Election 2004

Boycott or Buy? Part 2

This entry was posted in Capitalism Economics Election 2004 Libertarianism on by

In Boycott or Buy? Part 1 I encouraged each of you to make your own fair and balanced decision as how you might respond to the Sinclair Broadcasting issue. I still do.
Jim Henley reminds us, though, that it should not be an FCC issue at all:

It may arguably be bad business, in which case they’ll pay, but it’s not the FCC’s business. I enjoyed the hell out of the Sundance Channel’s live broadcast of the Vote for Change finale concert last night. That wasn’t station owners using their facilities for partisan political purposes?
I enjoyed listening to Vote for Change on a local radio station and Jim’s question jumped into mind just about two songs1 in…
I agree with Jim that it should not the FCC’s business. Primarily because the FCC should not even exist.
Sinclair owns the stations so they should be able to broadcast what they want. We can use our channel changers or the power switch to watch or not watch and we can choose to buy or not buy from their sponsors.
However, Sinclair Broadcasting along with their media and corporate ilk exist in the form they do only with the complicity of their regulatory monitors partners and our their executive, legislative, and judicial representatives. As long as this parasitic partnership rides on our backs it seems perfectly reasonable to pour sugar in its tanks and turn one limb against the other to the extent possible.
1I enjoyed almost all the music I heard on this broadcast and these late in the show pieces were amongst my favorites: Dave Matthews performing Don’t Drink the Water and Ant’s Marching and Springsteen’s Star Spangled Banner>Born in the USA.

Back on His Meds

This entry was posted in bush Election 2004 kerry on by

Kevin Drum wonders whether bush was off his meds tonight:

It’s one thing to be passionate, but it’s quite another to look like you’re off your meds and need to be restrained.
I’m not the only one who noticed this, am I?
Perhaps, though, it is the other way around as Lauren suggests:
Did Bushie resume his 1970�s penchant for nose candy? He seems awfully jumpy. Perhaps edgy is a better word for it.
Well, this would explain the hyper early behavior and the relatively more controlled behavior later in the presentation.

Debate Question

This entry was posted in bush Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Election 2004 kerry on by

Lots of folks have posed potential questions for bush and kerry. Here’s one from Say Uncle:

So, the drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?
Both candidates will, though, say similar BS. Something like: “Yes, it is worth it..followed by a bunch of babble with an emphasis on being tougher then the other guy.” And, most of the brainwashed public will nod knowingly and forget the question was even asked.
I suspect that it will take more direct action than a question at a debate to bring an end to this long reign of domestic and foreign terrorism.