules to a demand that they show their driver's licenses or photo identification.
Ironic. Democrat politicians are demanding ID before letting people speak but they block attempts to require IDs before voting.
FCC Diversity Chief Says Republican Communications Policies Hurt Civil Rights Friday, August 28, 2009 By Matt Cover
Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claimed that communications policies enacted by Republicans negatively impacted the civil rights of minorities.
Lloyd made the claim in a 1998 essay he wrote while working for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He said that two decades of Republican communications policies had eroded the gains made by the civil rights movement in minority ownership in communications.
Lloyd also said that, prior to the Reagan administration, the FCC recognized that civil rights and communications policy were linked, and he said that minority ownership of radio and television stations was necessary to correct the lack of diversity in media.
“In the late seventies, in recognition of the lack of progress made with these [equal opportunity] employment policies, the FCC ruled that minority ownership was essential to create a diverse range of messages over the public’s airwaves,” Lloyd wrote.
Among the requirements the FCC created were licensing rules that required that the public participate in the license renewal process; caps on how many radio and television stations a company could own in one city; three-year license terms; and a process called ascertainment: requiring station owners to canvas the local community to find out what the public was interested in.
Lloyd said that, starting with Reagan, the Republican-dominated FCC had rolled back these rules, and with them the gains of the civil rights community.
Radio station (public domain)“[T]he great progress made by the civil rights communities in the communications policy arena has been rolled back,” Lloyd said. “The Reagan-dominated FCC destroyed the ascertainment process, arguing that it was too much of an administrative burden on the stations and the FCC.
“Licensing renewal can now be accomplished with a postcard,” he wrote. The worst blow, according to Lloyd, would come from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress allegedly beholden to big business.
“While touted as a landmark bill updating the sixty-year-old Communications Act for the benefit of U.S. consumers, the T96 Act was created by and for a communications industry dominated by global conglomerates,” said Lloyd in his essay.
The law relaxed the ownership restrictions that had prevented broadcasters from growing and competing with one another, something Lloyd says led to the further triumph of international corporations over local, minority-owned ones.
“Despite the promise of greater competition, the effect of the Act has been an unprecedented wave of consolidation,” Lloyd said. “National broadcast ownership limits were increased to 35 percent. Prohibitions limiting ownership of radio, television, and newspapers by one company in the same market were lifted, thus encouraging media consolidation and the crowding out of independent voices.
“Broadcast license periods were increased, making it virtually impossible for local communities to exercise any control over the stations licensed to serve them,” said Lloyd.
These changes combined to replace a civil rights agenda at the FCC with a commercial one, he said.
“The civil rights agenda has given way to the agenda of the commercial market,” wrote Lloyd. “The work of the civil rights community has suffered through a sustained assault by the right. The core of that assault is to deny funding to civil rights work, silence liberal voices, and set the agenda of public debate by an opposition that is better funded, more organized, and more savvy about strategic communications.
“Combined with this assault is a relentless marketing of the failed dogma of laissez-faire economics,” he wrote.
However, official reports on minority ownership of media show that while there are far fewer minority-owned outlets than white-owned ones, the reason is not FCC rules or right-wing conspiracies but simple market forces and financial issues.
A 1998 report from the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) shows that in 1998 – the same year Lloyd made his claims – increased competition and lack of capital were responsible for the meager 2.9 percent share of minority-owned stations.
“Minority broadcasters are finding it increasingly difficult to compete,” the report found. “Access to capital remains one of the most significant impediments to ownership for minorities.”
Competition, the report found, was responsible for the minority owners’ problems, as most had difficulty holding on to popular syndicated hosts and talented employees.
“Minority broadcasters also report that they are facing increased competition in securing nationally syndicated programming,” said the report. “Some minority broadcasters report that their general managers, sales managers, and on-air talent are being hired by competing non-minority group owners who can offer higher salaries and wider exposure.”
Today, the situation apparently is no different. A 2007 report commissioned by the FCC and conducted by researchers from Duke University found that while minority ownership had increased slightly, the reasons for the disparity between minority and white ownership remained.
“Since the observed ownership asymmetries are economy-wide, they are undoubtedly linked to broad systemic factors,” the report said. “[T[he most direct explanation lies in unequal access to capital. Many businesses require individuals to sink substantial financial investments upon entry. This is likely to be especially true in media enterprises.”
The only way to change this, the 2007 report said, was to redistribute wealth or increase minorities’ access to capital markets. The report did not mention license terms, renewal procedures, or ascertainment.
“[I]n order to change ownership patterns we need to either change the aggregate distribution of wealth or otherwise increase access to capital markets,” said the report.
The report specifically rejected the idea of ownership bans, saying they would not achieve a diversity of views because content was consumer-driven.
“While it is certainly true that an even distribution of ownership seems ‘fair’ and that it might promote a more balanced airing of voices, it is not at all clear that ownership restrictions are the best way to achieve these goals,” stated the report. “[R]ecent research suggests that media content is driven much more by demand considerations (i.e., consumer preferences) than supply factors (i.e., owner preferences).”
In other words, those stations best able to meet those “demand considerations” – what their customers want – are the ones that profit and prosper, and the ones that do not provide what consumers want do not succeed.
The report said: “‘Conservative’ newspapers offer a ‘conservative’ viewpoint and ‘liberal’ newspapers a ‘liberal’ viewpoint because that is what their subscribers prefer, not to satisfy the agenda of a specific owner. Since most every owner has the goal of maximizing profits [by best serving customers] it is unclear what impact ownership restrictions would in fact have.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I feel sorry for MEM, after he made such a big deal out of protesters not being allowed signs inside a Bush rally, this must be really embarrassing for him.
So, a black cop prevented a white man from protesting Obama?
Will they be invited to the Oval office for a beer?
Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
I feel sorry for MEM, after he made such a big deal out of protesters not being allowed signs inside a Bush rally, this must be really embarrassing for him.
Not at all. In Zickland, even though they were two clearly different things, this counts as 'a republican did it first.'
Sunday, August 30, 2009 Mark Lloyd-Architect of the Fairness Doctrine?
by Gary Fouse fousesquawk
Mark Lloyd-FCC Diversity Chief
That old bugaboo, the Fairness Doctrine, is still waiting in the wings. With Obama and the Democrats in power, only public vigilance is standing between us and the shutdown of conservative talk radio. Oh, the Henry Waxmans of the world will assure us that nothing is in the works...until, BAM! It's a done deal. Of course, they won't say that it's all about restoring balance to political talk radio. They have a more subtle way to get it done. It's called things like "localization" and "diversity". They are going to control licensing and who owns radio stations. They are going to hit private talk radio stations with so many regulations, they will all throw in the towel and switch to country music instead of talk shows. Enter Mark Lloyd, President Obama's new head of Diversity for the FCC.
Mark Lloyd comes right out of the Marxist playbook. He doesn't care a whit about freedom of speech. What Mr Lloyd cares about is the government controlling the dissemination of political thought over the airwaves.
Here is a clip (from the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News) showing Lloyd speaking at a conference in 2008, in which he sings the praises of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media in Venezuela:
Did you catch the references to those evil property-owners in Venezuela and the US trying to oust Chavez? Does that give you some clues about Mr Lloyd's agenda?
Want more? Here is Lloyd commenting on the idea of freedom of speech in general:
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
Prior to joining the White House, Lloyd was a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, established by Clinton Administration henchman, John Podesta. According to Wikipedia, here is what that outfit thinks about talk radio:
"The Center for American Progress was criticized by conservative commentators for its 2007 report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."[15] The report states: "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." The report did not include analysis of the content of other radio providers, such as universities and public radio. The report suggests three steps to increase progressive radio voices in talk radio: restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations; ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing; and require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting."
That is exactly what Mr Lloyd wants. He wants private outlets to pay to support that insipid, liberal, and publicly financed National Public Radio.
But you liberals, of course, have nothing to worry about. You will continue to have your MSNBC, AIR America, CNN and all your liberal newspapers. Those of you whose view of life has been shaped by David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher will be just fine. But if I recall correctly, I used to hear liberals scream about freedom of speech not so many years ago. Do you really care about freedom of speech? Or only your speech? For those of you liberals who truly care about freedom of speech-for all-then you too should be concerned about what's coming down the pike. As for us conservatives, we need to stand up and scream just as loudly about this as we do about government health care.
