That debate last night.
Wow.
As of right now, there are over 12,000 comments lambasting the debate and moderators at ABCNEWS.
First, to get this out of the way, Hillary clearly ‘won’ (please note that I am an Obama supporter) the Philadelphia Democratic debate which took place at the National Constitution Center last night (Wednesday, 4/17/2008) .
One of the cranky old men (Morley Safer) on tonight's 60-Minutes covered Millennials in the workforce.
The usual ground was covered – they're narcissistic, dependent on praise, and they don't know how to be 'professional'.
They also brought out a trio of experts, namely a Stepford-Wife that teaches twentysomethings to use utensils, two twentysomethings who appear to confirm the espoused stereotypes, and the cranky near-boomer WSJ columnist.
Although I am technically a Gen-Xer, I certainly feel closer to Gen-Yers /Millennials. These formulatic "damn kids today" rants bore me to tears.
Updated again on 11/6: Blink notes that this conspiracy, courtesy of FOXNEWS, is false. It appears that a Cumulus Media did 'something', but Clear Channel, at least on this issue, is in the clear.
Updated Again: I'd be remiss not to point out that the starting point for these allegations came the paragon of Fair and Balanced Reporting, FOXNEWS, as reported by Roger Friedman:
Alas, there’s a hitch: Radio will not play "Magic." In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic." But it’s OK to play old Springsteen tracks such as "Dancing in the Dark," "Born to Run" and "Born in the USA."
[...]
Clear Channel seems to have sent a clear message to other radio outlets that at age 58, Springsteen simply is too old to be played on rock stations. This completely absurd notion is one of many ways Clear Channel has done more to destroy the music business than downloading over the last 10 years. It’s certainly what’s helped create satellite radio, where Springsteen is a staple and even has his own channel on Sirius.
It’s not just Springsteen. There is no sign at major radio stations of new albums by John Fogerty or Annie Lennox, either. The same stations that should be playing Santana’s new singles with Chad Kroeger or Tina Turner are avoiding them, too.
Updated: I've recently received an email from 104.5 management stating that this is most-definitely NOT-TRUE and that they have even been offering downloads of Springsteen.
I saw this at Down with Tyranny last night and again via Attytood this morning. Pro GOP-radio outlet Clear Channel has allegedly blacklisted Bruce Springsteen as being "too old" for their demographics. Much like with the Dixie Chicks in 2004, this probably has more to do with pleasing the Strong Daddies of the GOP who will continue to allow more media consolidation than it is out-and-out corporate censorship. Of course, if you're a wingnut who has deeply internalized the conservative ideology and are reacting to your lizard-brain's fight, flight, or flee instinct to everyone of the failures of the last six-years, I can certainly see how you wouldn't want a mainstream guitar-slinger pointing out the obvious, with lyrics like these, from azlyrics:
Who'll be the last to die for a mistake
The last to die for a mistake
Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break
Who'll be the last to die for a mistakeThe wise men were all fools
What to doThe sun sets in flames as the city burns
Another day gone down as the night turns
And I hold you here in my heart
As things fall apart
The local Clear Channel owned stations are WDAS (105.3), WIOQ (102.1), WISX (106.1), WRFF (104.5), WUBA (1480 AM), and WUSL (99.0). The only station that would conceivably play Springsteen is 104.5 FM.
An email sent to their request line (email) and to General Manager Manuel Rodriguez (email) has not been returned or replied to as of yet.
And as a privately-owned, publicly-traded entity, Clear Channel is well within their right to program as they see fit. You, as a listener and consumer, also have the right to listen to someone else and inform their advertisers of your displeasure.
Glenn Beck, the lowest rated cable-TV host, went out of his way to link the fires of Southern California to those damn, dirty liberals – that a good many of those who are losing their homes (with 1,000,000 evacuated) hate America.
Small problem there, Glenn – the majority of those in the affected zipcodes who are politically active and donate money to campaigns are narrowly Republican ($1,891,193 (R) versus $1,801,191 (D)). I guess Glenn is lucky that they aren't able to receive mail or watch their cable-TV since they are now likely homeless.
I got a heads up from Jarice Hanson (participant bio page), a chairperson at Temple University's (my alma mater, BTW) School of Communication and Theater regarding a webconference at WHYY titled Digital Democracy and Freedom of Speech.
The event looks quite interesting, and it is scheduled at a most-convenient time, 1-2:30pm on Tuesday, 10/9/2007, at the WHYY building, especially for those in the Center City (Philadelphia) area.
To quickly riff on the subject, I understand and expect this conference to have a very US-centric focus, but I suspect conversations regarding digital freedom, at least as we Americans understand Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the First Ammendment (or don't, as the case may be), will most likely affect other nations, such as those in the Middle East and China, where excessive blocking and monitoring, often aided and abetted by prominent US companies such as Yahoo are the norm.
The excessive use of national security exemptions in FOIA, the circumvention of records-keeping and civil liberty safeguards, and others are all blatant attempts to stymie freedom of the press, but what of freedom of speech? Despite isolated (although far too many) examples of abuses, such as the recent tasing at a John Kerry speech, "Free Speech Zones" at political gatherings, and arrests and detainings based on what t-shirt one wears, I see little formalized institutional censorship, although we're getting there.
That said, there are tremendous threats to digital freedom here in the US, but they often don't come from the government directly to the individual speaker. No, they come indirectly, via the corporate sphere, the establishment press, intra-governmental agency suppression , other opinion influencers, ideological bullies, our society-at-large, and our own tendencies to self-censor. In most cases, all it takes is the threat of a libel suit or a DMCA takedown letter to pull content, either by the creator or their ISP. As illustrated in the Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Guide, many of the concerns of online speech have little to do with the government. You can't really say whatever you want.
Valeria Maltoni wrote a short post heralding the power of Meet the Press, giving examples from host Tim Russert as to the power of the medium.
There is a tremendous problem with the use of Russert as a sterling example of journalism, but as an example of public relations, absolutely.
After the President's 'vision' speech last night, and his attempt to pass the war off on to his (likely-Democratic) successor, it's worthwhile to examine the numbers behind the war, and how much the facts diverge from the "Johnny comes marching home!" headlines appearing across the country today.
Very few tell the real story – that nothing has changed, troop levels are the same as they were prior to the surge, that there will be tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers there for years, and lastly that he is handing off responsibility for his war of choice to his successor, absolving his legacy of taint.
AND he should be fired for this nonsense :
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
[...]
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that. *
E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:
This last 6-years has been a slow-motion train wreck. OBL is still on the loose. The Anthrax attackers are still on the loose. We're stuck in a quagmire in a war of choice in Iraq, losing a winnable war in Afghanistan, and then contemplating opening a third front of the Great War on Terror in Iran (and Pakistan).
I'm tired of staring into the abyss. In addition to the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 and the near 5000 (3600 military deaths, and an estimated 1000 contractor deaths) in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can chalk up threats to free speech, habeas corpus, our own privacy, and any semblance for advocacy for the middle class in Washington. We are distracted from true threats like class inequality, our aging infrastructure, precarious financial environment, and global warming with bright and shiny objects like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, and divisive social wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.
Although Bykofsky takes the easy way out and (correctly) states that another 9/11 would finally unite us, he's correct, but I hope he's thinking of the wrong outcome. He thinks that another 9/11 would would cause us to put aside our partisan differences to get "it" done – I'm assuming by "it" he means the War on Islamofacism. But there's danger in these thoughts. With the right proudly proclaiming that we are safer BECAUSE there have been no new attacks, another 9/11 might have the complete opposite consequences – reinforces the disgust and despair many of us are feeling towards our media and political institutions.
The next-9/11 will preceed one of two outcomes – either the police state, or the beginning of the American Renaissance, where we cast of the dead weight and corrupt institutions of the past and become the America we thought, hoped, and dreamed we were.
Should Bykofsky get fired? Should free speech have consequences? Vote here.
You'll have to excuse me if I think that the sudden outbreak of swastikas on Memorial Day, as well as flag burning, seems a little too much like another time where a swastika suddenly appeared .
Interesting that so few events were deemed to be newsworthy, huh?
