TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:

I read about it all the time in that propaganda rag I get every month, called "American Rifleman". I read that sucker cover to cover. Current events suggest that the FCC is now trying to get rid of the large right-wing broadcasters and allow "local" (read that as "the Proletariat") stations to take their place.

Not to argue with you, but can you cite some instances where that is happening?

Ditto that. I would like to see some example of THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION revoking the license of a broadcaster due to the political or ideological content of their broadcast. I am not talking about decency standards, or fines due to violations of the rules, unless you can cite a rule that involves political or ideological content which has been violated and resulted in a fine or other action from the Feds.

I see quite the contrary happening. There are new networks emerging targeting the hunting, shooting, fishing and outdoor activities. The Sportsman Channel, Hunting Channel, Outdoors Channel.

The FCC regulates broadcast television service, not cable or satellite pay channels. So these specialized networks, along with CNN, CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, ESPN, Univision, WFN, Golf Channel, Speed, whatever, are not regulated or licensed by the FCC. They may be subject to other government regulation, I am not an expert on this topic.

The FCC DOES regulate anything that connects to the PSTN (public switched telephone network), probably actual cable wiring installations, and most certainly satellite bandwidth. So your satellite service may on the whole be subject to FCC regulation, but it has nothing to do with the individual channels and only to do with the use of the broadcast spectrum for pay television service (or whatever, private service). FCC also regulates wireless phones and anything else that runs over the air.

And these are emerging networks, not the tried and true big 3 or little 5 networks we all grew up with.

Those are the ones regulated by the FCC. That is, if you can pick it up on an antenna over the air for free, it is subject to the FCC regulation regarding decency and content standards (commercials, political ads, etc.).

The FCC also regulates radio stations. The AM dial is overloaded with talk shows. And to my knowledge, every one of them is conservative in nature. Many are TO conservative for my tastes. I don't know of any liberal talk shows out there, except those you can get on a subscription basis only.

yeah but FM radio is loaded with the other stations. But the difference is that liberals tend to want to be entertained with music, and conservatives tend to want to listen to news-related commentary and talk.

Finally, the MPAA is a rating organization. IMO it is beneficial, and serves a purpose. It is not a censorship organization. Isn't every motion picture produced nowadays rated by MPAA? (I ask that in sincerity because I really don't know)

No, not every movie is rated by the MPAA.

A lot of movies are released for public consumption in theaters with an MPAA rating and then later released on DVD in "unrated" form, but the vast majority of movies and other films are not rated by the MPAA, but since most of these are either direct-to-video, made-for-TV, or independent in some other way, they are not intended for mass marketing and presentation in your normal movie theaters. And of course there is an enormous catalog of "adult" films that are not rated by the MPAA.

Purplehood wrote:What I am vainly trying to say is that I don't like the past or current administrations manipulation of licenses through the FCC being used to silence detractors. I really need to get back to 2 or 3 cups of coffee in the morning, I can't think straight on just one.

Do you have any evidence that this is or has ever happened? I am not disputing it, I am just asking.

Obviously, there is no explicit intent or FCC rule to restrict or change licenses according to licensee's political philosophy or opinions being expressed on the air. This would be a gross violation of freedom of the press and free political speech and would represent corruption in government that should put people in prison.

The only times I recall where the President made an effort at controlling broadcast media was the Clinton-era "fairness doctrine" (which was not an FCC rule) and the current administration's public position regarding Fox News.

Purplehood wrote:

purplehood wrote: I think that the FCC should only monitor the airwaves for violations of laws (not FCC regulations). If a TV or Radio station wants to run trash, let it run trash. It will either thrive or go broke. That is free speech. I don't have problems with rating a TV or Radio station, but that should be done by someone other than the FCC and not have any binding influence on those same stations. It should simply be a tool.

mr.72 wrote: It is not done by the FCC. But I'm with you. However, you may be shocked to find just what will die off and what will not. Take the taxpayer's money out of PBS and NPR and they will disappear in less than a week.

I need to clarify here:
My real problem with the FCC is their apparent ability to regulate licenses for stations. As I so ineloquently tried to explain in my previous post, the market should do this. Not the FCC.

The air waves are one fixed, limited, resource. There is a tacit requirement for a centralized regulating authority. Without such an authority, the system would not be useful, much like roads or airspace for flight, etc. The authority to regulate and license the air waves naturally falls upon a government agency. So you think that a private entity should issue licenses? How do they acquire rights to the air space? Do they just squat it, homestead it? If I set up a radio tower to blast broadband noise on the entire usable band then I can claim to "own" it and then do I get the right to license it?

Someone has to license it. Why not the FCC?

Can I speculate that what you are really trying to say is that you don't want the FCC to include decency standards or any measurement of "the public good" into their licensing authority? Maybe they should only auction off the licenses to the highest bidder? Or maybe it's a fixed fee but it's a waiting list? Political favors to get you promoted on the list? Lottery? So this month the license for 590kHz on the AM band in Austin belongs to KLBJ but next month, maybe someone else bid higher or won the lottery and you tune to that frequency and find gangsta rap or 24/7 Alex Jones in its place?

austinrealtor wrote: Where is it written that censorship can only be undertaken by government? Private entities censor voices all the time. Difference is that if the government is the group doing the censoring, then the people being censored have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." If a private entity does the censoring, they can tell you to take a hike and that's that.

Actually that is exactly the difference and there is 100% no problem with that. If you don't like the MPAA, stop watching movies with MPAA ratings. If enough people stop watching MPAA-rated movies then the organization will cease to exist.

The problem with the government is that if I don't like government actions (censorship or whatever), then I cannot choose not to be a consumer of the government. If I don't like how the government is doing something, I can't decide not to pay taxes anymore without winding up in prison. So that's why the public has the right to petition the government because they do not have the right to not be consumers of the government.

This is a prime example of the fallacy that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government. At least we - the people - have the right (and sometimes the ability) to change how our government behaves.

No, it is exactly opposite of what you say. I do NOT have the same ability to change the way government behaves. The government does what it does and I am forced to comply at the point of a gun and under threat of arrest. When a private enterprise does something I don't like, I just choose not to consume their product. Monopoly or not, I can decide if the product or service they produce is worth my compliance with their means of producing it enough for me to elect to pay for it. But not so with government.

If we, as consumers, deplete a private business of revenue by choosing not to consume their product or service, then they will be forced to either change their behavior, product or service, or they will cease to exist (that is, until, as illustrated for the past year, the government will step in and give them money to continue operating even though the consumer en masse has voted with their wallets for them to cease). But to deprive the government of revenue by choosing not to pay is "criminal" and if done in an organized manner is tantamount to revolution.,

So "Capitalism at its finest" = censorship? I realize the easy response to this is "but the movie studios voluntarily join the MPAA" .... but "voluntarily" is often a deceptive term in such discussions. How voluntary is your participation in something if not participating will surely lead to the ruin of your business? Not exactly the textbook definition of "voluntary" .... more like coercion.

No, this is not coercion! There is a benefit to joining: increased market appeal. The benefit to not joining is freedom to do what you want, which is a risk. The MPAA members have established a standard that typically improves your odds of successfully marketing a film so it is a great benefit to join and comply if you would like to market films. But there is no coercion. The reality is that the public at large prefers movies produced by MPAA-member studios according to those standards, and if you are in the fringe minority then you can not join and you will wind up marketing your product to like-minded fringe minority of people.

Any large coalition of people with the mission to tell many more people how they will behave in one or more aspects of their life is just as potentially harmful to individual freedom. And I do understand that Capitalism is supposed to provide us all the "choice" to decide not to abide by a larger, non-governmental group's decisions. But when the non-governmental groups have no equal competition - when they in effect have a monopoly - they are every bit as dangerous to liberty as the government.

This is only true when the government funds these private enterprises such as Amtrak, the USPS, General Motors, etc. or when the government endorses or regulates the monopoly such as telephone providers, insurance, etc. Or when the government requires you to purchase the product such as insurance.

The reality is that the MPAA is a perfect example of an effective voluntary organization for a market to self-regulate in favor of the majority of its members and consumers. You may not like what they do, and you don't have to watch MPAA-rated films. There are plenty of them out there, but you may not like those films. I don't know what anti-MPAA people's beef is with the MPAA except that some have some pet thing they want to see in films... they want certain profanity to be allowed in lower-rated films or violence to affect ratings more than sexual content, etc., but in effect they are just about like me complaining about the NRA. Certainly there are some people, a very small group, who think that children of all ages should be shown graphic pornography and snuff films but I kind of doubt anyone arguing against the MPAA on this forum belongs to this lunatic fringe. Maybe there are some art film fans who think that the MPAA and big movie studios are killing "art" but you know, the vast majority of people do not have an appreciation for "art" (hey, I ran a record label for four years, I can vouch for this first-hand). Similarly, I would rather if the NRA changed it's name to drop the word "rifle" and quit coming to the aid of hunters all the time but it's splitting hairs considering the effectiveness of the organization overall. So there really is no difference. If you really don't support the MPAA then stop whining and vote with your wallet. If you go to the movie theater besides an "adult" movie theater, then you are offering your support to the MPAA whether you like it or not. This is truly capitalism at its best. This is the way it's supposed to work.

Purplehood wrote: I could care less about Gay marriage or Gay divorce.

Me too. Just get the gov't and insurance companies and all that out of the business of any marriage and we're fine. But if we are going to govern anything regarding marriage, then you are inviting the electorate to enforce their opinion.

I think that the FCC should only monitor the airwaves for violations of laws (not FCC regulations). If a TV or Radio station wants to run trash, let it run trash. It will either thrive or go broke. That is free speech. I don't have problems with rating a TV or Radio station, but that should be done by someone other than the FCC and not have any binding influence on those same stations. It should simply be a tool.

It is not done by the FCC. But I'm with you. However, you may be shocked to find just what will die off and what will not. Take the taxpayer's money out of PBS and NPR and they will disappear in less than a week.

I believe that the USA is a nation of immigrants and it is what has made us the country that we are today. I believe that during our entire history we have discriminated against the latest group of immigrants without exception.

Prosecuting illegal immigrants is not discrimination or racism. It's adhering to the law. Legal immigrants are fine by me. Pandering to the illegals has got to stop.

marksiwel wrote:I'm a 25 year old, who lives in the Austin Area. I've never been in the military, never been a cop.

And many of the things you say make me think you've also never been a parent.

but I'm a raging lefty when it comes to peoples "Rights". I'm all for gay marriage polygamy, nudity in public, breast feeding, I want to get rid of the Mpaa for Censorship, I get mad that Public and Private TV is censored to such an extreme. I dont understand why I cant own a Machine gun without the government Games.

I like how you put the word "rights" in quotes, appropriately.

A true libertarian is all for the government getting out of marriage altogether. But as it is, every person has equal rights to marry. This whole gay marriage thing is a political misdirection.

I don't know how on earth you can support nudity in public. But again, it indicates you have not likely had kids or spent any time as an adult supervisor of adolescents if you think this is a good idea.

The MPAA is not censorship. It is a private organization joined voluntarily by movie studios in order to provide a level playing field and unified market expectations with respect to film content. Censorship is a result of government, this is a result of private companies looking after their own interests. Suffice to say, the MPAA is a result of private marketing expertise. There is nothing to prevent you or anyone from making a film with whatever content you desire, but you may have a heck of a time getting any private movie theater to show it or any private movie studio to fund it. This is capitalism at its finest.

Public and private TV is not "censored" really at all. Television that airs over public airwaves has to comply with FCC rules but if there were no FCC rules then there would be no authority by which TV or radio could be licensed and broadcast and you can be sure radio and TV would be basically totally useless. I mean, it physically would not function. The only way to have a means of broadcast over the air and have an audience receive your signal would be to ensure that your signal was orders of magnitude stronger than that of your competitor and with no regulation or licensing there would be a huge number of competitors, the one with the most powerful transmitter (and the most money) would always win, only until someone else could overtake them. Basically the whole usefulness, channels, encoding standards, etc. is all 100% reliant on the FCC. Take that away and we will just have no more useful TV or radio. Considering that radio space is a limited resource that obviously belongs to the public at large since we can't exactly "own" the air as individuals, then some government rationing is more or less a requirement. I'm a less-government guy but chaos is not a better solution. And by the way, you can disagree with the decency rules but they are not "censorship". "Censorship" is Barack Obama's administration saying that Fox News is not news and trying to silence radio and TV personalities that are not in agreement with his political aspirations (well, that's attempted censorship). If he succeeds, then you can complain about censorship. But decency rules do not benefit the government over the people or one political group over another, so these are not censorship. They apply equally to all people, broadcasters, etc. They are just rules. Rules <> censorship.

I'm Pro Choice, but wish there wasnt a need for abortions.

There isn't a need for abortions. But there is a need for apostrophes

I wish Frank and Open talks about sex would take place at home, but am fine with the schools forcing kids to open their darn fool heads and learn the facts.

The public schools would be experts on "fool heads". Again, clearly, you have not been a parent, certainly not a parent of teens. This is why I don't think you should be able to vote. Hey, we can all have an opinion, right?

I cant stand the Religious right in this country and how they turn separation of church and state into a "War on Christmas"

Actually, I think most of the "Religious right" as you put it would be perfectly happy if government would universally get out of the business of religion altogether, but what most of them object to is the overtly anti-Christian sentiment that has no counterbalance against other religions. So if you don't allow Christmas, then no other religious holidays of any kind period, end of story. But nevermind that Christmas is just as much of a universal cultural element in America as Independence Day so it's very difficult to deny Christmas without angering people who could care less about the birth of Christ.

I dont think global warming is "real" but am all for doing everything we can to stop the pollution on the planet

Finally, one thing upon which we agree. As long as you can include pollution of morality in your diatribe then we're all good. If the gov't can force me to drive an electric car then they can very well force you to not teach my children your ideals regarding sex or religion or public nudity or polygamy or whatever. Either we're free, or we're not, right? So maybe I'm free from your opinion about pollution and you're free from my opinion about morality.

FWIW, I am not exactly emotionally involved in this debate. I know good and well that my political and ideological positions are more often than not counter to the common opinions on this forum, and any forum, and even included amongst my own close friends and family.

It's a good point that if you are going to come in with unpopular opinions, you should expect those opinions to be criticized whenever you express them. I expect that if I were to share how I really feel about most of these issues, you guys would hammer me on it. So what? If my own beliefs or opinions cannot withstand some attack by people on an internet forum, then they are not exactly worth believing IMHO.

But like was said before, just because your opinions are unpopular or criticized, it does not mean you are unwelcome on this forum because of those beliefs or opinions. You are more than welcome to share, however there is no requirement as far as I can tell that we all have to conform to your beliefs in order for your participation to be welcomed in this forum.

And in case any of you want to mistake my ideas for Republican ideas, don't even bother. I am probably as extreme of a fringe libertarian as you could ever find. But I will make every effort to discuss the issues based on reason and logic rather than based on emotion.

I am sorry I was drawn into a conversation about the "A" word.

frazzled wrote: In the end people are trying to tell me what to do, and when I don't do what they want they get the government involved. Not a bit of difference.
Libertarians unite! (sorry had to throw that in there)

I am quite a libertarian, but even the most fringe libertarian will not advocate legalizing murder.

So like I said, this issue has mostly to do with whether you consider an unborn child to be a live person who has rights or not. If the unborn child is a live person with rights, then we are compelled to protect those rights and prohibit abortion. If the unborn child is not a live person with rights, then you can kill it without legal consequence.

However the moral and emotional fallout typical for women who have abortions tends to defy the concept that the baby was not a living person with rights.

So this is not an issue of liberty any more than murder is an issue of liberty.

frazzled wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. While there are two camps and your construct often works I don't think its base is necessarily freedom vs. state control.

Note I said "in general".

I'd proffer there is that, but also "both sides" tend to want to control me, just on different issues. If I pop up that abortion should be legal in all circumstances I not going to get a fight from the "liberal side," but from the "conservative side." However thats a freedom from government point.
I've often found its both sides that are trying to tell me to do something. I resist both.

Nice try. But that argument is only an issue about government control if you assume that the unborn child has no rights, and that the father of the child has no rights. But the other side is that the government must protect the basic right to life of the unborn child, and that is a more important right to protect than the comparably whimsical right to "choose" for the mother. The point at which the woman chooses whether or not to have a child is not after she is already pregnant, it is while her pants are still in place.

But this does illustrate another typically-liberal viewpoint, which is that liberals want to have the right to make risky, dangerous, and foolish choices and then have government bail them out somehow... such as, a woman is going to have sex and then expect the government to bail her out by allowing her to terminate the pregnancy that results... or not get a job and expect the government to provide you with an income, or housing, or for a bank to take on risky loans and then expect the government to bail them out, or for the car companies to have negative profit margins and expect the government to cover the gap, and on and on and on!!! It never ends!!

Your suggestion that illegal abortions would be the government wanting to exercise control over your rights would be analogous to me saying murder being illegal is the government controlling my freedom to choose. At some point, we have to have laws that protect the basic lights to life, liberty and property of all persons. The disagreement between liberals and conservatives over abortion is because the unborn have no rights according to liberals. There was a time when Democrats also thought blacks had no rights, and there was a time when we thought women had no rights. These are all antiquated viewpoints that deserve to be left in the dark pages of history.

Well, frazzled, it just so happens that as a general construct, there are two main camps.

There are those who believe that individual rights are not necessarily required, the state should be in control of all kinds of things, and who put their trust in the state to solve problems. Those would typically be liberals. So the infringement on the RKBA is commonplace in this camp, along with the infringement of all kinds of other rights. It seems the only individual right that is really supported by liberals in general is your right to free speech as long as it is used to extol the virtues of the liberal philosophy or to offend conservatives.

Then there are those who believe that the rights of the state are granted by the individual, and that all rights belong first to the people and are proffered to the state. This happens to also be how the Constitution is written and happens also to be in line with all of the founding fathers' writings, seemingly then therefore the intent of the foundation of our country. These believe that the state's continuing encroachments on free enterprise and control in many areas of our lives are representative of infringement of individual rights. These happen to be conservatives, by and large.

Most of those who want to enforce gun control are then necessarily party to the liberal viewpoint. Guns are just among the vast body of things that shall be controlled by the state, according to these people (including health care, banking, the car companies, our jobs, etc.). And most of those who believe steadfastly in individual gun rights are also usually among those who believe steadfastly in other individual rights, and these tend to be conservatives.

So on a gun forum, you are likely to find more conservatives not because diversity is not welcome, but because the liberal idealism is counter to the general freedom philosophy of conservatives found on gun forums. It never makes any sense TO ME how you can support the RKBA but not my right to choose my own health insurance, or not. Or support my RKBA but not my right to my own property.

I have taken many unpopular positions on this forum and received my share of vitriol. Tough breaks, I guess.

BillT wrote:No Sept 11th connection to Sadam, no WMD's etc,

See what I mean about getting our information from biased sources?

Give our President a chance. He has not been in office a year and he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times. It can't and won't be fixed overnight. But this is a great Country no matter what party is in office. Only through compromise can this Country rise up again to be the envy of the world. Divisiveness just slows or stops the progress that we so desperately need.

The "progress we so desperately need" is not the same thing as an overreaching federal government taking over the formerly-free market one piece at a time. The "progress we so desperately need" is to stop Obama and congress from further destroying this country's economy and undermining the very purpose of our Republic's form of government.

The "progress we so desperately need" would have been to let banks that took bad risks fail. Let the car companies that can't figure out how to make a profit fail. Those who made this country great did so by finding a better way to do things, not by begging the taxpayers to bail them out when their plans and businesses failed.

And unfortunately, this is not divisiveness. It's not divisive for me to suggest that the policies Obama et. al. are trying to ram through are destructive and need to be stopped.

When Republicans or conservatives shut up and allow Democrats and quasi-socialists to do what they want, that's "bipartisan". Funny how the Dems are never expected to change their position to agree with the conservatives. So howabout this. Stop the divisiveness! The division will end promptly as soon as Obama and the congress give up on the health insurance takeover, undo the corporate bailouts, stop buying votes from unions, stop raising taxes and get their hands off of private enterprise. Who is it who is being divisive? We disagree, the conservatives are the ones are who are divisive?

I am giving the President a chance. He is blowing it. The chance is to stop fighting against common sense and the will of the people and stop trying to take over private enterprise. TAM is giving the President a chance, a chance to get real about leading the military (which is, by the way, his job, unlike proposing sweeping legislation) and setting our defense policy rather than waffling. But you know, this guy is totally blowing the chance.

Now, quite frankly, I hope he succeeds. I sincerely hope that Obama and the Dem congress squeak this health care thing through and I also hope that Obama manages to totally screw up the situation in the middle East. I hope he succeeds in laying down before the European leaders and third-world dictators. I think this is all a small price to pay. Four years of misery in exchange for a century of Republicans and conservatives that will certainly follow after this disaster? That sounds like a deal to me!

Oh, boy!

The problem of politics on this forum (and in general discourse) is twofold:

1. most people (including me, you and all of us) are necessarily uninformed or misinformed because we are only occasional tertiary consumers of political information, and that information is presented by primarily biased sources

2. even those people who are not misinformed, may not agree in terms of goals, reason, ideals, etc. So while I value freedom and make choices based on freedom, clearly some people think that freedom is not "fair" and they make decisions based on their sense of "fairness". For me, "the right thing" to do is to leave you the heck alone and let you live your own life, make your own money, make your own choices, mistakes, successes, and suffer the consequences or reap the benefits. For you, "the right thing" may be to take care of others by force of law, take away resources from some people and give them to other people, and selectively enforce "freedoms" based on an intrinsic value applied to the freedom in question (such as, freedom of speech is more valuable than the right to keep and bear arms, or your freedom to not have to hear about my religion is more valuable than my freedom to express my religion in your presence, etc.).

Political discussions are only productive when you are able to conduct them within an audience that have at least some kind of common ground. So unless we can all discover that we are similarly and correctly informed, or we can all agree that freedom is more important than security, etc., then there is no way to have a conversation that is productive at all. Given the wide-open nature of the internet, this makes political discussion on the internet pretty much doomed to failure.

Even on this forum we can't all agree on gun rights alone!