hiphop-elements.com

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/opinion-right-wing-extremists-should-be-barred-from-military/

After the recent Fort Hood shootings, right wing pundits called for Muslims in the military to be investigated and in some cases barred from the military.

Imagine If an Arab or Islamic person with military training, who referred to himself as a terrorist and made several videos calling for the downfall of the U.S. government, was charged with raping a 7 year old? Can you imagine the uproar the Fox News would make? Now imagine that police found a grenade launcher in his house, connections to explosives dealers and bomb sniffing dogs determined that he was storing explosives. What if he said he joined the military for “training and (to) become one of those domestic terrorists that you’re so afraid of from the DHS reports.”

The problem is Charles Dyer, the man accused of raping a 7-year-old girl, isn’t Arab or Islamic. He is however, a self-proclaimed domestic terrorist closely who is charged with possessing a high powered grenade launcher stolen from a military facility. Dyer’s ideas and background are quite different than those of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but they are quite similar to those of notorious American domestic terrorists, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

For years, right wing, white supremacist extremists have been infiltrating the military. Two of the most famous right wing military veterans, Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, were responsible for the biggest terrorist attack in the United States previous to 9/11, killing 168 people including small 19 children in an attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Like McVeigh and Nichols, Dyer is a military veteran. Like McVeigh and Nicols, Dyer affiliated himself with the “Patriot Movement.” McVeigh, Nicols and Dyer all believed that state and federal agents are part of a conspiracy to strip Americans of their sovereign rights and believed that it was their duty to defend the constitution.

Dyers group, the Oathkeepers, were extremely against taxes, feared socialism, believed strongly in gun rights, defending the constitution and were closely tied to the militia movement and white supremacists, an ideology strikingly similar to that of McVeigh and Nichols.

The Oath Keepers are described by the SPLC as “particularly worrisome example” of a “virulently antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement” that has been reinvigorated, in part, by the fact that the president is black.

The group also views President Obama as an “enemy of the state.”

It is interesting, that with Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement, the right wing, who are now so concerned with Islamic extremists in the military, are promoting the same ideals that the extremist terrorist duo of Nichols and McVeigh were fueled by.

Like many from the right, McVeigh was once a registered Republican member of the NRA and distributed gun rights literature. Like many people in the Tea Party movement, McVeigh was against taxes and big government. The following quotes attributed to McVeigh could easily have come from someone in the Tea Party movement, especially the Oath Keepers group that Dyer was a part of.
Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate “promises,” they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight… Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.

Go ahead, take everything I own; take my dignity. Feel good as you grow fat and rich at my expense; sucking my tax dollars and property.

The right wing ranting about socialist governments that we see from Fox News, Glenn Beck and teabaggers was also part of McVeigh’s rhetoric.
I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.

I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.

Now here are some quotes from Charles Dyer.
We come home and those bastards want to talk about how we’re domestic terrorists and a threat to this country. It makes me so angry,

Join the military?….Depends on what you want to do with it. Me? I’m going to use my training and become one of those domestic terrorists that you’re so afraid of from the DHS reports.”

I’m certainly not going to be hiding from my command anymore. I’m not hiding from ATF. Not hiding from FBI. Any organization. If they want to come get me I’m not going to be afraid.

Despite the warning signs that Dyer showed, he only got any media attention or the attention of law enforcement, after he was accused of raping a 7-year-old girl. He proclaimed himself a domestic terrorist on YouTube and attempted to recruit ex-military and police men into his movement. Despite the horrible crime he was accused of and his role in the popular Right-Wing Tea Party, he has received little attention from the mainstream media.

Dyer was clearly influenced by Fox News, as he did a video segment on Fox News resident lunatic birther, Dr. Orly Taitz.

While Fox has been extremely anti-terror when it comes to Muslims, they turn a blind eye to the potential right wing terrorists in the in the mold of Timothy McVeigh that associate with the Fox News sponsored Tea Party events. McVeigh and Dyer were motivated by the same factors that are motivating the Fox news endorsed Tea Party movement: racism, a desire for guns, and a hatred for taxes and anything they perceive as socialism.
So how did the right responded to Timothy McVeigh? Ann Coultier said:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

At the time, Rush Limbaugh was very defensive about his role in McVeigh’s bombing. He said:
I want to go back to this show on April 24th of this year and–and remember at this time we’re–we’re about five days after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. And we’re into this period of time where talk radio–and, of course, when you say talk radio what everybody thinks of is Rush Limbaugh–talk radio is responsible for this because of the extremist nature of the programs and it could inspire these lunatics to do what they did(sarcasm)…

To this day, Rush Limbaugh believes that Clinton blamed him for the Oklahoma bombing, despite the fact that Clinton never mentioned his name.

Bill Maher accused Fox Host Glenn Beck of using the same rhetoric that “made (McVeigh) blow up that building” on March 23, 2009.

Four months late, Beck would address the McVeigh issue, saying
If anyone thinks that it would be a good idea to turn violent, think again. It would destroy the Republic. They have awakened a sleeping giant. But just one lunatic like Timothy McVeigh could ruin everything that everyone has worked so hard for. Because these people in Washington won’t pass up the use of an emergency.

Look how the media ran with the abortion doctor killing. They tried to pin that despicable act on Fox in general and specifically Bill O’Reilly and me. …I don’t want to ever hear from our own Americans, anyone voicing some sort of Muslim-extremist type justification.

Notice that Beck is not condemning violence, just asking his followers not to be violent so they don’t make him look bad in the eyes of the media. Still while distancing himself from violence, Beck is clearly attaching himself to the philosophies of McVeigh. In many ways, Beck is like the “radical” Islamic clerics who influence terrorists by preaching hate and fear without ever calling for violence directly.

So if we are going to be on the look out for possible extremist/terrorist types. We should not only check for Muslims who subscribe to radical Islam, but we should check for people who listen to Glenn Beck and Ann Coultier. Lunatics come from all sorts of religions, political parties and races. If we are going to profile for lunatics out of one background, we might as well start with the right wing. White supremacists have been infiltrating the military for some time now, according to the New York Times, and with a Black President, they pose more of a threat than ever.

After the Tennessee church shooting and the killing of Dr. Tiller, right wing pundits must realize their ability to influence people to turn violent. The fact that Rush Limbaugh gets to preach his anti-Obama hate on Armed Forces Radio to our soldiers is extremely frightening after what we saw McVeigh and Nichols did. We must be on guard from anybody in the military with anti-Government attitudes, whether they be influenced by radical Muslim clerics or radical right wing pundits.

It is true. Recently at school I have gotten into some pretty heated debates with guys claiming to be socialist, and stating that it is what we need because of their hatred for corporate corruption, and through intense governmental regulation we can eliminate potential of such corruption.

I agree that through regulation we can eliminate potential corruption. However, I do not believe it is through governmental regulation. Any such body with power over a country, whether it be government or corporate, needs to be regulated. Corrupt government is worse then corrupt business.

Are you afraid that if you associate the Child Raping Terrorist with the "Tea Party," then it might spin off the idea that the tea party supports things like that? Certainly you do not believe that. Tea Party members are probably the most likely to commit violent acts against child rapists, and real terrorists.

I think that the message here is typical. Typical of political opinion, and spite towards the opposing team, and real misunderstanding of the individual, as well as individual corruption:

We don't like the Tea Party movement, because it doesn't like Obama. We don't like rapists, and we don't like the Tea Party; here is a rapist who is a member, lets associate the two so that we can further sway support into attaining a negative opinion of the Tea Party. Propaganda.

Lets be real.

We should be against the Tea Party because they turned on our source of Change, our source of Hope, and the source of any modern idea of ever having a "Tea Party Movement," the underground president: Ron Paul.

In this instance, we can look at the Tea Party as if they had rejected their Jesus, and bought in to more glamorous celebrity models: Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly.

both of these men lead the struggle of a neo-con, Democrat and Republican conglomeration of the "divide and conquer" type agenda is promoted. If the population can be divided by personal positions such as abortion and gay people, then you can really see that the country has lost touch with actual things of importance: being free all way round, with laws that support the freedom. Laws should function as a way to protect Natural Freedoms. A gay man might be able to get married eventually, why not? However, I am now being limited by permits and regulations when I decide to vend on the side of a public street that is supported by my tax dollars.

Positions such as gay rights and whether or not abortion should be legal are absolutely the easiest topics to use when heightening emotions of voters. However, the gayness of a person and their pro-choice/life stance have absolutely little to do in the scope of power, and appear to be tools that are usable in this type of democracy to sway the votes towards different power sources. Obvious.

However, while gay men can legally get tax cuts to stick it in the poop shoot, and woman can put a blender in the yahoo to spin little Steven into soup, I am not allowed vend music or hand-made jewelry on public domain without permits and regulations that I have to report upon to mister commissioner.

The model under this government, and the previous, is to eliminate the individuals ability to gain self-sufficiency and use what he has available to him, to his full advantage.

Ive been raped by the government. I keep getting told I am free, yet my hands are tied whenever I want to act upon my instincts of survival, which in no way shape or form would impede upon another's rights, or harm our environment.

The government does not want me to live without their support, as other people may see the example, and live without their control and unrighteous regulation as well, which would stampede against the trend towards globalization. The power keeps getting bigger. Soon our medical and financial records will be under their files.

I have never once heard Obama speak against globalization, or the permanent ownership of personal property without taxation. I have never heard Obama speak against the value of your labor being rewarded with nothing of intrinsic value. I have never heard Obama speak about the importance of anonymity from the government, and individualized freedom to do what you want as you do not impede upon another's Natural Rights.

Fox News and Obama: Divide and Conquer. Good cop Bad cop, same outcome. Where have all the statesmen gone?

i do not understand. you want all this freedom from the government, yet not understand the perspective. Clarity comes when you realize that the free-est of men become the potential danger...even to the republic. The method behind the madness of taxation is to keep tabs on the people of this nation.
Corruption is the theme of your concern in your post, i gather. with that said, as human being we are all subject to some type of sin. It's in our make-up. I believe that they understand this and develop systems in its basic blueprint, i.e., coporate and govenrment corruption. it's all relative, as humans, we are all born in "sin".
I find it funny that people run around in fear and that which they fear, they naturally hate. In politics, both sides are guilty of pushing forth their own agenda because it's just cause and effect. one side is for a particular subject while the other is against. One side focuses on the positive while the other...negative. People that have had their own reservations seek out others ,whether consciously or not, who hold the same opinions and form groups and call themselves patriots. why? because the small handfull of the entire national populace found a common band-width? Yup. Strength in numbers. that's all it is. Birthers, tea-party, evagilists, catholics, muslims, islamic terrorists...all realative.
It's also funny that these people who cry out about a supposed "socialist president" hold $300 a dinner plate gatherings, or form groups...becasue that's also socialism.
Broken down, socialism is about sharing...(when you don't want to)...but it is sharing. There are aspects of this that are unsavory, but it is a whole lot better than having some moron telling me that he won't raise taxes, but he'll put my tax dollars into a Mercenary company that hires third-world dictatorship troops and Pro-Apartheid green berets to fight a war that our own tax paid military troops already take part in. That's something that needs to be talked about.

I tried to keep it easy to understand in why I said "Laws should function as a way to protect Natural Freedoms."
Oh, I ment to say "Natural Rights," but I think you get the gist.

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. However, I disagree with your pretext of socialism in this case, since political socialism, and marxist socialism are the targets for completely different reasons then your previous definition. You pretty much explained individuals, and groups of individuals sharing with each other as being socialist. I was talking about governmental socialism, which seems to be a rather popular fashion statement so to speak, in the notion of its Merrim-Webster definition:

"1a. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

I think it is good and grand when people can be socialist or communist with one another, even forming their own communal neighborhoods establishing systems of trade, or barter. However, I am of the philosophy that you cannot enforce these means upon anyone. if the individual wishes to conduct these activities with individuals of the same intent, then it is fine. However, the moment an individual wishes to opt out, or not be part, he should not be able to be forced, because he is a free man or woman.

then what is the government?...simplified, it is one entity driven by a series of opposing impulses, driven wills, and desires. Like the human body. the president is in the position of thought before finalization. before enacting. what i am saying is that this entity...or body...is actually imposing it's will on people, like all the other administrations before it. well documented. nothing new.
In religion, they use the bible as the word of GOD to tell us what to do with our bodies and freedoms. these things are an affront to the very thing that we all enjoy, but there are a few that want to curtail that because of worry that people will abuse it and go wild. here's a hint...these are the same people that advocate a free market based system...the likes of which devestated the economy. these are the same people that got pissed when the Pres. made a comment of people "sticking to their fire arms", but constantly hold rallies waving guns in the air.
i believe a prosperous nation is one that embodies all of those ideaologies and maintain a healthy balance. backed by truth, fact, and honest journalism. research and diligence is tantamount to a true strong nation.

Then we just simply disagree. I understand with you likening the government to an entity with each role of the body enacting upon a specific purpose to fulfill a grander function.. etc..

however,

American government is not just "government," philosophically speaking. American government's sole purpose is to ensure that the natural rights of each individual citizen will not be impeded upon, by either government, or corporation.

Free trade did not cause these current economic problems, because I do not think either myself or you have actually lived in a free market economy.

Take insurance companies for example, that by definition, is Corporatism. When the government allows legislative ability to the corporations. People HAVE to have health insurance, if they need insurance and are of a lower income level. People HAVE to have car insurance, if they want to drive. Industry is regulated when doing trade abroad.

True healthcare reform, would completely eliminate any need for insurance, as doctors and patients would be able to act off of a pay scale feasible to each individual. This is free market.

Government is not the cause of our problems. However, tyrannical government is. Tyrannical government makes people work hard to afford what it will provide, and forces the prices to increase dramatically for all private businesses which it claims high taxes from. Only the rich can afford to be free in this society, and in this society, the people beg the government to protect them from the corporations, and in the society they are praying for, only the Super-rich and government-officials will be free at all, while the rest bare the burdens of indentured servitude.

good point...

i agree with the last thing you said. to a degree that is what has been happening. let's not forget...greed is what destroyed the economy. the Super-rich you speak of are the ones that want to stop any type of reform.

...so, basically...i agree.

"greed is what destroyed the economy"

I hate corruption. Many of us are just trying to work hard, better ourselves and our community.

What is also interesting, is power sources dont just lie in government. Take media, and not just the "news". Entertainment television has a mass appeal to people in all walks of life, and all pay grades,; an example on what level I am talking about would be Viacom. They own CBS and MTV, Showtime etc. What I find interesting is that CBS caters itself to people from a moderate to conservative political viewpoint, and is even known to air pro-life advertisements. MTV advertised Obama in this previous election to a level of obvious support. This is an interesting, but theoretical, find for myself. A company of massive media power, offering channels to swerve and advertise different political viewpoints of any specific nature, to serve Viacoms special interest. It seems to me, that in Viacom's massively popular ownership of channels, a monopoly occurs. Not only of channels, but of psychological weapons. These weapons are: conditioning, and entertainment: sell the kids what is hip, and give the adults news to ponder. In the end, everyone is discussing what they saw, or just letting it seep in.

The power that can occur from this is ridiculous. Think about how many people ran for president, and then think about how many people you actually saw debate on television.

They provide us with who we can vote for, and abolish the rest... or make them invisible to the public eye. They tell us what the popular party issues are going to be, and then divide us on it, and offer us different avenues to explore. Avenues which offer counter ideals, which are still tampered with the agenda of the corp, or government if it has ties. Either or, I think that people would be less divided if we did not have monopolized media outlets working us against each other.

Like I said, this is theoretical, however, I can see how a super-rich corporation could completely operate through an outlet like television.

At that, I start thinking about how easy it would be for the super greedy, and corrupt to infiltrate the government (further then what it has been at this point,) once the government has adopted to much power over the corporations.

At this, I become confused. How can the individual remain free from the tyranny? Or is that just it? Is that the reason why we have things like the "Bill of Rights?" Eventually, there is going to be a tyranny, either governmental or corporate. I have a feeling that if either is to large, the only thing large enough to let it go down, is the other... which brings me to my last conclusion: No one should be that powerful.

I just want to push back on a few things.



If you want to be real then be real. Dude's stated reasons for disapproving of the Tea Party movement and conservatism in general are pretty consistent with mine and a lot of people I know--it's the combination of bad ideas, hyperbolic rhetoric and rank hypocrisy. It really isn't so much about the fact that they're opposed to Obama. It's that they oppose Obama for things they never complained about under Bush. It's that there is a significant portion of the movement that attacks him out of open xenophobia. It's that they have horrible ideas and promote conspiracy theories. You really don't need to agree with a single thing Obama has said or done to disapprove of the Tea Parties.




Nah, the way it looks to me is that the movement didn't so much reject Ron Paul. Rather, conservatives were encouraged by Fox News and talk radio to take part in the movement, basically hijacking what was essentially a libertarian movement back in the 2008 primary season. In fact, Ron Paul's apparently facing primary challenges from 3 candidates coming out of the Tea Party movement. But I mean, really, these people were never with him.



I see what you mean. Both can be and are used as wedge issues, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Laws regarding civil unions and gay marriage are very important to how gay couples lead their lives. And the rules barring gay soldiers from serving openly has a real impact both on those people's lives and on our ability to conduct military operations. And abortion, in a lot of ways, is a matter of life and death for actors on both sides. I mean, if you believe that life begins at the moment of conception and therefore a fetus is a person then it would follow that legalized abortion is legalized murder, which seems to me to be of some significance. Still, I don't disagree with you that these issues are used by the parties to raise money and get volunteers for political campaigns rather than affect change in policy.



This is kind of silly. The rules regulating commerce are, for the most part, not so much about intentionally limiting your rights as much as they are about consumer protection. And with music, there are also issues of intellectual property involved. I don't think that's unreasonable. True, there are a lot of stupid regulations, especially around determining who can set up a table on the street and on which street. From what I gather, that's usually about existing street venders using the government to establish barriers to entry to restrict competition. Still, I don't care how bad the red tape is, to call it rape is indefensible.



That's a bunch of nonsense. Have you ever seen what they charge you for a few days in the ICU or for a surgery? Unless you're a millionaire, you'll probably need at least catastrophic coverage unless you plan on going bankrupt in the event of a medical emergency.



Ha! Why do you hate the free market Mike? I agree with you that media consolidation is problematic and potentially dangerous. But I just don't see how you address this kind of thing through anything but the action of a strong government.

With regard to the debates, during the primary season, the parties figure out who gets to debate. (Though I guess it is the media's decision which primary debates they will host or cover). And in the general election season, it's actually the Commission on Presidential Debates that decides who gets to be on stage. And in their infinite wisdom, they've decided that anyone pulling at least 15 percent of the vote in 5 national polls gets to participate. Usually only major party candidates can get those kinds of numbers, but Ross Perot was able to do it without any party's support. So there's that.



Not really. When you look at our financial sector, we had the worst of both worlds. We had, on the one hand, gutted the New Deal era rules regulating banking. And on the other hand, you had the sort of implicit guarantee that large financial institutions would be bailed out if they failed (like they were in the savings and loan crisis). Most CEO pay schemes are also set up to reward short term gain without penalizing losses, thus encouraging excessive risk. Also, this particular crisis was in large part due to the securitization of home mortgages, which were themselves subsidized by government programs.

Still, I don't think you can really argue that sensible rules regarding our banking system and stronger regulatory agencies enforcing those rules couldn't have prevented this from happening.

Okay. I'll try to get at some of the other points later.


Peace

BigDoug, sorry I have not gotten back to this in so long. Your arguments were not in vain!






The only "conservatives," not complaining under Bush were Fox News, and everyone who has bought into that brand of idealism. Unfortunately, people that think "conservative," start thinking Fox News, because it's the media flinging the word around like they own it. That is NOT conservatism, and therefore should never be branded as such by anyone, even though they use the word. This was the reason most conservatives decided not to vote in this past election, or voted for the likes of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin etc. Neo-Cons claiming conservatism voted for McCain, however, they in themselves are extremely liberal and tyrannical ... which is why you see lies and hypocrisy.





The challengers did not come out of the Tea Party movement, but became part of the tea party movement. Campaign for Liberty came out of the Tea Party movement. You have to understand that the media started sensationalizing the movement, and many different people started attending out of pure discontent for the government under Bush. Many different types of people started attending, and many people had viewpoints contrary to those of the original "tea party" protestors. Eventually, the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly began promoting the events, and voicing their opinion alongside of their promotions. At this, the media packaged and sold the underground tea party movement as a place for republicans to voice their opinion against democrats. Now we have democrats hating on the tea party because its "republican." Go to a "tea party" now and mention Ron Paul, and you hear people start advertising Romney. I will say that I no longer agree with my point that the Tea Party had rejected their Jesus, since I think the original party'ers are still of the same philosophy, and as you had said, more people had joined.



I see what you mean. Both can be and are used as wedge issues, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Laws regarding civil unions and gay marriage are very important to how gay couples lead their lives. And the rules barring gay soldiers from serving openly has a real impact both on those people's lives and on our ability to conduct military operations. And abortion, in a lot of ways, is a matter of life and death for actors on both sides. I mean, if you believe that life begins at the moment of conception and therefore a fetus is a person then it would follow that legalized abortion is legalized murder, which seems to me to be of some significance. Still, I don't disagree with you that these issues are used by the parties to raise money and get volunteers for political campaigns rather than affect change in policy.




The word rape is radical, but defensible in that one must play into the economical system and meet the regulations that an individual cannot afford to deal with. I do not disagree that the motives behind regulations are meant to be against the individual, and are not in place to protect him. However, penalties for breaking some regulations exceed budgets for the small, and are worthy business expenses for the big. To really pull ahead in this society, you are forced to comply with a system of corporatism, in which the laws favor the rich and the corporations receive legislative benefits... even if on accident. I believe that the individual has a right to himself lest he impedes upon the natural rights of another. If you need to make money, and are broke, but have a skill you can enact for money, I believe that you can do so, without permit, as long as you are not impeding on someone else's natural rights or private property (without his/her consent.) When I was talking about vending music, I was talking about personal music, like me or you pushing and album either of us had made. The reason why I used that point, was for the simple fact that I am sure you can relate to someone you knowing pushing his or her music and getting shut down, even if they were on public property.



It is not a bunch of nonsense. I do see what they charge in ICU or for a surgery, and think that it is ridiculous. However, I think that if people were able to work off of a pay scale, or able to work out agreements according to their income, then the prices would not be so high. However, I believe that insurance companies force the prices higher. Insurance for using the equipment, malpractice insurance, etc. Of course I do agree that the medical industry in and of itself is expensive also, how do you afford medical machinery especially at its peak of precision and accuracy? The skills of doctors, are limited to doctors, we have to pay them too. Since its such a specialty trade skill, and at high risk, it is going to be expensive.

This is why I propose that doctors be held to their oath, and agree that they will work with patients based upon what their available incomes are, or work out an employment arrangement of some sort to work off the debt. For malpractice, patients should not be able to sue a doctor for more then what the doctor(s) are capable of ever paying without insurance.





Go figure you would get a kick out of me saying that. However, I do not hate the free market, however, ITS NOT A FREE MARKET. Please explain to me how and why you cannot start a broadcasting company if you were to construct the means necessary to air yourself on television. Explain to me how it is possible to even compete for air time when you invent your own channel? The FCC regulates who gets to be on TV! Not that blocking some types of things to be put on Television is wrong, I mean, who wants their 6 year old to come home and turn on pornography. However, the government enables massively complex corporations to control the entire outlet. Why do I have to be dominated by the FCC, when they get free ride? Free market is not real, it does not exist for you or I, unless we have the money to show the government we are worthy of being free.

Right, the FCC says "hey," you guys are the only ones allowed to create television coverage. The government knows that this is the primary outlet for people gaining their information on whom to vote, what to see, and even education. For this reason, people only know of 11 of the 35 people running for office.

Good to see you back, Mike. Well, let's get right to it:



I can sort of kind of understand what you're saying. But you're not really addressing my argument. You're saying that the conservatives to whom I was referring are not really conservatives. That's fine. They're not conservative in the traditional sense, I suppose. And I tend to think of "traditional" conservatism as sort of a support for individualism along with a good dose of Burkean aversion to changes in the staus quo. But then you're not really conservative in that way, either. (Radical reform, regardless of what it hopes to achieve, is, by that definition, not conservative.) Regardless, you're just talking about a label. And my point was not that these people should be labeled anything in particular. My point was that these people, regardless of what you want to call them, are largely hypocrites, xenophobes, etc. They call themselves conservatives. Fine. I'll call them conservatives too. And no, these conservatives voted for John McCain.

With you, I always saw you as espousing a more libertarian view. And actually, libertarians were indeed some of Bush's harshest critics. Although, in my experience, the concern was much more about civil liberties than debt and deficits prior to the economic collapse.

With regard to whether people "came out of" or "became a part of" the tea party movement, I'd say, it's pretty much the same difference. They probably weren't involved with what became the tea party movement when McCain was the GOP nominee, sure. But they did become a part of it after he lost. And so, again, I think we're just arguing semantics. We both agree on the facts of the matter--these people are essentially just Republicans that became involved with the tea party movement, not the libertarians who started the movement--so I don't really see what we're supposed to be arguing about.

And again, there's plenty to dislike about the tea party besides the fact that its been infiltrated by the Republicans. Personally, I don't like hyperbolic rhetoric coming from any direction. A lot of the anti-war protests, for example, turned me off with that kind of thing even though I basically agreed with what they were trying to do. And that's part of my problem with the tea party. I mean, if they want to wear old timey clothes and talk about the founding fathers, I suppose I can be okay with that. If they want to wave signs advocating violence against Congress (as in that Brown/Browning sign) or displaying racist images of Obama, however, that's another story.



It really isn't.



What you're talking about are what economists call barriers to entry. And like I said, I agree with you that laws surrounding public vending are problematic and seem to be designed not for the protection of the consumer but for the benefit of current vendors. Still, I don't disagree with the principle that someone who wants to start a business should be licensed. I just think it should be easier to get a license. I mean, if you want to sell your music on the street, then there's no good reason to prevent you from doing it provided you can demonstrate that you have the right to do so (ie you are not violating copyright law. All my music is sample based. Don't tell no one.)



I think that this sort of reform is less feasible than insurance reform. In fact, it involves more intrusive regulations that might not even result in cost controls. After all, the Hippocratic Oath does not prevent medical suppliers, for example, from keeping doctor's costs high. And doctor's would, in turn, either have to pass those costs on to consumers or go bankrupt.

That said, I think it's obvious that insurance companies drive up health care costs. The way you can best see this is to compare private insurance to Medicare and Medicaid, which have far less overhead in large part because of the fact that they are not for profit entities (though the biggest reason is likely their sheer size allows them to pay doctors and hospitals less money than the insurance companies).



The rationale behind FCC regulations is that the airwaves belong to no one. That and when radio was first introduced, amateur broadcasters occasionally messed up government frequencies. But nah, the idea is that no one in particular has a right to broadcast at a particular frequency and therefore government intervention is supposed to remedy the situation. To imagine an alternative, I suppose that it's helpful to do something we used to do in school when studying the potential effects of a particular policy. We can game it out. Suppose that the FCC didn't exist. How would the market work? Potentially, whoever put out the strongest signal in a given area could take over that frequency. That's how pirate radio works. That's why radio stations change as you drive down the interstate. However, this kind of situation is not in anyone's interest. If you want to run a radio broadcast, for example, you want your listeners to know that they can tune in to your frequency and hear your broadcast. Theoretically you would be able to align yourself with other broadcasters and work out who gets what frequency, but how would you prevent people from occasionally taking over your frequency? You couldn't. And you'd have no legal recourse against people who did so. If that is the situation you would like then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. If you don't think that my characterization is correct, then please correct it.

To sum up, I'm like so cool with big government.


Peace