----- Original Message ----- From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net> -on a day like today, when the FCC has made US media about as monopolistic as -anything can get, it's good to take a long look at who appointed Chairman -Powell to the FCC board in the first place. we all know who made him -chairman, but let's take a long look at who put the incompetent, uncaring -powell on the board where shrub could easily promote him. -Mr. Powell, a Republican, was nominated by President William J. Clinton on -July 31, 1997, and confirmed by the United States Senate on October 28, -1997.
-I really just wish people would learn elementary information about how -government operates before they post ignorant attacks like this.
nathan, i wish you'd take your own advice and learn how govt operates. your namby pamby excuses defending a broken system, run by corrupt politicians, as having some rationale to it have got to go. because a system operates a certain way doesn't mean it's functional and doesn't mean it upholds the mandate which created it. it doesn't mean it serves any purpose. in fact, it doesn't mean anything.
-Like many independent commissions,
the FCC is not an independent commission, except in theory. "independent commission" is a meaningless cliché, which politicians love because it's misleading and false yet sounds good to the ignorant and uninformed. the FCC no more independent from the media it allegedly regulates than a drug addict is independent from his fix. it's no more independent from what it's supposed to regulate than the FDA is independent from the drug industry.
commissions run by bureaucrats (who in today's political mess almost always held positions working for major corporations and wealthy special interests before being appointed) appointed by politicians, are not independent. they are packed.
-the FCC requires that there be a balance -between Democrats and Republicans on the commission.
right. between people bearing the label democrat and bearing the label republican. and that's it. there is no effort to assure balance between "left" and "right." there is no effort to act in the public interest. only party labels matter.
it's mandate requires several other things, which are ignored.
(Note that today's -deregulation decision was opposed by the two Democratic appointees).
everyone knows that. so what? i've heard them speak. i admire their intentions. they simply came up with too little too late, as democrats have been doing for years.
it's interesting to see they oppose this most obviously egregious betrayal of the public trust and the FCC's mandate when they don't oppose other, less obnoxious but equally one sided FCC actions.
-Powell -was appointed to fill one of the GOP slots, recommended by John McCain who -headed the Senate Commerce Committee.
we all know this, nathan. interesting history lesson. but so what? whose interest do you think mcCain had in mind when he recommended powell? and why powell?
-Presidents usually defer to the -opposition party on who they want in such slots,
"usually" but not always. far be it from bill clinton to defer. he wouldn't support lani guinier either. no picking a war for this president. but that's another story about how political operators really operate.
-and Powell had no -particular ideological record at that point to pick a war over in turning -down McCain's pick.
what is a "particular" ideological record, nathan? did anyone who knew powell have any illusions about who controls him? did clinton? why do you think mcCain, republican party hack to the last, nominated him? and why was it so advisable to appoint someone to the FCC who knew nothing about the FCC and the corps it's supposed to regulate?
nathan, you are always so committed to business as usual transpiring without conflict, no matter what's at stake. your phrase "pick a war" says it all. there's no principle worth fighting for is there? until it's too late, as the two democrats on commission learned the hard way.
-This is why I just can't take the anti-Dem arguments seriously at this point.
you can't take them seriously, nathan, because they all are hitting too close to home. don't expect to be taken serious yourself.
-They are so intermixed with complete false information about how -government actually functions.
nathan, you've given us shallow, superficial material which sheds absolutely no light on the powell nomination. you haven't said one word about how govt actually functions. you delivered a mechanical run down of a process with no insight into what is actually going on.
nothing you wrote supports your claim that you know anything about how govt actually functions. you could have lifted it all from the "Idiots Guide to What Politicians Want Us to Believe"
R
-- Nathan Newman
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk