Maine Newspapers Violations -- Antitrust Laws‏

State and Local Freedom of Information Issues (FOI-L@listserv.syr.edu)

Please suggest references, cites, cases, or informal or unpublished AG opinions -- state and federal and administrative -- on newspapers being the required sole publisher of legal notices in your state or country. Off-- or on--list.

I'm preparing a formal complaint for the U.S. Attorney General, Antitrust Division, against the State of Maine law that requires state and local legal notices to be published in the newspaper for that area or region (excellent speech by Deputy AAG Hesse, "At the Intersection of Antitrust and High Tech: Opportunities for Constructive Engagement",

Jan 22, 2014, Sanford, CA, <http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/303152.pdf>, prepared for Conference on Competition and IP Policy in High-Technology Industries). 

Given that more people get their news from the net than from newspapers, and given that Maine has provided their students for over 6 years with their own laptop computers and so are computer literate, and given that the First Amendment is still in effect and that a Nash equilibrium and other arguments would strongly suggest, if not prove, that subsidizing newspapers  (especially as their circulations decline) would be harmful to the newspapers, it is also time to file a formal complaint in civil court to block this law.  

We have support at the local town level where advertising for bids is way too expensive so the towns are left with simply calling local providers to get someone to do the work.  Indeed, one Selectman told me at the last board meeting to "pursue this with a passion." Not a single Board member objected to his statement.

We also have data now on five towns on the quality of local newspaper coverage -- and, as predicted by antitrust theory -- the quality of coverage of local government activities by the newspaper, compared to videotapes of the governing board meetings, is unacceptably low.  There are more legal and empirical grounds for demonstrating newspaper antitrust violations, without being in conflict with precedents (Associated Press v. United States; Tribune  Company v. United States; United States v. Associated Press, Citations 326 U.S. 1 (https://supreme.justia.com/us/326/1/case.html), or Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, or the Parker Immunity Doctrine (Parker, Director of Agriculture, et al. v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (https://supreme.justia.com/us/317/341/case.html)63 S. Ct. 307; 87 L. Ed. 315; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1263; 1943 Trade Cas. (CCH) P56,250).

Dwight Hines

IndyMedia

Maine

Personal Liberty Digest: Victory For Citizen Journalism: Court Sides With Bloggers In 1st Amendment Challenge

by Ben Bullard 

An appeals court has tossed out a lower court’s finding that would have denied bloggers the same 1^st Amendment protections afforded to mainstream journalists.

That’s an enormous victory for citizen journalism, as well as for the essential right of every American to freely and plainly speak (and write) his mind.

In taking up an appeal of a case in which a blogger was sued for defamation, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed whether bloggers generally could claim the same protections under the 1^st Amendment as conventional journalists, who can write enterprise pieces questioning the actions of public officials while protecting their sources.

Here’s The Hollywood Reporter’s synopsis of that case:

"

In a blog post, [Crystal] Cox accused Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud while administering the assets of a company in a Chapter 11 reorganization. At trial, a jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $2.5 million over false assertions.

Before the case got to trial, however, Cox pointed to landmark judicial opinions including New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to make the argument that because the blog post involved a matter of public concern, the plaintiffs had the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover for defamation. Alternatively, she asserted that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures and as such, they needed to show she acted with “actual malice.”

The trial judge responded that she had failed to submit “evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.”     "

But the 9^th Circuit ruled that Cox didn’t need, under the Bill of Rights, to provide any kind of evidence to qualify her right to report on such a matter.

Continue Reading:  http://personalliberty.com/2014/01/17/victory-for-citizen-journalism-court-sides-with-bloggers-in-1st-amendment-challenge/

Judge Jeanine Obliterates Obama In Her New Year's Resolution 1-4-13

BIN: Govt Round Ups Of Patriots Have Begun – What Happened To Unreleased Documentary Producer Of “Lawless America” (Videos)

(N.Morgan)

Bill Windsor has been missing for months. His documentary Lawless In America was never released. He disappeared and has been gone since August. This needs to be shared and exposed. Where is Bill Windsor? Some of the people working with him on his documentary were threatened by this regime if they worked with Bill. The Powers That  Be don’t want this documentary out and they want to silence him. If you have any information as to Bill’s where abouts, please contact me.

We cannot leave a man behind. All of us matter, who are in this fight for our freedoms and liberties. Bill was fighting for us, now it is our turn to fight for HIM!

Read more:  http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/12/the-govt-round-ups-of-patriots-have-begun-what-happened-to-unreleased-documentary-producer-of-lawless-america-videos-2860182.html

The Abuse Of Power By Lisbon's Public Officials

THE ABUSE OF POWER

As far back as February 17, 2009, when Chief Brooks verbally attacked Councilor Roger Cote has the abuse of power by Councilors been going on.  Then Chairman Michael Bowie allowed Chief Brooks to violate paragraph 7 (Decorum) of the Council Working Rules during a Town Council meeting.  It was apparently preplanned because Chief Brooks had his entire posse in attendance. 

Editor's note: Click here for a refresher: Part 1

                                                                            Part 2

 Chairman Bowie did absolutely nothing to neither enforce the Council Working Rules nor protect a fellow Councilor from being attacked by a Department Head and his posse.

This outrageous behavior by Public Officials to belittle residents by name has become a normal occurrence by Councilors.  Councilor Pomelow did the exact same thing in her farewell speech without Chairman LaRochelle making any attempt to enforce the Council Working Rules.  Councilor Pomelow cannot say she was unaware of the Council Working Rules because she was instrumental in writing these rules. 

 It is clear that the Town Charter and the Council Working Rules mean absolutely nothing to Councilors because they violate them on continual bases.

Last night at the Town Council meeting the trend continued.  Chairman LaRochelle, during his farewell speech, attached three citizens by name.  Chairman LaRochelle had the audacity to challenge our values after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and refused to acknowledge the problem.  Because Dot Fitzgerald, Joe Hill and I would not let it go, Chairman LaRochelle finally acknowledged the problem and paid the back taxes but not the Interest and Penalty.

My parents raised me to accept my mistakes and accept the punishment but Chairman LaRochelle tried to ignore the problem and then used his position to get out of paying the Interest and Penalty on back taxes owed.   

So tell me Chairman LaRochelle, who has values and who does not?

(Editor's note:  Brooks how is your Credibility these days?)

Councilors have tried everything in their power to keep the Public from knowing what is really going on in this community.  The three of us who write for The Lisbon Reporter and the LisbonMaine.net blog sites do this to bring the truth to the community.    Councilor Pomelow accused me of printing false information so I started posting documents I receive from the town through Freedom of Access Act (FOAA).  It has become necessary to utilize the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) program because the council refuses to answer questions by the Public.   

 Can you imagine what life would be like if when a citizen had a question and asked the council; the council would provide a truthful response?  It is common knowledge that if you ask the Town Manager for any information he will provide either false information or half-truths.

There is absolutely no transparency of local government in Lisbon.  This town council has restricted free speech from its citizens.  Requiring the citizens to confine their comments to agenda items and ONLY during Audience Participation, is a clear violation of our 1^st Amendment rights to free speech.  Also, these restrictions are clear violations of the Mission Statement of the town.  The town council continues to ignore fair practice law and the established policies of the community.

Dot, Joe and I are only trying to make this community better.  We spend the time to attend meetings and ask questions which the council refuses to answer with the truth.  It is easy to double talk some of the people but it is hard to double talk all the people.   

 It has been said on numerous occasions that we are hurting the community by pointing out the behind the door dealings of the town but the truth is we are trying to clear up the deceitful actions of the town council. 

Why is it, if the town council is doing everything right, the town council refuses to answer questionable actions by the council?  Let’s start with a simple question.  What is the “Unfavorable Expenditure” identified in the annual Audit and how much did it cost the town?

Larry Fillmore

Is Free Speech Dead at Lisbon “Public Hearings”?

 Is Free Speech Dead at Lisbon “Public Hearings”?

A couple years ago Lisbon Councilors decided to silence their critics by severely limiting public input at Lisbon Council Meetings. They decided to only allow the public to speak on items directly related to an agenda item.

About a Month ago the  Lisbon Appeals Board went a step further by refusing to take any input from the public at an Appeals Board “public hearing”. Chairman Morgan-Alexander stopped a Lisbon resident from giving relevant safety testimony at this public hearing.  She allowed the applicant and abutters to speak but refused to let the public give opposing relevant testimony.

According to an MMA (Maine Municipal Association) guideline this type of meeting is considered a quasi-legal hearing and is regulated by different guidelines than a legislative public hearing.  If these guidelines are not strictly adhered to the results of the hearing may be subject to costly litigation.

Questions raised by refusing to adhere to MMA guidelines.

•     What is the purpose of “Public Hearings” if not to hear from the public?

•     How can the public voice its opposition to unsafe conditions when the Appeals Board refuses to let the public speak ?

•     Has the equal protection requirement been fulfilled when members from the public are not allowed to speak?

This was an  appeals board meeting advertised as a “public hearing”.  

It appears  Free Speech is on life support in Lisbon.

Respectfully

Joe Hill

LisbonMaine.net

Bullying Is Alive And Well In Lisbon, don't think so, Well Read On Comrades!!!!!

BULLYING IN LISBON

It is truly amazing how our Town Manager is paid close to $100,000 tax dollars and totally ignores our Charter, provides false information to the council, does not keep the residents informed and cannot even provide our Town Council with current information.  The only function our Town Manager does is to provide false information to the council which results in illegal contracts, and striping the citizen’s right to free speech.  The Town Manager keeps information from the people resulting in secretive meetings.

In this day of electronic information being passed in order to keep people informed, the town maintains an electronic bulletin board and a web site.  Both of these devices’ sole purpose is to provide the residents of Lisbon with current information.  However, last Tuesday there was a Town Council Workshop which did not appear anywhere on these devices.  The web site has an “Event” calendar in which all the meetings are generally posted.  The last few months there have been several meetings that did not appear on this calendar.  These are secret meetings because the Public has no knowledge they are being held.  This is like the pre-meetings held by the council illegally in the Town Manager’s office prior to Town Council meetings/workshops or even better holding meeting at “Chummy’s”.

I attended last Tuesday nights' council workshop and the Town Manager provided both the council and the audience with a packet containing several listings of all the road/streets in town and there condition in 2006.  I am sure; we all realize that the condition of these roads has changed in the past seven years.  Trying to make a decision, utilizing data that is seven years old, is irresponsible to say the least.  But what is even more disturbing is the Lisbon Town Council accepted this seven year old information in the first place.  The Town Manager should ALWAYS provide current information to the council.  How our Councilors’ can make any responsible decision without current data is beyond me.

The Town Engineer rattled off a dozen or more road/streets he is recommended discontinuing.  I apologize for not providing the list but it was just too fast for me and neither the Town Manager nor Town Engineer had a listing prepared for the council.   Again, for $100,000 annually, one would have expected a handout to both the council and the audience.  The Town Manager continues to provide information to the council that is not complete or is not current.

The Town Council, with the guidance of the Town Manager, eliminated the right of the citizens to speak at any workshop.  Apparently, this was done so that no one can contradict the Town Manager or challenge any documents/information provided.  The only reason to go is to listen to bad information being passed by the Town Manager and soaked up by the Council.  It is the same way at Town Council meetings.   I have been told on numerous occasions that I should not criticize what the council is doing.  It is the desire of the Town Council to eliminate any criticism of their decisions, regardless if the decisions are illegal or not.  This Council and especially the Town Manager can never admit to anyone they are wrong on anything.  This speaks volumes for the character and integrity of both the council and the Town Manager.

Look at what they have done to “Public Hearings”!!!!  Citizens have been denied the right to speak during the last two Appeals Board meetings by Chairman Morgan-Alexander.  The Town Manager was provided a legal review by a lawyer from the Maine Municipal Association (MMA) which is the town’s governing body which clearly stated the Public has a right to speak on these issues.  However, the Public still is not allowed to speak at any Appeals Board Hearing.  This is another example of bullying and denying the residents of Lisbon their right to free speech.  

The citizens of Lisbon have been bullied every time we challenge the actions of the Town Manager and the Council.  I personally believe that all the poor decisions of the council are a direct result of the Town Manager passing bad or incomplete information to the council.

Larry Fillmore 

Rev. Billy Graham's Dire Warning: America is drowning in a 'sea of immorality'

Thanks to Obama: Rev. Billy Graham’s dire warning: America is drowning in ‘sea of immorality’

by Amy

via washingtontimes World-renowned Rev. Billy Graham, 94, said President Obama’s campaign promises for “hope and change” are little more than meaningless cliches and the reality is the nation is facing a dire future, about to collapse on its own immorality. Mr. Graham made the statements to Newsmax in an interview about his latest book, “The […]

Read more of this post

WND EXCLUSIVE Watch deputy face 3 armed citizens

 http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/watch-deputy-face-3-armed-citizens/

‘Most people today who occupy those positions are corrupt individuals’

 A blogger is praising a law enforcement officer who respectfully visits with three open-carry protesters and his compliments are being joined by dozens of commenters on the Last Resistance website.

Philip Hodges posted online the video from a Michigan encounter between the officer and several sign-carrying conservatives who were advocating for Second Amendment rights.  

“You’ll never guess what happens when this sheriff confronts 3 open-carry protesters,” Hodges wrote.

“I am usually critical of police these days. But I’m not ‘anti-police.’ Just like I’m not anti-congressman or anti-senator or even anti-president. But let’s face it. Most people today who occupy those positions are corrupt individuals. They exert far more power than their constitutional authority allows,” Hodges wrote.

He continued, “The Constitution was written to restrain them, because the Founding Fathers understood the temptations of power that come with holding positions of authority. But we have spineless politicians who are never satisfied with the ‘limited’ power they wield, so representatives in all branches of local, state and federal government are constantly reinterpreting the Constitution to accommodate their lusts for more power, which in turn takes freedoms and liberties away from the very people who put these ‘leaders’ in their positions.”

Hodges, however, noted there are a few good guys around yet.

“I have to say, this video completely took me off guard. Recently, we’ve seen so many open-carry protesters (or just ordinary citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights) met with paranoid, power-hungry cops who end up arresting them for ‘disturbing the peace,’ or ‘resisting arrest’ all because they carried a Glock on their hip or a rifle on their shoulder.”

This video, however, “You have to see it to believe it.”

According to those to posted the unidentified officer, “This man is a hero.”

“We saw the … sheriff car pull up so we all took out our camera-phones right away, anticipating trouble. This officer gets out of his car, waves to us, and walks right over. He shakes all of our hands, introduces himself, and states his purpose for walking over to us. (Somebody got scared and called). He never asked us to disarm, never threatened us, never asked for our names or identification. I think I can speak for everyone in the group that it was an honor to meet this man. This is what we need to see from police officers everywhere! ”

On the blog, dozens commented:
  “If all police officers presented themselves as this Dep. Sheriff did, it would go far to restore the respect we USED TO have and show toward our police.” 

  “Good man! Good man! 

  “This sheriff deserves a lot of praise for his understanding of the Constitution.” 

  “I just wish all sheriffs had his knowledge and attitude.” 

  “An absolutely great law officer, far and few between today…” 

The officer explained, “You guys aren’t doing anything wrong. … You got to look at this like this. If you have a can of gas in one hand and a lighter in the other that’s going to scare some folks. That’s what a gun’s going to do to a lot of uneducated…. A firearm to me was like a hammer or a screwdriver.”

Added Hodges, “Here’s a tidbit from the ‘confrontation’ that I thought was great, especially coming from a police officer. He asked the group, ‘What is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement agency in the land?’ One of the open-carriers replied, ‘The sheriff’s department.’ The Sheriff gave a thumbs-up ‘Hoorah’ and continued:

“‘Every other [agency] was created by statute. That’s the FBI, the ATF, your local PDs, everything, DNR – statute, legislature, Congress has created them. The Constitution [only calls for] sheriffs. When I got into this line of work – because I was a young constitutionalist like yourselves – I said I want to work for the sheriff. I could’ve gone somewhere else and gotten a nice retirement package – the sheriff pays me well, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy working for him – but, to me, it’s very personal. I hold it in my heart, because it’s constitutional,’” the officer said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/watch-deputy-face-3-armed-citizens/#UOf8wRMieg1qgsLC.99

A blogger is praising a law enforcement officer who respectfully visits with three open-carry protesters and his compliments are being joined by dozens of commenters on the Last Resistance website.
Philip Hodges posted online the video from a Michigan encounter between the officer and several sign-carrying conservatives who were advocating for Second Amendment rights.

“You’ll never guess what happens when this sheriff confronts 3 open-carry protesters,” Hodges wrote.
“I am usually critical of police these days. But I’m not ‘anti-police.’ Just like I’m not anti-congressman or anti-senator or even anti-president. But let’s face it. Most people today who occupy those positions are corrupt individuals. They exert far more power than their constitutional authority allows,” Hodges wrote.
He continued, “The Constitution was written to restrain them, because the Founding Fathers understood the temptations of power that come with holding positions of authority. But we have spineless politicians who are never satisfied with the ‘limited’ power they wield, so representatives in all branches of local, state and federal government are constantly reinterpreting the Constitution to accommodate their lusts for more power, which in turn takes freedoms and liberties away from the very people who put these ‘leaders’ in their positions.”
Hodges, however, noted there are a few good guys around yet.
“I have to say, this video completely took me off guard. Recently, we’ve seen so many open-carry protesters (or just ordinary citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights) met with paranoid, power-hungry cops who end up arresting them for ‘disturbing the peace,’ or ‘resisting arrest’ all because they carried a Glock on their hip or a rifle on their shoulder.”
This video, however, “You have to see it to believe it.”
According to those to posted the unidentified officer, “This man is a hero.”
“We saw the … sheriff car pull up so we all took out our camera-phones right away, anticipating trouble. This officer gets out of his car, waves to us, and walks right over. He shakes all of our hands, introduces himself, and states his purpose for walking over to us. (Somebody got scared and called). He never asked us to disarm, never threatened us, never asked for our names or identification. I think I can speak for everyone in the group that it was an honor to meet this man. This is what we need to see from police officers everywhere! ”
On the blog, dozens commented:

• “If all police officers presented themselves as this Dep. Sheriff did, it would go far to restore the respect we USED TO have and show toward our police.”
• “Good man! Good man!
• “This sheriff deserves a lot of praise for his understanding of the Constitution.”
• “I just wish all sheriffs had his knowledge and attitude.”
• “An absolutely great law officer, far and few between today…”

The officer explained, “You guys aren’t doing anything wrong. … You got to look at this like this. If you have a can of gas in one hand and a lighter in the other that’s going to scare some folks. That’s what a gun’s going to do to a lot of uneducated…. A firearm to me was like a hammer or a screwdriver.”
Added Hodges, “Here’s a tidbit from the ‘confrontation’ that I thought was great, especially coming from a police officer. He asked the group, ‘What is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement agency in the land?’ One of the open-carriers replied, ‘The sheriff’s department.’ The Sheriff gave a thumbs-up ‘Hoorah’ and continued:
“‘Every other [agency] was created by statute. That’s the FBI, the ATF, your local PDs, everything, DNR – statute, legislature, Congress has created them. The Constitution [only calls for] sheriffs. When I got into this line of work – because I was a young constitutionalist like yourselves – I said I want to work for the sheriff. I could’ve gone somewhere else and gotten a nice retirement package – the sheriff pays me well, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy working for him – but, to me, it’s very personal. I hold it in my heart, because it’s constitutional,’” the officer said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/watch-deputy-face-3-armed-citizens/#UOf8wRMieg1qgsLC.99

A blogger is praising a law enforcement officer who respectfully visits with three open-carry protesters and his compliments are being joined by dozens of commenters on the Last Resistance website.
Philip Hodges posted online the video from a Michigan encounter between the officer and several sign-carrying conservatives who were advocating for Second Amendment rights.

“You’ll never guess what happens when this sheriff confronts 3 open-carry protesters,” Hodges wrote.
“I am usually critical of police these days. But I’m not ‘anti-police.’ Just like I’m not anti-congressman or anti-senator or even anti-president. But let’s face it. Most people today who occupy those positions are corrupt individuals. They exert far more power than their constitutional authority allows,” Hodges wrote.
He continued, “The Constitution was written to restrain them, because the Founding Fathers understood the temptations of power that come with holding positions of authority. But we have spineless politicians who are never satisfied with the ‘limited’ power they wield, so representatives in all branches of local, state and federal government are constantly reinterpreting the Constitution to accommodate their lusts for more power, which in turn takes freedoms and liberties away from the very people who put these ‘leaders’ in their positions.”
Hodges, however, noted there are a few good guys around yet.
“I have to say, this video completely took me off guard. Recently, we’ve seen so many open-carry protesters (or just ordinary citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights) met with paranoid, power-hungry cops who end up arresting them for ‘disturbing the peace,’ or ‘resisting arrest’ all because they carried a Glock on their hip or a rifle on their shoulder.”
This video, however, “You have to see it to believe it.”
According to those to posted the unidentified officer, “This man is a hero.”
“We saw the … sheriff car pull up so we all took out our camera-phones right away, anticipating trouble. This officer gets out of his car, waves to us, and walks right over. He shakes all of our hands, introduces himself, and states his purpose for walking over to us. (Somebody got scared and called). He never asked us to disarm, never threatened us, never asked for our names or identification. I think I can speak for everyone in the group that it was an honor to meet this man. This is what we need to see from police officers everywhere! ”
On the blog, dozens commented:

• “If all police officers presented themselves as this Dep. Sheriff did, it would go far to restore the respect we USED TO have and show toward our police.”
• “Good man! Good man!
• “This sheriff deserves a lot of praise for his understanding of the Constitution.”
• “I just wish all sheriffs had his knowledge and attitude.”
• “An absolutely great law officer, far and few between today…”

The officer explained, “You guys aren’t doing anything wrong. … You got to look at this like this. If you have a can of gas in one hand and a lighter in the other that’s going to scare some folks. That’s what a gun’s going to do to a lot of uneducated…. A firearm to me was like a hammer or a screwdriver.”
Added Hodges, “Here’s a tidbit from the ‘confrontation’ that I thought was great, especially coming from a police officer. He asked the group, ‘What is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement agency in the land?’ One of the open-carriers replied, ‘The sheriff’s department.’ The Sheriff gave a thumbs-up ‘Hoorah’ and continued:
“‘Every other [agency] was created by statute. That’s the FBI, the ATF, your local PDs, everything, DNR – statute, legislature, Congress has created them. The Constitution [only calls for] sheriffs. When I got into this line of work – because I was a young constitutionalist like yourselves – I said I want to work for the sheriff. I could’ve gone somewhere else and gotten a nice retirement package – the sheriff pays me well, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy working for him – but, to me, it’s very personal. I hold it in my heart, because it’s constitutional,’” the officer said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/watch-deputy-face-3-armed-citizens/#UOf8wRMieg1qgsLC.99

'Most people today who occupy those positions are corrupt individuals'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/watch-deputy-face-3-armed-citizens/#UOf8wRMieg1qgsLC.99

News Media Corruption: "Why America is the greatest country in the world..."‏ Lisbon You Are At A Similar Crossroads Currently, Will You Help Or Continue To Hope Someone Else Does?

The answer is kind of obvious to everyone who
lives practically anywhere else in the world, but 
it's still news to many Americans. 
 
A frank answer to:
 
"Why is America the greatest country in
the world?"
 
Warning: Harsh language. 
 
Video:
 
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/24353.html
 
- Brasscheck

From "Newsroom": Harsh language warning

Why America is the greatest country in the world...

 

An answer without the bullshit

This aired on HBO on a show called "Newsroom."

It's a testament to the US's dense and comprehensive propaganda system that you can watch US TV for tens of thousands of hours and never come across something so straightforward and accurate.

I don't know what the actual show is about.

If I have one critique of this: He's awfully nostalgic about a past that didn't quite happen the way he remembers it.

 Submitted by: Todd Comber

An answer without the bullshit
This aired on HBO on a show called "Newsroom."

It's a testament to the US's dense and comprehensive propaganda system that you can watch US TV for tens of thousands of hours and never come across something so straightforward and accurate.

I don't know what the actual show is about.

If I have one critique of this: He's awfully nostalgic about a past that didn't quite happen the way he remembers it.
- See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/news-media-corruption-1/why-america-is-the-greatest-country-in-the-world.html#sthash.ej6fCVL4.dpuf

A Counterpoint; The Inappropriate Thesaurus: Response to Ken Huber and What Has America Become

Monday, October 25, 2010

Response to Ken Huber and What Has America Become

This leditor has been going around the right-wing email circuit, and I wanted to briefly address each of Mr. Huber's comments... (If this isn't big enough to read, you can see most of it in excerpt below.)

Ken Huber has some good points but his timeline seems to be confused...

"Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard?"

Yes, when we seceded from the union (with Britain)... We have been such ever since, regardless of who has been paying attention.

"Lets see, if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics."

Correct. This is because we don't require Congressmen to swear an oath every time they speak. Regular people lie all the time and it's not a felony. You're forgetting that Congressmen are just regular people going to work, and you seem to be under the impression that they were all completely truthful at one point..?

"If we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, it's their 1st Amendment right."

Both of these things are racist and both of them are 1st amendment rights. There wouldn't be a constitution guaranteeing you the freedom to be a perfect person, this document would be unnecessary. BTW, if certain people give African Americans a pass for being racially ignorant, it's because the American double standard has shafted them historically harder than other groups, and perhaps they actually have a tiny reason to dislike us.

"The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims."

My imagination isn't potent enough to fathom what it's like to have my life so far into the gutter that robbing a liquor store seems like a good idea... The sad truth of the matter is that we don't all share the same morals, intelligence, work ethic, education, psychological health, etc. etc. But if one of our worst hypocrisies as a nation is that we attempt to turn criminals into decent people.... I guess this doesn't enrage me as much as it should.

"In public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process."

But we teach that God is okay. In one form or another we all learned about the religious freedom of America, we're just not allowed to tell kids they have to believe in God anymore than we tell them they have to be homosexuals. How is this inconsistent?

"You can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer."

I don't think mass murderers have as good of a reputation as you presume. Also, unborn children are generally thought more highly of than "it's okay to kill them". But the reason it's LEGAL to kill them is one of the unfortunate results of a complicated society filled with contrasting world-views. You've had this discussion I'm sure.

"We don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them."

This is a somewhat alarming complaint, and I'm hoping it's just the poetic linguistics of a traditional-minded fellow. If not, let me address it quickly. Knowledge is a constantly evolving thing. What makes a book written in 1999 more valid than a similar book written in 2010? Because it was here first? If the most effective form of chemotherapy has changed over the last ten years, should the texts on chemo not be updated? And the reason we don't burn the old volumes is because they may be useful for reference. When it comes to knowledge, less is not more.

"We got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive."

The claim seems to be that language is being strategically used to affect attitudes. I can do that too. Progress is being slowed down by people renaming it the Socialist Threat. Congratulations, you're a politician.

"We are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea."

I agree that we're spending too much money on foreign defense, although I think this one has something to do with your Communist Threat.

"If you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right."

Seriously? You got called a terrorist for peacefully protesting? That seems extreme.

"You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas."

This is perfectly consistent: you can have a nativity scene at home and you can't have pornography in a public park. What's the argument here? And just a side note, there is such a thing as non-sexual pornography, and the idea of a living manger out-front the capitol building is probably certain peoples' little blue pill.

"We have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people."

Huh? I think this is more rhetorical gymnastics. If the core of this statement is that you don't like the empathy that is given to people who break the law, then I don't know what to tell ya. They still go to jail, and their lives are still probably more or less empty. If you're mad that they're still treated like human beings then I can't really help ya on this one.

"We can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal."

They're not live fetuses being used for research. Again, I can appreciate the anti-abortion sentiment, as I think many people can, but there's something not-so-sacred about incest-rape. Additionally, I don't think the average liberal American has a problem with using rats to cure cancer. Certain folks don't want animals mutated to test our style products. Don't confuse a vocal minority for a majority.

"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work"

Literally speaking, this is probably way less common than you'd expect. Do you think the average beneficiary of unemployment really WANTS to pad their resume with years of wellfare? Maybe some, but the bigger social issue here is that unexceptional people are having too many babies, creating large quantities of unexceptional citizens.

"We all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology."

Good point, this is also nothing new.

"We still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct."

False. Politically incorrect people still have freedom of speech, they just don't like having to deal with the non-legal consequences of their words. You can lose your job for something you say, but you're forgetting that a job is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

"Parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games."

Once again, too many unexceptional parents.

"The land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs."

Vote.

"The similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help."

Fair enough.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

Duh.

"What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?"

This is from a song. There are still brave people and free people living here. But the reason those lyrics are popular in song form instead of document form is because they're intended to get you emotive about a vague concept, rather than particular about specific concepts. To ask "What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?" is to ask a rhetorical question for the purpose of making a broad statement: "I don't like the way my country is behaving as of late". But the hypocrisies that you're dealing with here are remarkably consistent with the hypocrisies we've always had. The only difference LATELY is that your fellow voters have been disagreeing with you about the details. You're mad at your government but the folks you should really be mad at are the voters who have a different outlook than you.

What you're probably MOST upset about, is that non-religious people have different values than the faithful. You are unable to see religious dogma as subjective truth. And I don't blame you, because what use would religion be if it WAS seen as subjective? I don't know how to help you reconcile this, other than to tell you to keep on voting and hope for the best. Progress and entropy are more or less two sides to the same coin. One of these (entropy) is inevitable by definition. If that's the idiom you subscribe to, then we're already doomed. If you see social movement as progress, then this is NOT inevitable, and there's hope for you. Only problem becomes dealing with the reality that you're rooting against progress. You can look at the public moving away from religion, towards humanism and see it as entropy or progress. But you can't call it neither. Or, shouldn't.

My friend, you're a man without a nation, and this is going to sound odd and strangely anti-American to say, but if this stuff is really important to you, you're best bet is to join the Tea Party and start planning which mesoamerican states are going to be fenced off for the REAL America to begin. Only awkward thing is that you're going to lose the name America and the songs and flags... Can you reconcile fighting for your secession (which you WILL win, because if there's one thing your Tea Party friends will have, it's lots of guns--and if there's one thing godless neo-liberals don't have, it's willingness to fight and die for anything) when after the dust settles, you'll have your perfect set of small-government laws but a less traditional flag to wave, different songs to learn, and a whole new set of patriots to start idolizing? Boy it's gonna be wistfull, but at least things will be back to the way they.... (were?)

 http://dolphindentist.blogspot.com/2010/10/response-to-ken-huber-and-what-has.html