Democrats never stop pissing and moaning about the wealthy. Then, in-between their class warfare diatribes, Democrats tend to their first order of business MAKING THE TAX DOLLAR RICH RICHER.
The tax dollar rich are not the only villains. The managers, also known as the upper middle class, who work for the government rich are a class unto themselves.
NOTE: Where there is great wealth there is great poverty. Just about every country in the ancient world set the pattern. Todays America, combined with travels of my youth, led me to conclude that poverty in Socialisms inevitable form of totalitarian government will resemble poverty in India more than it resembles Europe as many believe. Also note that environmental freakazoids saving every insect, fish, and fowl, is closer to a tenet of Indian religions reincarnation than it is to any of the major religions in the West.
There is no doubt that the nations wealth is ending up in the hands of fewer and fewer people. So this should come as no surprise:
NOTE: Lest I be accused of preaching Communisms equal distribution of the wealth, let me say that I firmly believe that wealth distribution can only be arrived at naturally. The history of government and organized religion indicates that that has been the goal of decent men for thousands of years. Americas original form of laissez faire capitalism functioning in a severely limited government was the first and only time civilized men came close to a natural (not equal) distribution of wealth. Laissez faire capitalism is not the utopian form of government that equality promises but can never deliver. Laissez faire capitalism does accommodate the best elements of human nature without any moral guidance from priests of any stripe. Basically, greed is related to government and religion more than it is to laissez faire capitalism
Lip service notwithstanding, nobody who is well-paid objects to the concentration of wealth in the hands of their employers; so it is difficult to understand why they would oppose information being filtered through the machinery of mass communications in the hands of a few. The media moguls who profit from the machinery, the workers who operate the machinery, as well as the machinery itself, are all instruments of government.
Totalitarian government is the very thing Democrats fight for. That makes rank & file liberals complaining about a concentration of media power all the more strange. No group achieves more than a few media moguls achieve in bringing about the kind of economy the American Left wants.
If truth be told, Socialists/Communists have no squawk coming.
Any discussion of the media is meaningless when the Internet is left out as though it does not exist.
One can only guess what much-admired-by-liberals, Hugo Black, would say about the Internet and:
I suspect that Hugo Black would side with todays Democrats in every attempt to abolish freedom of speech on the Internet. As Ive said many times before, liberals love freedom of the press but hate freedom of speech on the Internet.
This next one goes to the heart of funding:
Repealing the XVI Amendment is not on the radar screen; so how about giving the public interest side one big gun by eliminating the advertising tax deduction?
Finally, the golden age of television demands special mention:
The Golden Age of Television is not a reference to programming. It refers to that time in televisions history before the remote control device was invented. In those days the viewers watched and listened to the commercials the way that God intended they should, and the government still got its message out through program content and news broadcasts. It was a perfect world for the government until the remote control became part of the furniture in every household with a TV.
On the day the remote control device showed up in retail stores all hell broke loose at the Ministry of Propaganda (FCC).
Then, just when the propagandists were learning to deal with that damned remote control, the VCR reared its ugly head.
In time the biggest propaganda setback of all came along; subscription television allows subscribers to record a program right on their television sets then fast forward through commercials and everything else the viewer finds distasteful.
The Internet administered the coup de grâce. Americans spend far too much time talking to each other on the Internet when they should be sitting in front of a TV set absorbing the Word from the Man. Is there no end to the indignities propagandists must endure?
All of those Techno-Nerds are not helping things either. Why cant they confine themselves to inventing better mousetraps and stay the hell out of the Ministry of Propagandas business which is to promote Socialism in an orderly and timely manner?
Parenthetically, away back in the days when TV and I were young, people were a lot smarter than they are now. Commercials on TV in those early years drove viewers crazy. For the most part, the audience consisted of people from the radio generation they were used to electronic sales pitches. However, radio was a background medium in that the listener could do something else while listening. Television demands participation. The viewer watches and listens.
Back then there was some talk about commercial-free TV programming. (The term Pay TV was coined later because it was not considered wise to let the term commercial-free enter the language since Pay TV was never going to be commercial-free.)
In the beginning, a few Americans said that they would be willing to pay a buck or two a month to watch commercial-free TV. No commercials was the one and only justification for even considering paying a fee to watch television in your own home. Most Americans scoffed at the idea Ill be damned if Ill voluntarily pay for something that Im now getting for free. After all, the airwaves belong to all of us.
Today, a number of Americans pay for TV and get the commercials, too. Will any fellow poster dare claim that Americans are smarter now than they were back in the days of TVs infancy?
Not signing up for one form of subscription TV or the other doesnt mean that you are not paying anyway. Youll have to get rid of your telephone to beat the price entirely. The Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 saw to that. Cable TV was not doing well; so the telephone bill came riding to the rescue in the form of a subsidy for subscription television. Only U.S. senators and congressmen can explain why the tax on your monthly telephone bill is called a fee.
I know that the public will always fund their governments propaganda efforts in one form or another, but does it have be for so much? If Joseph Goebbels would have had the level of funding the FCC enjoys, the Nazis would be running Europe today. (Socialists/Communists hope to eventually control the world by using many of the same techniques that Goebbels pioneered.)
How many people does it take to issue and monitor a few broadcast licenses? Certainly not the 2,000 that are on the FCCs payroll. Ministry of Propaganda personnel could govern a small country if the need arises. And if you throw in all of the people that work in TV, radio, and Tinseltown, they could probably populate a medium-sized country with no trouble at all. Id surely like to know what kind of mischief all of those Socialist propagandists are up to in areas that I dont even begin to understand.
Money aside, what is the true price Americans are paying to fund the Ministry of Propaganda? The loss of an independent press, antagonistic to government, is just one part of the price. By antagonistic I mean a truly antagonistic press corps, and not just a bunch of media butt-suckers giving the illusion of reporting on government shenanigans.
Another part of the price that is being paid, and one that is far more costly, is a single federal bureaucracy that dictates what the public learns about all domestic and foreign policies. Nothing gets heard without the FCCs approval.
On the other hand, nothing ever goes away that the people who control the FCC really want, even if private sector Americans clearly say that they dont want any part of it. For example: Open-borders kept coming back like a bad case of gonorrhea until the entire country was infected. If Jesus Christ came back and ran for president on the promise that he would turn the lights off over at the FCC, the FCC would pull out all stops and see that he lost.
The tax dollar rich are not the only villains. The managers, also known as the upper middle class, who work for the government rich are a class unto themselves.
NOTE: Where there is great wealth there is great poverty. Just about every country in the ancient world set the pattern. Todays America, combined with travels of my youth, led me to conclude that poverty in Socialisms inevitable form of totalitarian government will resemble poverty in India more than it resembles Europe as many believe. Also note that environmental freakazoids saving every insect, fish, and fowl, is closer to a tenet of Indian religions reincarnation than it is to any of the major religions in the West.
There is no doubt that the nations wealth is ending up in the hands of fewer and fewer people. So this should come as no surprise:
The unquestionable evils seen in concentrating the nations wealth in the hands of the few can easily be exorcized by repealing the XVI Amendment. Not one government priest with a public voice would dare suggest such an exorcism. Ditto the media priesthood. Thats why I do not pay too much attention to the economy horse manure the media spreads around.
NOTE: Lest I be accused of preaching Communisms equal distribution of the wealth, let me say that I firmly believe that wealth distribution can only be arrived at naturally. The history of government and organized religion indicates that that has been the goal of decent men for thousands of years. Americas original form of laissez faire capitalism functioning in a severely limited government was the first and only time civilized men came close to a natural (not equal) distribution of wealth. Laissez faire capitalism is not the utopian form of government that equality promises but can never deliver. Laissez faire capitalism does accommodate the best elements of human nature without any moral guidance from priests of any stripe. Basically, greed is related to government and religion more than it is to laissez faire capitalism
Lip service notwithstanding, nobody who is well-paid objects to the concentration of wealth in the hands of their employers; so it is difficult to understand why they would oppose information being filtered through the machinery of mass communications in the hands of a few. The media moguls who profit from the machinery, the workers who operate the machinery, as well as the machinery itself, are all instruments of government.
Totalitarian government is the very thing Democrats fight for. That makes rank & file liberals complaining about a concentration of media power all the more strange. No group achieves more than a few media moguls achieve in bringing about the kind of economy the American Left wants.
If truth be told, Socialists/Communists have no squawk coming.
The tremendous gains made by Socialists in controlling the economy in the last 60 or so years were made possible by the media. If Socialists ever look beyond their pathetic worldview they would place every ounce of the medias power in the hands of just one media mogul. They certainly feel that way about all of the political power residing in the hands of an imperial president when he is one of their own.
Any discussion of the media is meaningless when the Internet is left out as though it does not exist.
One can only guess what much-admired-by-liberals, Hugo Black, would say about the Internet and:
I suspect that Hugo Black would side with todays Democrats in every attempt to abolish freedom of speech on the Internet. As Ive said many times before, liberals love freedom of the press but hate freedom of speech on the Internet.
This next one goes to the heart of funding:
Repealing the XVI Amendment is not on the radar screen; so how about giving the public interest side one big gun by eliminating the advertising tax deduction?
Finally, the golden age of television demands special mention:
The Golden Age of Television is not a reference to programming. It refers to that time in televisions history before the remote control device was invented. In those days the viewers watched and listened to the commercials the way that God intended they should, and the government still got its message out through program content and news broadcasts. It was a perfect world for the government until the remote control became part of the furniture in every household with a TV.
On the day the remote control device showed up in retail stores all hell broke loose at the Ministry of Propaganda (FCC).
Then, just when the propagandists were learning to deal with that damned remote control, the VCR reared its ugly head.
In time the biggest propaganda setback of all came along; subscription television allows subscribers to record a program right on their television sets then fast forward through commercials and everything else the viewer finds distasteful.
The Internet administered the coup de grâce. Americans spend far too much time talking to each other on the Internet when they should be sitting in front of a TV set absorbing the Word from the Man. Is there no end to the indignities propagandists must endure?
All of those Techno-Nerds are not helping things either. Why cant they confine themselves to inventing better mousetraps and stay the hell out of the Ministry of Propagandas business which is to promote Socialism in an orderly and timely manner?
Parenthetically, away back in the days when TV and I were young, people were a lot smarter than they are now. Commercials on TV in those early years drove viewers crazy. For the most part, the audience consisted of people from the radio generation they were used to electronic sales pitches. However, radio was a background medium in that the listener could do something else while listening. Television demands participation. The viewer watches and listens.
Back then there was some talk about commercial-free TV programming. (The term Pay TV was coined later because it was not considered wise to let the term commercial-free enter the language since Pay TV was never going to be commercial-free.)
In the beginning, a few Americans said that they would be willing to pay a buck or two a month to watch commercial-free TV. No commercials was the one and only justification for even considering paying a fee to watch television in your own home. Most Americans scoffed at the idea Ill be damned if Ill voluntarily pay for something that Im now getting for free. After all, the airwaves belong to all of us.
Today, a number of Americans pay for TV and get the commercials, too. Will any fellow poster dare claim that Americans are smarter now than they were back in the days of TVs infancy?
Not signing up for one form of subscription TV or the other doesnt mean that you are not paying anyway. Youll have to get rid of your telephone to beat the price entirely. The Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 saw to that. Cable TV was not doing well; so the telephone bill came riding to the rescue in the form of a subsidy for subscription television. Only U.S. senators and congressmen can explain why the tax on your monthly telephone bill is called a fee.
I know that the public will always fund their governments propaganda efforts in one form or another, but does it have be for so much? If Joseph Goebbels would have had the level of funding the FCC enjoys, the Nazis would be running Europe today. (Socialists/Communists hope to eventually control the world by using many of the same techniques that Goebbels pioneered.)
How many people does it take to issue and monitor a few broadcast licenses? Certainly not the 2,000 that are on the FCCs payroll. Ministry of Propaganda personnel could govern a small country if the need arises. And if you throw in all of the people that work in TV, radio, and Tinseltown, they could probably populate a medium-sized country with no trouble at all. Id surely like to know what kind of mischief all of those Socialist propagandists are up to in areas that I dont even begin to understand.
Money aside, what is the true price Americans are paying to fund the Ministry of Propaganda? The loss of an independent press, antagonistic to government, is just one part of the price. By antagonistic I mean a truly antagonistic press corps, and not just a bunch of media butt-suckers giving the illusion of reporting on government shenanigans.
Another part of the price that is being paid, and one that is far more costly, is a single federal bureaucracy that dictates what the public learns about all domestic and foreign policies. Nothing gets heard without the FCCs approval.
On the other hand, nothing ever goes away that the people who control the FCC really want, even if private sector Americans clearly say that they dont want any part of it. For example: Open-borders kept coming back like a bad case of gonorrhea until the entire country was infected. If Jesus Christ came back and ran for president on the promise that he would turn the lights off over at the FCC, the FCC would pull out all stops and see that he lost.
