Conservative Firefly Fans Unite!
POSTED BY: Sheridanmovieguy
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 02:56
VIEWED: 16216
PAGE 5 of 6
Essentially, it seems to boil down to this: the current conservative regime is all about an individual (or group thereof) trumping society - W and Co. Which, I guess, is all well and good if you agree with their politics. But I don't.
The things I've hated about W since the beginning relate to his infringement of freedoms - the Patriot Act, his deletion of information from the .gov websites that didn't suit his politics, his stance on women's rights and birth control, his firing of any who question his faith-based presidency. That only feels like the individual is trumping society of you're an individual with a penis who doesn't care about... well, freedom of information and privacy. I've got articles on this stuff, but again, the forum feels wrong.
I fear all we will see with Bush is a descent into facist theocracy. I hated Kerry - I would've voted Green if I could have risked it. But I hated W that much more. Kerry's presidency would have been bland, effectless... there would have been blank pages in the history books between 2004 and 2008. With Bush, plenty's going to get done. I just fear it's the wrong things.
That's my two bits. I can justify my fears if necessary, but I'm not looking for a fight. I am just trying to understand 59,000,000 of my fellow human beings. And disagree at your leisure, WildBill. 
All I ask is that you do it where I can see it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh my WildBill. Do you really think that consumers drive the market anymore? PPl learn to accept whatever is offered them, especially if it's the only choice they have. Once you're dealing with monopolies and cartels, your individual choice means... well, I can't think of any analogy small enough. I hope you trust the multinationals, because they're closer to forming one-world-government than the UN.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Too true, too true. I point to the shining example of the so called "pop-music" radio scene. The radio plays the singles of the bands the record company owners decide are going to do well. This is why everything on the radio sounds like everything else - you've got the pop-punk BS, the softcore rap/r&b, the ballad-y Nickleback-esque "rock" and the poppy country crap. And that's about it. Everything falls nicely into one of those categories because 3 or 4 corporations own both the record labels and the radio. We don't control the market - it controls us.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not the guy to defend the adminisrtation's policies - I was one of the small government Republicans who got more than a little frustrated about nine years ago and started hanging out with Libertarians. Once the Republican party controlled Congress the small goverment concept disappeared pretty quickly.
Radio shows are one of the few places where market forces really work as well. For example: Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern both started in smaller markets, pulled in a good audience, got sponsers, and syndication followed where they were able to appeal to a national audience and keep it. The liberals are now trying to get their own radio thing going in more of a top-down fashion - going directly to a national audience. Same way they want government.
I both rue and lament the state of music, television, and movies in general. Investors just plug into a formula that's worked in the past, pump some money into marketing, and collect their profits. I think that my head may explode the next time I hear a teenager singing and relating to some awful 'song' that slick marketing told him told represents his inner teenaged angst. Market forces are cruel indeed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But WildBill, there is one more factor at work in the media that you haven't considered. The media is not just a market-driven business, it's also mixed with politics. The Bush administration promised the large media conglomerates that FCC rules would be relaxed to allow greater consolidation. The largest media owners who are of course very big businesses see this as a terrific oppty to gain market share. No matter how good the programming or the reponse to a particular show (like Firefly) it just can't compare to the bottom line impact of getting an additional 10% share, so the media owners keep Bush&Co happy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by wildbill:
I both rue and lament the state of music, television, and movies in general. Investors just plug into a formula that's worked in the past, pump some money into marketing, and collect their profits. I think that my head may explode the next time I hear a teenager singing and relating to some awful 'song' that slick marketing told him told represents his inner teenaged angst. Market forces are cruel indeed.
My sentiments exactly. See? Not so different...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only way to keep politics out of the media is to relax regulations even more. If, the media is free from regulation they won't have to get in bed with any administration in the future.
So, if media conglomerates are getting chummy with the administration today (I really don't think so, but I'll frame things in these terms) for less regulation, the'll be freed from having to do politics in the future. They could even turn right around and be critical of the administration that turned them loose.
The alternative is to keep the FCC strong enough to be used by this or future administrations as a club to keep the media in line.
Kill your television - 10% of nothing is ...let's see... carry the zero...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On a completely superfluous note, the title of this thread inevitably makes me think of "Dyslexics untie!"
Sorry, but I see that every time I read the header and I just wanted to pass that chuckle along!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See, I would argue that it works the other way around - the media uses money as a club to keep the administration in line. What does the FCC really do? The biggest profile thing we've seen out of them this last year is fining for the Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction." So, on the superficial things they seem to regulate, but when it comes down to the important stuff (like media monopolies) they seem to be... well, absent. If you're running for president, it's in your best interest to get as much money as possible to fund your campaign. The corporations that run the media can provide that money, so by proxy, it's in your best interest to look the other way. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
By that, it would seem the best way to control the media is to add regulations, not relax them. The media needs to be completely independant of politics, not in bed with them. If you regulate the media right out of political arenas, you've cut them loose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I reckon I'm a conservative, cause I am mighty fond of the Declaration of Independence and the Philadelphia Constitution.
But I can count, so I vote GOP.
Listen to the theme song, if that isn't a retroamerican rural conservative microcapitalist anthem, what would be?
The other party has very close ties to the PLA occupying the Chinese mainland. It is they who would be the Anglo-Sinos, "Nothing against the State, everything for the State, nothing outside the State", that and the group will to power define their values as well as anything.
Watch your six and keep your powder dry.
You can't take the sky from me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME