The media and society

"No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will."

-Thomas Jefferson

Somewhere freedom of the press became a twisted shadow of what Thomas Jefferson spoke of years ago. Freedom of the press is essential to liberty and the lifeblood of any true democracy. However just as in many other aspects of our society some of us will always take something good and pure, and twist it in ways that only help an individual and not the society as a whole.

Talk radio, cable news, and the internet have made news much more personalized, and along with personalization we get a lot more opinion and often time less fact. I am perhaps a bit suspect in that I write a blog, and often deal in opinion (usually my own). To this end, I must try and differentiate myself from journalists; journalists should tell the facts on topics their readers or viewers deem news worthy, and I write about what I feel on things that I may find news worthy. By claiming myself a journalist I am bound by certain rules and have a definite responsibility to tell the honest facts on everything I report. I need to back my statements with factual data, confirmed sources, and in most cases must have some kind of journalism training. To blog all I need is the means and a place to post, and the desire to do so. I have no peers to oversee my work or bosses to appease; my domain is in the world of opinion. And that is where we as bloggers differentiate from actual journalists.

So when I get on my blog and call someone a jerk, it is my opinion and should be treated as such. But when an accredited journalist gets on TV and does it, while pretending to impart facts; he is no longer a journalist and should not be considered one. When Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly pretend to give factual data and all the while spout complete nonsense; they are not journalists nor entertainers, but charlatans playing on our desire for truth. They are not the only ones that fit this bill, Arianna Huffington, Shawn Hannity, and so many others are just as guilty. I could go on forever naming the guilty members of the new journatainment industry, and never get them all, but that does not make any of them less guilty or responsible.

The reasons we have this problem are many, but we can trace it all too a few major causes. The first and most definitive of all these is the idea that our news should entertain us. If you watch Fox news or CNN to entertain yourself, god help you because you really miss the point. In turn if you as a producer of a news program, rely on entertainment value to draw in your audience or sponsors, you should stop working in the news and look into sitcoms or something else. Believe me when I tell you the news will never entertain you as much as a movie or sitcom, and it shouldn't. One is designed to give information the other is to make you feel something. The ability to feel what is going on without being put into a real situation is what entertainment is all about. When the news you rely on for information does that, it no longer informs you.

The second major cause is corporate owned media. This started with the first mergers that made the telecommunications conglomerates and has escalated nonstop. William Randolph Hurst was perhaps the first to control most of the major media, and his legacy is continued now by Rupert Murdoch and Time-Warner. This control was stalled for many years by a simple law passed back in the early days of radio. This law made it illegal for any corporation, company, or individual to own but a small share of the media in a given market or area. This law in a most efficient and simple way made sure that no one could limit or control the information given to you, and at the same time insured you would have a choice in what you listened to or watched. This also kept outside influence from swaying popular opinion, made sure political candidates got fair coverage, and through competition kept a level playing field. This law was removed by Michael Powell soon after becoming the head of the FCC. His reasons were no one got their news from the radio anymore and it would help improve programming. What a sham, it was actually because this administration and its backers wanted to control your information.

The third and final reason I will discuss here is complacency. We have become so used to our comfort levels we forgot what it cost to attain. I am incensed by so many Americans that demand so much but contribute so little. Democracy is the most advanced form of citizenship we have at this time. It is not simple nor will it ever be, and if you want it simple, democracy is not for you. The reason fascism, communism and socialism are able to survive in the modern world is the idea that people want to be told what's best for them without having to decide for themselves. All other forms of modern government rely on the complacency and ignorance of their people to perpetuate their rule. They tell them first, that they are one of them and understand their plight far better. Then they tell them they want equality and fairness to all especially the poor. It sounds great, but in reality they want to be in charge and decide what is fair for everyone. Over time their idea of fair changes to suit themselves and insure their position of power. And BAM! You got the same thing you had before just with a new name and face.

If you want freedom you better be ready to work for it. When you are asked to vote get off your can and do it. Stop giving your time and energy to those that do not care about anything other than what their sponsors want. It's not hard to spot a corporate lapdog, all you got to do is exercise common sense. If someone in the media is always telling you that one political party is completely bad for America, that the environment is not important, or tell you crap you know in your heart to be wrong, they are getting paid plain and simple.

I will end this by telling you some simple truths that are undeniable.

1. There have always been those that profit from war, and care nothing for the loss that comes with it.
   
2. The poor will never be important to a government until they need to be elected, keep power, wage war, or benefit the rich.
   
3. We have legislative, judicial, and executive branches in our government because no one group should ever be allowed supreme rule; each branch oversees the other and keeps things fair and just. That idea is the most profound and important aspect of our government and should be protected at all costs, no matter what the reasons we are given. Just like Thomas Jefferson said so many years ago, we need our censors to watch over our rights. One single infringement of this no matter how small will ruin democracy.
   
4. No one party, group, or individual will ever be able to fulfill all your needs. Never choose a party or affiliation over democracy or your rights and freedoms. And any who ask you to are your most dire enemy.
   
5. Your wealth does not make me poor, but the poor can make you rich. Social responsibility in a true democracy must be shared equally by all who participate in it, or it will become a form of class rule.
   
6. The environment is a balance of many things all working together to achieve a mutually beneficial end. To claim it is not affected by what we do is ignorant and shows the levels of greed some people are capable of.
   
7. It is not un-American to disagree with our leaders, nor is it treason to speak out against them or their policies. It is by the very definition put forth in our Declaration of Independence the most American and patriotic thing we can do.
   
8. The only time a politician wants to bring morality or religion into government is when they need them. When they no longer serve their purpose they will be ignored again.
   
9. Anyone who tells you competition in a market is bad for business is being paid or is part of that business. Lack of competition in any market will only benefit the wealthiest and most powerful of that market.
   
10. If it smells like crap, looks like crap, feels like crap, and shows all the signs you associate with crap; than it is crap.
    

I hope you can remember this is my opinion, no matter how I may believe it to be true. Treat it like it is and go find some factual information to form your own opinion.

What is a fascist?

First the facts as claimed by some.

What is a fascist? Well according to the Encarta Dictionary, a fascist is a 'dictatorial movement – any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.". This is a statement backed up by most other sources as well; some even go a bit further in their descriptions such as Merriam-webster.com, who states fascism as follows. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Second, the fun parts made up by me.

Wow, that's a bit of an overload of info if you ask me, but by reading these definitions we can get a grasp on what we can call fascism, and therefore whom we can call a fascist. Both definitions look alike at first. However if we look closely at both we can see some disparities. Both define properly, but both are potentially tools to accuse another unjustly of fascism. Rush Limbaugh has used the Merriam-Webster definition to call one of former 2003 presidential candidate Dick Gephardt's proposed ideas fascism. While the Encarta definition must be a standard used by nearly all liberal media; we've all seen this become the name for nearly all conservatives lately. Now I do not give a specific name for the liberals here, and that is not meant as a way to protect them, but simply the list was too great to go through, and none have Rush's clout.

After some thought I came up with some ideas on how to compare the two sides(right and left wingers)against these definitions and perhaps pick a winner in the "who's a fascist race". I thought that we should first lay down some basic rules to fascism using both of the aforementioned definitions, and congeal them into a simpler form. My idea is as follows.

What makes a fascist?

1. A Dictatorship- this is a constant in both definitions, so must be widely accepted as fact.
   
2. Extreme Nationalism- Again this is mentioned in both, so as far as we can see fact.
   
3. Repression of all opposition- Once again both definitions agree here.
   
4. Political/social ideology- This is not stated identically in both, so I took words from both and put them together. (this is called "sampling "and is used often in the music industry)
   
5. Racism- This is not claimed by either but implied by Merriam-Webster's definition, and when most of us think of fascists we think of Nazi Germany, and who were bigger racists' than them?
   

I left out some points from both definitions because there have been more than a few instances of fascism, and all have varied in some degree on the internal workings related to business and social regimentation. To make a boring story short, no one can say for sure about the rest of it, and it seems irrelevant to the point, so, it is not on my list.

Okay, moving on to how this will work. First, I'll pick a side, (liberal or conservative) then I will take the numbered traits from the above list and rate each side. The ratings will be on a 1-5 scale, 5 being most like the Nazi's, 4 like Joe McCarthy, 3 Microsoft, 2 corporate news media, 1 The French. Again, I must stress this is only a general scale to help me and hopefully some others, gain some insight into who the real fascists are, and should by no means be a definitive calculation. Definitive calculations are for people with agenda's that need proof of their statements. I am presenting an opinion only, and my agenda is only to appear funny, therefore I need only assure I am not outright lying or defaming anyone.

Conservatives

1. Dictatorship- Based on the current administrations' attempts to stack the deck in the Judiciary branch, and manipulation of the voting system in certain states, I must give it a solid –3
   
2. Extreme Nationalism- This is an easy one; with the idea that and we know what's best for everyone else in the world – 5
   
3. Repression of opposition- Another easy one; the whole idea that disagreeing with our government is treason – 5
   
4. Political/social ideology- Okay this is the toughest one; by saying our government must step in and tell us what is morally right even when we were unaware of it – 3
   
5. Racism- With all the PC people ready to scream racism, it should have been easy, but there are more ways to be a racist than just saying racial slurs – 4
   

Liberals

1. A Dictatorship- While liberals are not quite as visible on this, they too have attempted to stack the deck in the past (just not as successful) – 3
   
2. Extreme Nationalism- Okay these guys really need help here, they seem to have given many Americans the impression they are ashamed of us; everything bad is apparently our fault - 2
   
3. Repression of all opposition- Another area where they suck; They try to act tough and ready to fight, but never actually do: I went to school with some guys like that - 1
   
4. Political/social ideology- They wish they had this problem; the only thing that looks like an ideology here is the Green party, and they are not even classical democrats - 1
   
5. Racism- Okay here is where their strengths lie, (finally) they play the race card at every opportunity, which gives fuel to the fires of the more open racists, making themselves appear the friend of minorities – 5
   

The conclusion

The scorecard is as follows, conservatives 20, liberals 12. Therefore, by this demonstration, the conservatives are by far the more fascist-like, and the liberals at this time have the right to call them fascists. However, a score as low as the liberals' points to them being nearly French, and that of course is the same as that "S" word. That word is not spineless, but close that word is SOCIALIST.

Yes, socialist which is nearly communist, and that would make us Chinese. I do not speak Chinese and feel this would be a bad deal for me and many of my friends or family. The food would be good but without an ability to communicate, I wouldn't be able to order it anyway.

I have concluded that to vote conservative is to lean towards fascism, while to vote liberal is to align with socialism. Neither is good for America so I'm voting for Ralph Nader.