October 24, 2007
There are two types of rules in the world. On the one hand, there are real rules. These are the rules that you need to follow, or you will be in big trouble. Stay in school is one of them. You can't do much without a high school diploma - so that is a real rule. On the other hand, there are fake rules. These are rules that most people follow because they think there are negative consequences for disobedience, but actually there are not. In fact, the ones who break the fake rules are often celebrated as trail blazers.I love that the MSM can't get over Fred doing things HIS way, not their way. Since when is the campaign supposed to be about the Media? I thought it was about the Message.Bob Dylan comes to my mind when I think of those who break the fake rules. In the mid-60s, there was this rule that songs could only be three minutes long, and they had to have three verses and a chorus. But Dylan did these six minute songs that had five plus verses and no chorus. And whose ears don't perk up today when they hear the first bars of "Subterranean Homesick Blues?" Another rule said that folkies could not play rock. That just did not happen. But Dylan hired Levon and the Hawks, and went electric. At first, he was booed everywhere he went (except in the South). Eight years later he went on tour with the exact same group - now called the Band - and received 6 million ticket requests for 600,000 seats.
If you have the intelligence to see which rules are real and which are fake, the respectfulness to follow the real rules, and the guts to break the fake rules - you can get ahead in this world. In fact, people will love you for breaking the fake rules.
I think Thompson might be breaking what really are fake rules. As I mentioned above - the perpetual campaign is only a means to the real campaign. You play the game by the rules of the media to earn your way into the real contest. But there may be other ways to get to the real campaign. If there are, the media's rules are indeed fake. There are no consequences to breaking them. If you find another way into the real campaign, you can break them all you like.
On a side note, if Fred handle Congress just 1/10 as well as he handles the media, we might be in business.
Read the whole piece. Jay has interesting things to say about how Fred is winning over voters and turning the tables on Rudy Giuliani in the polls. Personally, I suspect the ONLY reason Rudy is ahead in the polls and backed by strongly conservative voters is that they thought he was the ONLY one who could defeat Hillary/Obama. And really, that's how many Republicans see this primary season: pick the strongest candidate. Fred is clearly a strong contender who has the potential to beat whoever the Dems put up. So as Fred brings out his platform, more and more folks agree that he might have the winning horse in the race. And they're walking away from Rudy in DROVES.
h/t Chan at Weekend Pundit, who has a great round up of recent Fred-related buzz
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:52 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 3 kb.
October 18, 2007
h/t Fred, of course. Well, Sean Hackbarth blogging at Friends of Fred.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:12 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
October 12, 2007
First of all let me congratulate you on winning this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, that accomplishment would be so much more meaningful if the award hadn't become synonymous with the "Annual Best Politically Correct Jerkwad" award, which the Nobel Committee seems to have merged their award with. I suppose, however, that sharing this honor with the last American to win the prize, former President Jimmy Carter, gives you a real sense of just what this honor means, and how your legacy will be cherished in your decline.
But I have a serious question for you. What in hell does your Global Warming crusade have to do with promoting Peace on Earth™? I mean do you believe that the only way to stop war is to make it so cold that we'd all rather stay in our own caves rather than shoot someone? Or maybe you believe that anecdotal psychology theory that aggression (which is of course, anti-peace by definition) increases as the temperatures rise? Let's grant for the purposes of this argument that your incoherent, incomplete, and hypocritical pseudoscience is correct, and that people DO make the Earth warmer by a significant amount. Given that, your crusade against Global Warming is admirable, even, perhaps noble. But this is the Nobel PEACE Prize. Not the Nobel "Make the Earth Happy" Prize. It's October, not Earth Day. Explain to me how your actions have anything to do with peace.
Unless somehow being against global warming is really just a fancy synonym for "Troops out of Iraq Now".... because that has something to do with peace. But it really doesn't rise to the level of a Nobel Prize. And here I speak from experience. I went to Caltech. I've met Nobel Laureates. I've been taught by them. And here's the thing: They are FREAKING BRILLIANT. They are committed to their science without any hope of reward, which is what Alfred Nobel left the $$ to recognize in the first place: tireless champions of the greater good, representing different disciplines of the Humanities and Sciences. Not attention seeking environmental hypocrites who champion the environment because it is a safe niche to occupy in the cutthroat social darwinist biosphere of US politics.
I have another question, but this one is for the Nobel Committee, so be sure you pass it along to them when you go for the medal ceremony: If algore has contributed significantly to "Peace on Earth", then why did you recognize him for the Global Warming Awareness crusade? I would think his MOST significant achievements lie in other fields. After all, he invented the internet, technology which has contributed more towards interpersonal, international, and intercultural understanding than any other scientific or humanitarian contribution of the modern age. Isn't that important enough?
I know you're a busy man, especially as you now have to plan a trip to Oslo and contemplate running for President again to add to your incredibly busy fundraising schedule, so I'll close here. However, in closing, I'd like to thank you for the endless amusement you and your family have provided me over the years, not mention answering my questions about the top speed of a Prius (let your son know how much I appreciated that one, will you?). Keep it up!
Best,
CTG
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:47 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 3 kb.
October 09, 2007
Posted by: caltechgirl at
05:39 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".Now that's creepy."Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."
But not surprising.
Let me sum this up for you, in case you don't understand just what's at stake here: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented by the FCC in the earliest days of TV and radio, when small media markets were dominated by a handful of stations, or in many cases, just one station. And, as is often the case when you have a media monopoly, FCC regulators were concerned that all views wouldn't be broadcast fairly and some candidates for office might lose out because of a lack of coverage.
Fast forward to 1987. It was the end of the Reagan era, and the rise of mass communications in the US. In 1987 the FCC overturned the Fairness Doctrine because the market had grown so much that there was enough market pressure to allow for opposing viewpoints to be presented, not to mention an increased expectation of such presentation from the media-consuming public. With so many opportunities for coverage and so much media to keep track of, enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine became obsolete and the policy was ended.
In the two decades since, the US has seen an exponential increase in the amount of political speech broadcast through the media. Commercials, debates, opinion and news shows, radio talk shows, etc. have all increased the public's awareness of political issues and political thought. Admittedly, much of this increase has been on the conservative side of the fence. However, the financial disaster formerly known as "Air America" clearly highlights that this is likely due to purely market forces; that Americans want to hear conservative political thought in the media more than they want to hear liberals.
You can come up for your own explanation for that one. I'm sure it's not hard to think of a dozen reasons why, but left-leaning media (other than, it can be argued, mainstream "news") is simply not commercially viable in this country.
Faced with the fact that they can't compete in the open marketplace, what do the liberals do? As usual, they try to level the playing field... to their advantage. If the market won't admit "liberal" political thought, then it's time to simply break down the doors to the market. With the Fairness Doctrine bulldozer.
While it might seem, naively, that the more speech accessible to the masses, the better; in reality this is nothing more than censorship. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine limits the amount of political speech that can be presented for either side to an amount that can be feasibly presented by the media in consideration of their need (under the FD) to present opposing viewpoints. Is that what we want? Sound bites and snippets? Well, if that's all you're getting anyway, and your opposition has a three-hour talk show, you might just say yes, and damn the consequences.
Let's look at this economically, too: the consumer prefers conservative media (e.g. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.), and we know this because these ventures are commercially viable. By limiting the supply of the preferred goods, and forcing the consumer to take some non-preferred goods (Liberal media) instead, the re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine forces the consumer's choice. Sounds a lot like Communism to me...
Let me ask you this: Why is it ok to have NO Fairness Doctrine for 20 years while the left consolidates their power base and makes in roads into the MSM, but the SECOND that conservative media shows some strength, it's time to put it back? Why is the playing field level until the other team goes ahead? Why didn't ANY of these things matter until people started to challenge the status quo?
Funny how the First Amendment gets bought and sold by the left like so much cattle, depending on whether they're winning or losing.
h/t FRED who makes his own case for a Free Press.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:29 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.
75 queries taking 0.0523 seconds, 200 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
