Anyone care to comment on Jay Rock

[RA1]

This senator recently commented that cable "news" networks and shows should be eliminated by the FCC. As many have pointed out, the FCC does not have the authority to do anything to or about cable TV.

Is he off his meds? What would make a senator make these kinds of comments? Doing what he suggests is clearly unconstitutional as well as silly.

Are the Rockefellers so inbred that they are now simpletons? Why is he being elected or re-elected?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

RA1, when you're one of the all time Senatorial Hall of Fame champions at manipulating the appropriation process to funnel money into your home state, voters will tolerate a certain level of senility.

[RA1]

Apparently so and his mentor was Byrd. THE all time champ at manipulating the appropriation process.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

His intentions are certainly good.

[RA1]

Isn't he taking money out of your pocket and giving it to someone in WVA?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

...his mentor was Byrd. THE all time champ at manipulating the appropriation process.

God bless Mommy. God bless Daddy. God bless Senator Byrd for extending the Greenbush Rural Water Association branch line all the way to our house on Burning Creek Road.

[RA1]

Who did he leave out in the other 49 states? In other words, who did he take FROM in the other 49 states?

Best regards,

RA1

[JKane]

The FCC is toothless and the things they have had power over (media ownership and the HD broadcast standard) they usually fuck up royally.

But there should be some major anti-trust action against Murdock. He owns the major paper(s) in how many cities? Plus WSJ! Plus radio stations. Plus local broadcast stations and a national broadcast network. Plus several cable networks. That's very extreme in itself (and there USED to be ownership rules to prevent that).

BUT THEN he also owns DirectTV, and can be clearly seen leveraging his media monopolies to benefit them! Ads on cable all the time in places about "your cable company will soon lose Fox Sports and local Fox 4, please consider switching to [DirectTV]!"

How long 'till DirectTV drops MSNBC? How long 'till Murdock controls every media outlet more than 50% of Americans subscribe to--IF IT HASN'T ALREADY HAPPENED?

[MsGuy]

Bless your heart, RA1, but folks who reside at the headwaters of Burning Creek don't often let such concerns influence their votes.

[RA1]

Bless your heart, RA1, but folks who reside at the headwaters of Burning Creek don't often let such concerns influence their votes.

I am sure they don't, but they should, as should you and I.

Best regards,

RA1

[RA1]

The FCC is toothless and the things they have had power over (media ownership and the HD broadcast standard) they usually fuck up royally.

But there should be some major anti-trust action against Murdock. He owns the major paper(s) in how many cities? Plus WSJ! Plus radio stations. Plus local broadcast stations and a national broadcast network. Plus several cable networks. That's very extreme in itself (and there USED to be ownership rules to prevent that).

BUT THEN he also owns DirectTV, and can be clearly seen leveraging his media monopolies to benefit them! Ads on cable all the time in places about "your cable company will soon lose Fox Sports and local Fox 4, please consider switching to [DirectTV]!"

How long 'till DirectTV drops MSNBC? How long 'till Murdock controls every media outlet more than 50% of Americans subscribe to--IF IT HASN'T ALREADY HAPPENED?

I don't intend to "pick on you, JKane", but you sound a lot like Jay Rock. Please pay attention to the US Constitution and let freedom ring.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I suspect it is just frustration with the Fox Noise Channel aka Faux News Channel and the proclivity of mainstream news to validate it as a news source. Lumping in MSNBC and others is probably a probably a sop to 'fair play' and 'even handedness' as they are overtly political too, even if they don't make up facts and perpetuate lies fabricated by others.

As for The FCC, well not every Senator always knows of what he speaks. This is hardly surprising. It is scary but Rockefellar is one of the least we need to be scared about. As for funneling funds and voting the interests of the home state... well that is what representation is all about isn't it? Else we would have voters from NY elect WV representatives and vice versa, no?

I don't fault one representing the interst of his/her state. If those interests go against the interest of the country as a whole then that ought to be apparent to the representatives of the other 49 states.

[RA1]

Go along to get along? Fine for a boy's club but not suitable when there are trillions of USD at play.

There is a difference between representing the interests of one's state and spending huge amounts of "other's" dollars or what were other's dollars a short time ago.

Legislation to promote business and capital enterprise does not mean spending tax dollars.

Not trying to be disagreeable but we need major reform to deal with these situations. We are broke and cannot continue as before.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

There is a difference between representing the interests of one's state and spending huge amounts of "other's" dollars or what were other's dollars a short time ago.

Legislation to promote business and capital enterprise does not mean spending tax dollars.

Not trying to be disagreeable but we need major reform to deal with these situations. We are broke and cannot continue as before.

Best regards,

RA1

I suspect your difference would fall on deaf ears in the donor states.

IMO this response is illogical and unrealistic. Your problem should not be with him but with the other senators. He cannot do anything by himself other than propose. It takes at least fifty others if not sixty others to dispose. To expect every senator or representative to discipline themselves is a pretty unrealistic view of politicians who promise things to get elected.

Reform is needed but it is clear that we are no nearer to reform today than we were a year or ten years ago. It is going to be politics as usual.

I also suspect your idea of reform is probably not the idea that some others have of reform. Therein lies the rub.

Everybody wants 'reform', knows the problems but has different solutions. If your only goal is to reduce the deficit that is straightforward. However, I suspect that you would reject my straightforward solution. Thus your goal is not just reducing the deficit but doing so within your own orthodoxy. It is the same for the other side. No signs yet of serious compromise by either side. So reducing the deficit is NOT the most important goal yet, else it would be done.

Yep, politics as usual.

[JKane]

I don't intend to "pick on you, JKane", but you sound a lot like Jay Rock. Please pay attention to the US Constitution and let freedom ring.

I know teabaggers just discovered the constitution, but assuming you can read it like you "read" the bible (i.e. it says whatever you want it to say as long as you say so loudly enough) doesn't fly.

Constitutional argument 1:

Exactly where in the constitution does it say a foreigner gets to control all our media outlets? I'd suggest the section on presidential eligibility makes clear that non-native born Americans are to be restricted certain things.

Constitutional argument 2:

Freedom of the press... anybody reasonable looking at a list of Murdock's holdings quickly comes to the conclusion it equals the opposite of a free press.

And there have been restrictions on media ownership in this country (and anti-trust laws) for a very long time. With very good reason. But those who cannot remember the past... yellow journalism and the Spanish-American war seeming very familiar to those of us who closely watched the drive to the Iraq war.

Constitutional argument 3:

Further, federal regulation of interstate commerce is clearly established in the constitution, and you don't get more interstate then broadcast networks (radio and TV) and satellite TV.

But keep railing for this foreign Billionaire to continue plundering our society! Maybe one day one of the many like you will find a crumb he dropped as a reward!

[RA1]

I suspect donor states would be glad to stop donating. I don't much approve of any MOC and was just using Jay Rock as a recent and somewhat typical example of silliness, except at this level of dollars spent, it isn't silly any longer, is it?

I don't pretend to be a constitutional scholar and I wish some of our pols didn't either. I don't like the idea of "foreigners" owning much of any thing in the US, much less, as you suggest, controlling the news. However, we, meaning the elected leadership of this country, are very much headed towards "one world government" and such ownership is just one manifestation thereof.

We definitely need to clean house. That should include (tired old song from me) term limits, sunset laws, eliminating corporate/lobbyists control of the campaign dollars thereby eliminating most lobbyists. Do you know there are 30,000 lobbyists in DC right now and they all, to one extent or another, have the ear of a MOC or staff member? There are many more reforms needed, but you all know that, don't you?

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I suspect donor states would be glad to stop donating. I don't much approve of any MOC and was just using Jay Rock as a recent and somewhat typical example of silliness, except at this level of dollars spent, it isn't silly any longer, is it?

I don't pretend to be a constitutional scholar and I wish some of our pols didn't either. I don't like the idea of "foreigners" owning much of any thing in the US, much less, as you suggest, controlling the news. However, we, meaning the elected leadership of this country, are very much headed towards "one world government" and such ownership is just one manifestation thereof.

We definitely need to clean house. That should include (tired old song from me) term limits, sunset laws, eliminating corporate/lobbyists control of the campaign dollars thereby eliminating most lobbyists. Do you know there are 30,000 lobbyists in DC right now and they all, to one extent or another, have the ear of a MOC or staff member? There are many more reforms needed, but you all know that, don't you?

Best regards,

RA1

Now our views begin to converge. First though, what is a MOC?

I couldn't agree more about foreigners owning our debt. I have railed against selling ourselves to China for several years in these very forums, not to much response, BTW.

I also agree with the 'one-world-government'. We are careening toward Big Corporations running the world. Right now they are very strong influences on 'public' government in America, Europe, and 'rich' Asia. Eventually, they will dispense with the fiction of these 'public' governments when people become sufficiently indoctrinated to the fact.

It will take some time, maybe 50 years. That is unless the pople regain control of their governments. I see no indication or even strong desire for that now. To the contrary Big Business (BB) is doing an excellent job of convincing people that what is good for BB is good for them or simply by bribing government representatives. Just look at the tax breaks for the rich, the deceptive theft from people through Wall St. big banking selling worthless paper to investors including inviduals and pension funds, health insurance and now life insurance companies reneging on coverage contracts right and left or the pharamceutical industry bribing government to force people and government to pay exhorbitant prices for drugs -- much higher than in the rest of the world.

Yet, BB manages to convince people that private insurance insurance is in their best interest even when it shirks it obligations to policy holders yet charges exhorbitant rates when it accepts a policy. Banks bribe politicians to protect BB from regulations to protect investors and customers. The story goes on and on. It is testiment to their ability to sell this to the masses and when that falls short just bribe the government representatives.

We agree on eliminating the corporate lobbyists and business (and union) funding of political campaigns. The one thing that would most help the people to regain control of their government would be for the Supreme Court to overturn the doctrine of Corporate Personhood which appears nowhere in the Constitution -- for those strict constuctionists out there.

I am glad to see that we have some common ground to balance some of our differences.

[RA1]

We never were that much different, according to me. Pols would like to exploit these kinds of things to their benefit but reaching for and attaining most worthwhile goals can overcome such.

MOC = member of congress

Thanks for including unions. Unfortunately, there are many groups trying to direct the legislative process and NOT for the benefit of citizens at large.

We are very much "holding hands here".

Best regards,

RA1