Twitter

Friday, August 22, 2014

Can EYE Rant?

15 Things We Have to Explain About the Song 'Sweet Home Alabama'




Warning, I am over due for a righteous rant, so what I write today might offend some (not to be confused with all) of you.  All I'm going to say is if the shoe fits....wear it.

And they want us to sing Sweet Home AlabamaNoNo.  And Hell to the No.

I am convinced Alabama is stuck on stupid because it's citizens are fed a constant stream of misinformation. They ride around in their cars and trucks,  listening to so called News Talk Radio all day, then go home and sit in front of their flat screen TV's and watch Faux News distort what they decide, with all spin all the time, unfair and unbalanced. I am trying to figure out when it became the job of the media to keep the the right wing bigots in line, and not report on the crooks and liars?  I repeat, until and unless the fairness doctrine is restored, this state, and this country will continue to be controlled by those who hate President Obama, democrats, liberals, and the ACLU, more than they love themselves.   Sweet Home Alabama has plenty of money to buy military equipment,  but not one penny for teachers (not to be confused with state superintendents), and refuses to expand medicaid.   And that's sad.

RedEye Over and Out....for now.

42 comments:

Brian said...

The law enforcement agency don't buy the equipment from the federal government. It is being given to them.

From the Decatur Daily:
The only cost to the department is the expense of picking up equipment from military bases where it’s stored until an agency lays claim.

Also, one thing the AL.com article left out is that there is far more than military gear being offered to local law enforcement.

Once again from the Decatur Daily:
But most of the items — computers, cots, blankets, forklifts, cargo containers, a water tank, water purifier, microwave, field kitchen and refrigerated truck — have no offensive application.

Even the "military" equipment can be used for non-military equipment.

Five Humvees — painted black and adorned with sheriff’s insignia to give them a less-military look — have proven useful in inclement weather because they have four-wheel drive, Franklin said.

The Sheriff’s Department has two helicopters — one for flying and one for spare parts — and regularly uses the operating chopper in searches for missing persons or suspects.


http://www.decaturdaily.com/news/local/article_b269c936-28df-11e4-8405-0017a43b2370.html

Brian said...

In regards to the fairness doctrine, how would you feel if the government came in and told you that you had to allow the opposing point of view publishing rights on your website?

DARYAL Pinchon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Redeye said...

The federal government doesn't have to make me allow the opposing point of view on my website. And there is a huge difference between a blog/ website and the public airways.

Redeye said...

Nothing is free in America, but if it were, the right wing doesn't have a problem getting "free" WMD to use on the people whose tax dollars paid for them, but they scream bloody murder about poor people getting "free food, healthcare, school, etc." from the government. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy.

"Law enforcement agencies in Jefferson County have received the most equipment – about $26 million worth – through the Department of Defense's 1033 program. Among the items received by law enforcement in the county were a helicopter, various vehicles, night vision equipment and a small boat."
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/this_map_shows_which_alabama_c.html#incart_related_stories

"ome of the largest pieces of equipment to find their way to Alabama are mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs. The large explosive-resistant vehicles were designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are 11 MRAPS in Alabama, with two counties – Chilton and Calhoun - each having a pair. The four MRAPs are worth about $2.14 million. Seven other counties, Madison, Morgan, Cullman, Blount, Jefferson, Montgomery and Mobile, have one each."http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/this_map_shows_which_alabama_c.html#incart_related_stories

Free Dumb isn't Free!


Brian said...

Yes, the federal government does have the right to control your blog if they saw fit to. They have the same right to it as they do public airway frequencies.

That is why there was the fairness doctrine. Anybody could start up a newspaper, but there is only a finite number of frequencies for people to operation a radio or broadcast television station. There is a finite number of IP addresses for the internet to operate on as well. China implements content filters on it's citizens. There is nothing saying that the government can't go to Google (who owns your blog, your using their site, their domain) and telling them that for them to continue to operate in the United States, they need to make these changes.

You may think there is a big difference between a website and the public airways, and you are right is some ways, but you are wrong in others.

The internet is their world, we are just renting space in it.

Brian said...

Read the Decatur Daily article about what the Morgan County Sheriff got from the 1033 program. They actually did a reporter's job and talked to the Sheriff about why they got the equipment they got. He didn't stop at listing the gear that the uninformed would have a problem with but also listed other items the sheriff's department received.

Jefferson county, population-wise, is the biggest county in the state. I would expect them to need more. It would be nice to know what all they got, not just what somebody with an agenda nitpicked from the list.

Redeye said...

The difference between a blog and the public airways FYI:
Extra!
Jan
01
2005
The Fairness Doctrine
How we lost it, and why we need it back
By Steve Rendall

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.



When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).

But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-fairness-doctrine/

Redeye said...

More on the Fairness Doctrine:
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Brian said...

And it was later determined that the fairness doctrine was no longer needed due to the vast amount of differing media outlets available. Equal time is not the problem. If there is a problem, it it's with diversity in ownership.

Television used to have restrictions on the number of stations in a market, but cable and satellite have fixed that.

Redeye said...

Why am I not surprised you oppose fairness Brian? :)

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian said...

I am not against fairness. But don't think fairness well coke from a government regulation.

Who determined what is worthy of equal time?

Brian said...

There was nothing in that post that waterbed deletion. I asked a legitimate question about fairness.

DARYAL Pinchon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian said...

In regards to fairness doctrine, do you want it applied to Newspapers? Magazines? AM Radio? FM Radio? HD Radio? Satellite Radio? Online Streaming Radio? Broadcast Television? Cable Television? Newspaper, Radio, and Television Websites?

Redeye said...

Fairness for all,

Brian said...

So every newspaper out there will have to follow the fairness doctrine? Every Radio Station? Every Cable TV Station? Every Website?

Redeye said...

What part of the fairness doctrine does not apply to blogs and websites but to the public airways and media ownership/diversity don't you understand Brian?

Brian said...

The fairness doctrine not longer exists. The FCC ended it in 1986 and they completely removed it in 2011 under Obama's orders.

Do you know why the Fairness Doctrine was applied to radio and television and not to newspapers?

It is because at the time, Radio and Television were much more limited resources.

When the fairness doctrine was created radio and television was limited to being broadcast over AM/FM and UHF/VHF frequencies. Anybody with a printing press can print a newspaper. We didn't have the internet back (which has a similar limitation in IP addresses that radio and television HAD with frequencies). We didn't have cable /satellite television. We didn't have satellite radio. We didn't have streaming radio/television.

If the fairness doctrine was put back into place as is, it would only affect AM/FM radio and local broadcast TV like WHNT, WAFF, WAAY, and WHDF. It would not affect Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other cable stations that are being broadcast over a specific frequency.

For the Fairness Doctrine to affect cable television or to even take affect today, a new one would have to be written, that new one could affect websites, that new one could affect blogs. And many supporters of the Fairness Doctrine (as many as 2/3rds according to Rasmussen Polls) do want the Fairness Doctrine to apply to websites and blogs.

Redeye said...

And your point is what exactly?

Brian said...

The reason that the "Fairness Doctrine" was not applied to newspapers was that anybody could print a newspaper.

When the "Fairness Doctrine" was in play, you had to have a license to operate a radio station or television station because you needed a frequency (AM/FM/UHF/VHF) to broadcast that station. These days, you don't need a license to operation a radio or television station. You don't need to broadcast using a radio frequency. Fox News is not licensed. They don't need to be. The Cable Companies that carry Fox News have to be licensed. The Satellite Companies that carry Fox News have to be licensed. You can broadcast your station using YouTube. You can stream your own radio station if you wanted to.

There is no need for the "Fairness Doctrine" to come back because there is no longer a dearth of options when it comes to radio or television.

But be forewarned that if it does come back, if it is not written properly, we could see it affecting channels like Disney Jr, Nick Jr., and Sprout, which are targeted at 2 to 9 year old. We could see it forcing websites like yours to cover all sides of an issue. Don't think it could happen? Remember the gun control law passed in New York after Newtown that made it illegal for even the police to have high capacity magazines. The Affordable Care Act had a problem where volunteer organizations would have to provide health insurance to volunteers if they volunteered more than 30 hours a week.

Redeye said...

Anybody can't print a newspaper because anybody can't own a newspaper.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian said...

Anybody CAN print a newspaper because anybody CAN own a newspaper.

Redeye said...

Anybody isn't AL.com,a media conglomeration.

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-fairness-doctrine/

Brian said...

AL.com is one publisher in the state. They don't control the state as a whole. The Tennessee Valley Press is another publisher publishing newspapers in Decatur, Muscle Shoals, and Florence as well as Redstone Arsenal and a weekly paper for Madison. AL.com is only one source and they couldn't stop another publisher from starting up or coming in to provide Huntsville with another newspaper.

Yes, that was true in 1927. But it's 2014 and the media world is a far different place. In 1927, there were 536 broadcasting stations competing over 89 wavelengths. Geographic seperation and power restrictions would only make it possible for 6 station per wavelength for a maximum of 534 stations.

Now we have satellite radio, we have HD radio, we have internet radio. The technological limitation of 1927 have been minimized.

If anything is need, it is not a "fairness doctrine" which has proven to be more of a limiting factor on free speech than anything, but a program to incourage more diverse ownership.

Redeye said...

"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, aesthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974).
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-fairness-doctrine/

Brian said...

In 1974, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):

"Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."

In 1984, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote:

"We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required."

and

"Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine '[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case."

The FCC voted in 1987 4-0 and this decision was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit.

Redeye said...

Why am I not surprised Burger and Brennan oppose fairness too? The next time you quote verbatim cite your source (link). This is your warning.

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Brian said...

And the section you quoted also explained why the Fairness Doctrine was ended.

"The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Redeye said...

It ought to be against the law to use the public airwaves to misinform the uniformed, and to promote one side over the other.

Brian said...

So you are alright with forcing WEUP to allow a conservative show to counter Al Sharpton?

Redeye said...

Yes.

Brian said...

How would you feel if WEUP dropped Al Sharpton rather than adding a conservative show?

Redeye said...

Why would WEUP do something stupid like that Brian? Never mind. This conversation is over. I get it, you oppose fairness.

Bye

Brian said...

I don't oppose fairness, I oppose the "Fairness" doctrine, which doesn't promote fairness but pormotes SILENCE.

Redeye said...

Difference without a distinction. End of Story.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.