Rebane's Ruminations
February 2013
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Peter Collins on truthout.com (my favorite socialist cum communist website) laments about progressive talk radio not getting any traction over the years.  In ‘An Insider’s View of the Progressive Talk Radio Devolution’ talk show host Collins goes through a litany of liberal radio’s travails during recent years, and concludes –

As someone who took substantial personal risk in syndication and station ownership, I can tell you that progressive talk has not panned out as a viable business. Clinton’s 1996 deregulation of broadcasting and the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 didn’t help. I do think the FCC should require some balance of viewpoints on the stations it regulates, through the license renewal process, but there is simply no interest on the part of Obama and his appointees in regulatory reform – even as the president is pilloried by right-wing radio on a daily basis. Air America’s parade of management blunders produced the downward spiral that brought us to this tipping point for progressive talk radio, and most station owners, rightly or wrongly, see that failure as an indication that audiences won’t support liberal talk radio.

LimbaughHis appeal to government diktat to limit the success of conservative radio is indicative of the overall disease that afflicts liberals’ desire to muzzle the right with the power of the government’s gun.  (It appears that the wind is blowing the other way, cf ‘Fairness Doctrine, RIP’.)  But nowhere in his recounting does the light ever go on to illuminate the real problem with liberal radio.  He and other progressive pinheads believe “that audiences won’t support liberal talk radio.”  Sure they do; but the problem is that those audiences are tiny, and correctly reflect the intellectual demographic of our nation’s Left.

To enjoy talk radio beyond the 17 slogans that drive liberal thought on the evening’s sitcoms and lamestream news, you have to have a working ideology, one that is constantly weighed against the daily happenings across the nation that impact the operations of governance.  You can’t promote a leftwing dialectic against the realities of the day’s news, it doesn’t work.  Even people with limited abilities start giggling after being subjected to that kind of ‘rationale’.

Therefore, such large audiences have never existed on the Left.  Look at the idiots who represent them (I know, the Repubs have had a few notable lumps there too lately), all of whom convince their know-nothing constituencies of a few simple class warfare messages, and that about puts a bow on their participation in the national dialogue.  Collins et al don’t have a clue here, or are in understandably deep denial of that reality.

But Collins is one of their heavy thinkers, and he’s not satisfied with the Left’s victories at the polls.  Well he should be.  And there’re more of those voters on the way with new Dem ‘voter rights’ bills that promise to sweep the streets clean of all the residuals who can still make their mark (optional at that) on an instant registration form – no address required, thank you very much.  What would Collins say to these 2x4s with faces painted on them?  most certainly nothing that will satisfy a keen intellect that’s been honed over the years to communicate complex collectivist rationale for bigger government and a more even distribution of wealth across America.

My advice to Collins is to rejoice in the Dems having finally forged a compliant (and growing?) flock of voters that can override any assault which conservative talk radio could ever hope to marshal.  The power of “stash” is beyond intellectual debate – as long as the government checks keep coming, all is well.

Posted in , , , ,

75 responses to “Progressive Radio – the Dangerfield of the airwaves”

  1. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Scott,
    What clarification is needed for a simple request. I think you are ignorant on what starving to death actual means. If you were forced to look up what it actually means maybe you would be able to understand my position. Vacation homes aren’t the issue it was used to categorize a specific economic group and I think Joe specified even more by saying the 100 wealthiest people on the planet. Bill Gates is worth $65 billion and isn’t the wealthiest person in the world. That isn’t talking about someone who earns $500,000 annually and has a second home.
    You made a statement I made a statement and asked you to explain to me what it means to starve to death. You have posted multiple times without explaining it to me. I think you understood why I wanted you to look it up but choose not to because it scares you to comprehend the meaning.

    Like

  2. earlcrabb Avatar

    To answer your question, Ben, when you starve to death first you start to lose your muscles, then the organs begin to shut down. Breathing becomes labored, until the heart finally gives out. I don’t have to imagine these things, because I have watched my elderly parents go through it. People starve to death in this country every day. You will too, if you’ve signed a DNR and end up totally incapacitated.

    Like

  3. Gregory Avatar

    “BTW, my name is Micheal [sic] Anderson, not mandersonation”
    mandersonation, nice try.
    I’ve no desire to smear anyone based on what you say they said, and from what I’ve read, Kanai is not spinning his research like the political activist you were originally citing who was probably just channeling Chris Mooney, author of “The Republican Brain”. Mooney whose scientific training was somehow facilitated by a BA in English from Yale, is doing his damnedest to become the left wing Ann Coulter, but I doubt his writing has the legs to pull that off.

    Like

  4. Gregory Avatar

    “Scott, Have you ever held a baby?”
    So Ben, if he had, and understood the moment, do you think he’s sure to think just like you do?

    Like

  5. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    RL,
    From experiencing it first hand and with loved ones would you wish that type of death onto anyone, especially the young who haven’t had the opportunity to truly live because of this preventable condition. So to say one person, out of many over paid executives at Microsoft, Bill Gates should have $65,000,000,000 billion so thousands of people who actual produce Microsoft goods can live in a sustenance existence therefore not being able to help rise the standard of living in which would start a ripple effect across the globe.
    To make this extremely brief. Physiologically starving to death happens at the cellular, chemical, and systemic levels little by little until the body begins to shut down trying to preserve or sustain itself until the needed nutrition arrives. Like a grass turning green in spring to brown of summer. For survival the grass stops sending energy out and conserves it in its roots. The human body does this but when that next rain never comes it stops existing altogether.
    Imagine otherwise healthy human beings being able to live productive lives only if they had access to food. Should we support a global economic system that is fine with a person accumulating $65 billion while 20,000 people starve to death every day?

    Like

  6. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    I will try and recreate my response but will do it in multiple comments so it doesn’t get so convoluted.
    Understand my definition of living wage is applied to anyone who works full time hours, especially for large corporations.
    ** Living Wage = being able to afford shelter, food, clothes, education, health care, and retirement(over time)
    Intro to first comment about accumulation of generational wealth
    We first need to understand where economic wealth comes from correct? Economic wealth is created by labor being applied whether it is intellectual or physical. Money is not wealth but rather a symbol or vessel of accumulated labor/ wealth. That symbol or vessel can only exist if some form of representative body agrees on it, has a way to regulate it, a justice system that can make judgements, and system to enforce regulations/ rulings e.g. government.
    ****On a side note this is why a true free market can never exist on a any kind of scale larger than two parties.
    The other way wealth can be accumulated is by a social contract that gives value to an object or thing. Lets keep this out of the main discussion but this is extremely important to my first comment. This can be something very tangible or abstract as clean air. I will stick with the example of gold to keep things simple.
    Gold only has value because at some point a social contract was formed to give it value, by itself it is a metal found in the earth. Until the social contract was formed and actual labor was used to extract the gold the wealth could not have been created. So the real question becomes can we as human beings claim ownership of land and what lies atop or underneath that land? That land and resources were formed over billions of years? That is another social contract thing but this contract was done by force. For tens of thousands of years human beings lived primarily as nomadic cultures. There was no belief that land was owned by anybody but rather occupied temporarily.
    This can get out of hand quickly so I will stop here. I think the idea of wealth and social contract was clear enough.

    Like

  7. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Exactly Ben. As I stated, for lefties it all comes down to some sort of name calling. It does not matter a whit what particular house we are talking about. That was a lame last ditch effort on your part to salvage your non-answer. And finally you call me ignorant and scared. Apparently this is what passes for intellectualism on the left. And demonstrates perfectly why left wing radio fails. No information, just name calling. Have fun.

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar

    Scott
    Left wing radio fails because they don’t have enough potential listeners with nothing better to do than stay home all day with the radio on. Also they generally have jobs that don’t allow hysterical political background radio to be imposed on their workers.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1150am – Your understanding of ‘living wage’ needs a collective to interpret its magnitude and enforce its payment with the power of the gun. It is not clear why anyone would want to then hire the additional employee, and more importantly, how many new enterprises are such that they can mount that first fiscal step and start paying everyone they hire an imposed living wage. Do you not see that such barrier to entry would be huge?
    I do believe you miss the mark on the value of gold viz fiat money. The value of the former requires no social contract whatsoever, while the value of the latter depends every moment on the continued integrity of that thin veil we call a social contract. Were that to start ripping, fiat money’s value would plummet in an instant. Gold is immune from such frailties, and has always been seen by individuals as insurance against the vicissitudes of arbitrary aggregates of intrinsically worthless fiat money of which they own but a part.
    “… can we as human beings claim ownership of land and …?” The answer is hell YES. And you are correct that such ownership of land, as with anything else, is maintained by force, whether through a collective or individually. (We must here always recall that you own something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish.)

    Like

  10. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 124pm – Given the preponderance of transfer payment recipients who vote Democrat, is there any evidence to support your claim that more liberals than conservatives have productive jobs?

    Like

  11. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Ok I have tried to post this three times my guess it must be to long.
    Generational Wealth
    We are going to stay within the history what we consider today the USA. When a group a people come to a continent that has been occupied for thousands of years but undeveloped by central planning definition and start claiming land and resources for themselves is this not theft? So from the onset of the foundation of the US it has been based on theft. The theft wasn’t occupying the open land but claiming it for themselves and denying the indigenous people access and passage. Then the settlers of white European descent began the slaughter of the indigenous people out of fear of a negative reciprocity. The indigenous people were murdered and enslaved. That is theft of freedom and liberty. This oppression continues to this day of Native Americans.

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Part II
    Fast forward a three hundred years and the same oppression of the indigenous is taking place and we have added into the mix indentured servants along with actual violent physical theft of human beings from a far off place to be force to create wealth for the tyrants. In that three hundred years of theft generational wealth is being passed down from white human beings in the north and white human beings in the south. Generational wealth is the skills passed down from generation to generation of reading, a trade, business transactions and land. For the most party only white male Europeans were allowed to own land/ property (indentured servants and non white slaves) for hundreds of years. Remember all of this started with the theft of access and passage of land and the oppression of indigenous and foreign human beings.
    Now continue these conditions until 1865 and the suppression of non white males continues for another century. During the Civil War more theft takes place in the form of land grabs to fight the wealth theft of slave labor in the railroads. In the next century more generational wealth is accumulated for some and for the suppressed/ oppressed their wealth creation primarily goes to an employer that exploits the lack of worker rights in the US. The industrial revolution not only makes labor more efficient but creates a situation where employers could steal the wealth of labor at a much higher rate. That theft of wealth creates what we know as the gilded age. Now we have both white and non white laborers being exploited and the wealth they are creating going into a small few hands at the top and leaving them just enough to survive and not enough to pass on any wealth to the next generation i.e. education, trades, knowledge of business transactions, and land.

    Like

  13. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Part III Generational Wealth
    The one thing white males from poor families have over non white males from poor families until the last 20 – 30 years was they were seen as having potential due to the pigment of their skin. A white male could move to a different town where nobody knew them prior and create a whole new persona. Whereas a person of color doesn’t have this privilege to recreate themselves due to where ever they go they have no potential because their skin color cannot be hidden making them a waste of energy and resources for something higher than manual labor.
    I will leave my opening comments as is and will continue to the question put forward by George to me at 9:09. I think what I laid out in a very simple form is important to understand when we are talking about wealth and who deserves to keep or accumulate it.

    Like

  14. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 145pm – A good opus of what I consider extreme progressive thought, and one that deserves examination of and on its own merits. That it has nothing to do with the topic of my post leads me to request that you assemble these components into a self-standing piece that I would like to post under your name, and then we can all have at it. Please also append the initial summary that you refer to; I will appropriately append my 909am. Please email me your copy; and thanks for the well thought out effort Ben.

    Like

  15. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Wanna take a crack on how many retired people listen to Rushbo? How many of them are on SS and Medicare? Demographic studies generally show the average listener is over 58, white, male. Who else would likely have the time during the day to tune him in.

    Like

  16. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 254pm – Of course a lot of retireds listen to El Rushbo, but my 135pm question still stands. But in the end, I don’t think the progressive elites would be so worried about conservative talk radio if only a bunch of old geezers dying at high rates are the only or major audience. I understand that most people at jobs that are repetitive and/or require minimal noodling have their earbuds in and listen to all kinds of stuff that includes conservative talk radio, and could also include progressive talk radio were they of a mind.
    In that vein, there is a progressive talk channel on XM radio that Jo Ann and I like to listen to while on travel. Everyone should be required to put in a solid hour a week hearing these leftwing pundits. And I would consider supporting a law requiring everyone to be strapped down to hear that copy coming over the airwaves, you know, for the sake of balance and the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe the courts could even use it as a form of punishment for some kinds of offenses like, say, kids making a gun with hand and going ‘bang!’.

    Like

  17. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Oh yes, your question that begins with this ” Given the preponderance of transfer payment recipients who vote Democrat”. 13 February 2013 at 01:35 PM This is a statement of fact that cannot be assumed as true if you include the total numbers that receive transfer payments. that would include retired military, government subsidies (families like the La Malfa’s who have been sucking it for years) corporate welfare to oil companies government contractors (yes include military contractors who pump up their necessity through encouraging needless wars that they profit under , financial buyouts(such as Bush’s and Obama’s support of TARP} Social Security, Medicare, police and fire retires etc
    You seem to prefer to cherry pick those who receive transfer payments to make the numbers look good for your position but my look at this is a more realistic way to look at where the money goes.

    Like

  18. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 558pm – I think you have a special definition of transfer payments – e.g. you include the military retirees, government contractors, and SS. But even with your definition, the number of voters who receive them are overwhelmingly on the Democrat side of the voting ledger.
    While allowing corporate subsidies as transfer payments, I think it is perverse to count military retirees in there because their contract includes retirement (after a minimum of 20 years service) which the government guarantees them without any union coercion or threat to strike. And government contractors do work which the government does not and cannot do for the price paid private industry – they definitely do not receive transfer payments. SS benefits are accrued on the basis of life time pay ins by the recipients. In fact, the government has screwed the recipients by paying below market interest rates for decades and transferring the paid into the general fund. The transfer payments have have actually been going in the other direction.
    For the record, I remind you that I have been against all forms of bailouts and stimulus payments, adhering instead to von Mises advice to government, ‘Do nothing, sooner!’

    Like

  19. L Avatar
    L

    Point of clarification. Most dittoheads aren’t geezers at home (they watch daytime TV), but working people whose jobs require them to spend many hours behind the wheel. That’s how I discovered talk radio and now that I’m retired find my long-neglected hobbies more interesting, tho I still tune in occasionally. The talk radio aurience is mostly people with no other entertainment options. Fair enough? L

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar

    Predictable dodge George, The fact that you deny farm subsidies are transfer payments is a crack in your cathedral.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1056pm – you misunderstand, no such denial has been made. (Is this another ‘we know what you think’ piece of logic?)

    Like

  22. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    A coworker and I shared a company vehicle. Came with an AM radio only. This was in the early 90’s. He listened to Limbaugh. Same tired rants and lame jokes every day. The term dittohead is fitting. Just boring radio. I recall Rush saying something along these lines, I paraphrase ” when people tell you that you can’t think for yourself, here is what you tell them.”
    I believe that most progressives prefer
    music to talk radio. I have my Ipod connected to my car radio. I only listen to the radio to get traffic updates. Rather listen to Wilco, Grace Potter and The Black Keys than Limbaugh or Savage.
    Greg I know Mike Anderson and he is honest and legitimate.

    Like

  23. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Now to address your over 9:09 comment.
    No I don’t see wealth as fixed as see wealth as created by the labor of ones intellect or physical time and energy. I like most people in my camp don’t see a problem of those who take financial risk to take a bigger chunk of the pie. As many studies have shown an income ratio of 5:1 creates a functional economy and society. That is $5 for every $1 between the top quintile and the bottom quintile. In the US that ratio is around 14:1, we are just behind the Ivory Coast in this category. Now this ratio paints a picture that isn’t even close to what the real story is in the US. The top quintile is the top 20% of income either earned or unearned. In the US the top quintile controls 93% of the wealth. Within the top quintile the top 1% controls 40% of the total wealth. From 1980 to 2009 83% of economic gains in the US were taken in by the top 1% and even that is misleading because it is the top 0.5% that a vast majority of those gains. In 2010 alone over 90% of economic gains went to the top 1% with the same reality as the other statistic.
    Now here are the two big lies corporatists like yourself like to tell. 1) Job creators are the wealthy. 2) Those who have accumulated great wealth are the productive members of our nation while those who created that wealth are the takers. Both of these are false and I will start with the latter because it is debunked with a single sentence.
    Wealth is created by the labor of a persons intellect or physical body.
    Accumulating huge sums of wealth based on other peoples labor is theft if those laborers aren’t justly compensated with a living wage for full time work in humane working conditions. If those laborers are compensated with a living wage for full time work with humane work conditions that accumulation is justified but should have the incentive to reinvest back into the economy after a very high threshold is surpassed i.g. $2-3 million annually.
    The way jobs are created are not by wealthy people but an increase in demand. Demand is created by average workers wages. The more workers have to spend in the economy the more demand that is created, since they spend 99% of their incomes. Spending by consumers equates to 70% of all economic activity in the US. I did a little calculation on median personal income, note it is not household income. Adjusted for inflation $1 in 1980 is equal to in spending power or adjusted for inflation to $2.80 in 2012. The median personal income of 1980 was $19,600, which should equal to inflation adjusted dollars to $54,600. Remember in 1980 it was personal income as in a single individual in the workforce and today it is calculated at household incomes, which includes many if not most households with two or more incomes. In 2011 the median personal income was somewhere around $27,000 and median household income was around $49,000. The $5,000 difference from the inflation adjusted income of $54,000 is probably the $0.75 on the $1.00 women make to men for equal work.
    I can go into tons of statistics and studies but I know that doesn’t matter because we can pull that stuff from any angle to prove our points. The numbers I used above are just straight forward.

    Like

  24. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Now for the last point of Bill Gates a single individual through his unethical business of Microsoft having accumulated $65,000,000,000 billion over a 30-year period. First Bill Gates bought the rights to a system that created MS-DOS system. Second no inventor or innovator came up with their idea alone they built on the thousands of ideas that came before them, so the patent laws are written for those wealthy enough to purchase competition/ new technology or inventions to reap all the benefits for long term gains or to keep them off the market. So many of these inventions came from public research and investment, which makes the tax dodging behavior even more egregious.
    If Bill Gates kept manufacturing in the US paying $20 plus benefits his total worth might by only $20-$30 billion but the US would have blue collar workers spending earned money into the economy instead of borrowed money with interest, thus giving banks more and more power. But Gates and Microsoft decided to go into the modern day slave business instead. It is not only Microsoft but they are a microcosm of what large transnational corporations have become. There are thousands of stories like this going on around the world about worker exploitation, unsafe working conditions, anti trust violations and environmental nightmares. Three different continent same type of behavior.
    China
    Hundreds Threaten Suicide At Microsoft Supplier Plant In China.
    http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/01/10/hundreds-threaten-suicide-at-microsoft-supplier-plant-in-china/
    Europe
    EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7266629.stm
    US
    Judges Conclusion: MS Guilty
    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35378

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    re Ben Emery’s 144pm ff – As promised, this thread has been re-posted as a standalone byline by BenE titled ‘Wealth Creation & Distribution – A Progressive’s View’ accessible here –
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2013/02/wealth-creation-distribution-a-progressives-view.html

    Like

Leave a comment