Amazon.com Widgets

« McCain's Big Lie | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Nader on Limbaugh



link


 

Comments

Drug addicts are terrible about not paying their rent.

As long as I still get my cell phone, bluetooth, and router bandwidth rent free.

I think rush should just have to pay an asshole tax.

i don't get it. nader is attacking limbaugh from a conservative position- a fact he points to proudly- that, essentially, anyone making use of public property without paying rent is a freeloader and that we ought to be appalled at the affront to our god given right to make sure the next guy suffers at least as much as we do, etc. he even implys a couple of times, in a surprisingly good imitation (if it is an imitation) of a snooty conservative that people on welfare ought to be looked down upon as thieves and parasites in the public purse.

i understand and agree with the point about corporations, but he seemed to be hammering the INDIVIDUALS right to freeload, and this i cannot tolerate! i'm calling unseemly childishness on this one. harumph.

the individual's right to freeload? that's a new one.

As long as I still get my cell phone, bluetooth, and router bandwidth rent free...

This may have just been a flippant remark, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The cell phone plan you pay for allows you access to the frequencies the cell companies "own" by licensing them from the FCC. You do not get to use those frequencies for free, you pay for them with the plan.

As for bluetooth and Wi-Fi, these are unlicensed spectrums reserved for very low-power, short-range usage as per Part 15 of the FCC rules. In other words, these are the "peanut gallery" areas of the radio spectrum. If you tried to use those frequencies - or any frequency at all - for anything "ambitious" the FCC (or any geeks who find out you're the one jamming their wireless network) would likely be knocking on your door with rather heavy-handed complaints.

Good post. I like when Nader is promoting civil action.

Question:

What does it mean to you to be a 'good citizen'?

That question is what is at the core of this Obama campaign and presidency. You want a better president, congress, school board, neighborhood, etc...??? Well.... What dose it mean to be a good citizen? I was surprised at how many people I asked would try to dodge it as if it's some kind of trick question.

...sigh... more red wine please.

Apparently Obama's definition of a good citizen is one who enables illegal wars and throws away our right to privacy.

If you're looking for civic wisdom, I don't think you'll find it sniffing around the Obama camp.

This may have just been a flippant remark, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes and yes. Although I think the vast majority of my sprint bill is pure profit and not FCC rent payments. And technically you did indeed point out that things like routers and blue tooth devices are using the public airways, rent free. Thanks for the lesson.

If you took my flip to say that I don't think Limbaugh is a freeloader, you would be wrong.

Instead, I think I would say that Limbaugh is one of the last icons of a dying medium and charging a large fee for radio stations would probably be the death of the medium.

Broadcast TV is on a similar trajectory. Its pretty much the entertainment of the poor, the rural and Luddites.

NPR is probably 90% of the broadcast I consume.

Yes, Broadcasters have made a whole lot of profit on the public airways, with very little payback. Yes its still and issue, but in the future most of us will wan the FCC to do more regulating the uses of the spectrum so we can use all then new devices we will have access to and not collecting tons of rent.

Nadar is talking like he hasn't been active in the real world since he ran in 2000.

If you're looking for civic wisdom, I don't think you'll find it sniffing around the Obama camp.

Really. Spent much time with the Obama camp? What is the Obama camp anyway? Those who feel more civic engagement then they have in many years, and are channeling that emotion through his candidacy? or those that are working and getting paid to promote the Obama candidacy?

Apparently Obama's definition of a good citizen is one who enables illegal wars and throws away our right to privacy.

Snark remark. So what is your answer to the question then? Apparently to you a good citizen is one who makes snarky remarks on blogs. (ops, I just reduced your entire life down to one action, i hope that wasn't unfair)

Nadar is talking like he hasn't been active in the real world since he ran in 2000.

I agree, but most of the country is just waking up to 2004.

Had a hearty laugh at the "individual's right to freeload" as well... very hilarious joke. And the setup... had me going there.

The elephant in the room I cannot ignore... rather it's the donkey in the room...

I'm one of those "Luddites" that gets only broadcast TV. I have not had cable in more than 10 years... reason being the promises that was made when OUR bandwidth was given away for free by Al Gore in 1996, effective 1997. That's right, OUR bandwidth.

To me, a "Luddite" I suppose, I shouldn't give a crap about stuff I cannot see, sniff, feel or taste... but in reality, I view the public airwaves in "virtually" the same way I see our public land (heh, heh). In that Time article, they valued the giveaway around 70-billion, but I've heard estimates more like a trillion dollars. I don't think anybody knows what was given away, because no one knows how long it would have been licensed, nor what the value of money (or bandwidth) would accrue over time.

The promise, in any event, was that our phone bills would go down, our cable bills would go down... and we would have all kinds of choices or providers.

I jumped up and down at the time and called B.S. on the whole matter. I knew what would happen: the big fish would swallow the little fish; a shitload of people would make a killing on the stock market; the loss in revenue would be immeasurable; the Dems would get their big fat campaign contributions esp. from the biggies AT&T and MCI (read Charles Lewis' work on who gets what from whom, 2000 & 2004).

So I told myself... after I got done fuming and spitting, that I would cancel my cable the second the price went up. It took two months, I think. I've never looked back. When broadcast goes bye-bye... fuck it; no TV. I get everything I need through a DSL line (Qwest), and despite its shortcomings, it's better than being a slave to the bastards that bought our politicians and snatched OUR bandwidth.

This is just a reminder not to see recent developments as entirely a Dem vs Repug issue. As an inventor, I'm STILL really fucking PISSED about what happened more than a decade ago. So when a bloated, drug-addled shitbag making 30-million a year benefits from corporate welfare, I cannot see it in terms of red and blue.... unless that involves me seeing red while getting screwed blue in the face.

BTW, I still voted for Gore in 2000, not that it helped any. Talk about getting screwed again.

Anyway, I had to laugh... because this discussion points out how LIMITED our choices now are, regarding the latest outrage (FISA), as our collective poodles got pooched again. Feels nice, doesn't it? Even lube is getting more expensive by the minute.

For those who can stomach a close, in-depth (heh) look at precisely how, where, why, and by whom you're getting pooched... there's no better source in the nation than The Center for Public Integrity.

Beats the piss out of pissing your money away supporting the liars your TV wants you to support. Give them your money instead... and, I repeat... GAME the system.

I'm one of those "Luddites" that gets only broadcast TV.

My Criticism of Nader is both that he seems oblivious to a shift in technology, but also he is harshing on Limbaugh, Who's millions would only see a small dent if he had to pay rent, while in the last 8 years the Enron's and Haliburtons of the world have bled this country for billions (doctor evil finger) of dollars.

For those who can stomach a close, in-depth (heh) look at precisely how, where, why, and by whom you're getting pooched... there's no better source in the nation than The Center for Public Integrity.

Great Link.

-tp

Be the change you believe in.

I am totally opposed to corporate welfare. However, I find this message incredibly deceptive.

The analogy between public airwaves and physical, rent-baring property is fundamentally flawed. The only thing that prevents me from broadcasting my opinion on the same bandwidth as Rush is the fact that these airwaves are policed by the FCC and I would be fined.

The FCC is the party responsible for divvying up the airwaves, and the organization responsible for leasing that bandwidth to the private companies that host Rush's program.

If Nader feels Rush should be expected to pay more for his bandwidth because he earns more money from it, he should petition the FCC to enact some sort of sliding rates according to broadcaster profitability. However, as-is, this situation was caused by the government's (mis)management of public airwaves. Rush is only acting in his own self interest, and it is entirely delusional to expect folk like Rush to do anything else.

Here is why I have a fundamental problem with Nader's view on big business. If he wants to increase taxes against multi-million dollar broadcasters, and use those funds to improve infrastructure, I would hardly object. Except:

a) How does one improve the infrastructure of radio frequencies? There are no roads to fix, and no bridges to replace. All you need is a power supply and antenna, and that bandwidth will work just as well as the day it was discovered.

b) The FCC allowed the gross monopolization by companies like Clearwater in the first place. Why would I think this same organization would correct a problem that itself was responsible for?

c) The only reason specific bandwidths even exist is because of government regulation. This ensures that different devices and channels do not interfere with each other. If Nader thinks we, as the tax paying public, should have unfettered access to OUR airwaves, he is more libertarian than he realizes.

user-pic

Check out this article...apparently all of our collective complaining about Obama's FIZA down-fall has taken to some major notice...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html

What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One is a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other is a blimp.

What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One is a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other is a blimp.

Nothing like some good old fashioned technical pedantry.

And technically you did indeed point out that things like routers and blue tooth devices are using the public airways, rent free.

No. That's not broadcast usage, and broadcast radio usage is what is under discussion. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth is private use of the airwaves, it's not really "public". It's just a step above the infrared beam going to the TV from your remote.

Being allowed to use a frequency, at very low power, to connect to a router one or two rooms over is completely different from using the airwaves for public, one-to-many communications. Unless you're the giant corporations at issue here, you can't do that without paying a huge "rent" fee. Period.

But hey, if you still want to think connecting to a router 30ft away is the same as blanketing an entire region with radio messages anyone can receive, go ahead.

Frenetic,

If the FCC does not allow broadcasters to use that spectrum (bluetooth, wireless routers etc...), then (by Naders reasoning) are we not on welfare too?

But hey, if you still want to think connecting to a router 30ft away is the same as blanketing an entire region with radio messages anyone can receive, go ahead.

I was not saying they were the same thing.

Both large scale usage and small individual use are indeed happening on the public airways for free.

Is it very possible to charge for one and not the other? yes. Should we? yes.

If his effective income tax rate is 40%, then we're talking about $15.2 million/year. Is that rent? I guess that depends on your perspective.

in the last 8 years the Enron's and Haliburtons of the world have bled this country for billions (doctor evil finger) of dollars.

redseven, of course i get the austin powers reference. i've mentioned in other posts that i am, among other stupid things, a rock guitarist, and as such i keep a list of potential band names in case i ever have the chance to "make it big". until now, my best one has been "global village idiot" (tm). but "doctor evil finger" blows me away. would you sue me if i used it?

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives