Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
CBS May Reject MoveOn.org Superbowl Ad

By creativedissonance in Media
Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:06:40 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

- Ain't our Money Green? - CBS May Decline MoveOn.org Ad According to an AdAge.com article, CBS may reject MoveOn.org's bid to have the winner of the "Bush in 30 seconds" ad competition run during the Superbowl.

A spokesman for CBS said the Viacom-owned network has received the request from MoveOn to run the ad in the Super Bowl, but added that the ad has to go through standards and practices before CBS will say if it can run an advocacy ad during the game. The spokesman said he didn't think it was likely that the spot would pass standards and practices.
(You can view the ad in question here.) Exactly what these "standards and practices" are is unclear, but of the advertisers listed, at least three are running political issue ads:
  • American Legacy Foundation: "Likely to be a new excecution in the 'Connect-truth' (anti-smoking) campaign."
  • Philip Morris USA: "A new execution in its corporate responsibility, anti-smoking campaign."
  • White House Office of National Drug Control Policy: "The drug office is in the big game for the third year in a row."


A previous CBS News article on the subject seems to telegraph CBS's intention to deny the ad buy:
"The group may also try to run the spot during the Superbowl; if they succeed, it will be the first political ad to accompany the NFL championship..."
However, CBS has broadcast at least one political ad during a Superbowl. Last year's White House-sponsored spot infamously linked buying marijuana to funding terrorism.

Many on the left are concerned about the possible censorship of the ad, and are calling for various measures ranging from petitioning CBS (contact info below) to boycotting the remaining Superbowl advertisers. MoveOn.org, which had previously issued a request for additional funding to make the Superbowl spot possible, has yet to respond to the CBS spokesman's comments.

If you are interested in taking action on this issue, here is some contact information that may aid your efforts:

A current list of Superbowl advertisers can be found here and here.

Contact information for CBS:

CBS Television Network 51 W. 52nd St. New York, NY 10019 Main Number: 212-975-4321

CBS News 555 W. 57th St. New York, NY 10019 Main Number (National): 212-975-4114

National CBS Television advertising sales only: newmediasales@cbs.com

Non-Management Directors Contact: If you would like to contact Viacom's non-management directors, you may send an e-mail to nonmanagementdirectors@viacom.com

If you do end up writing an email, sending a fax or snail mail to CBS/Viacom/Superbowl advertiser, remember that constructive feedback works better than threats. Framing it from a "I'd really like to keep supporting CBS/<your company> but I feel strongly about this" perspective works much better than "Do what I want or I'm taking my ball home!"

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o article
o here
o listed
o campaign
o anti-smoki ng campaign
o drug office
o article [2]
o linked
o concerned
o request
o here [2]
o here [3]
o Contact information
o Also by creativedissonance


Display: Sort:
CBS May Reject MoveOn.org Superbowl Ad | 324 comments (270 topical, 54 editorial, 4 hidden)
having it both ways (2.50 / 12) (#1)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:51:04 PM EST

Hey folks, this is what campaign finance reform is all about. The moveon.org ad specifically slams Bush, and is thus, IMO, of a different nature than a pure issue ad. If we get the campaign finance reform we all want (and I use the royal "we" of which I'm not sure I'm a member), then we'll see lots more of this type of "censhorship".

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

so in your opinion... (2.75 / 8) (#2)
by creativedissonance on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:54:55 PM EST

...would it be different if the ad was anti-deficits in general and didn't mention Bush?


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
yes (2.66 / 9) (#7)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:27:11 PM EST

Then it would be on par with the other issue ads that CBS lets through.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

So are you implying (2.66 / 9) (#3)
by mcc on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:01:37 PM EST

That all proposals for and supporters for campaign finance reform want to ban political advertisements, period?

[ Parent ]
I'm certainly not... (2.75 / 8) (#4)
by creativedissonance on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:06:03 PM EST

...suggesting this. IMO, political coverage should be given free to all qualifying candidates. After all, doesn't the FCC license TV, radio stations et. al. to serve the public interest?


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
all qualifying candidates (none / 2) (#157)
by wiredog on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:26:59 AM EST

There's a political minefield. Define "qualifying " in such a way as to not generate massive lawsuits from third party candidates.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
lots of other countries do this (none / 3) (#166)
by the sixth replicant on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:49:52 AM EST

can't be that hard to look at each of the systems and see which one suits the U S of A better

except it not's too good for the rich and powerfull since it allows minority groups to have air time when they wouldn't under the present system (unless they had wads of cash)

ciao

[ Parent ]

"On the Ballot" [nt] (none / 3) (#196)
by Happy Monkey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:02:58 PM EST


___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
don't know (2.42 / 7) (#8)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:29:37 PM EST

But that is a major component of many of the leading proposals. And frankly, those that don't ban political advertisements don't really get us anywhere.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

In effect, yes. (2.50 / 4) (#131)
by aphrael on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:15:06 AM EST

One of the big things in the mccain-feingold act was a ban, during certain phases of the election cycle, on issue ads by third parties which were de facto candidate support/opposition ads. There is now an absolute ban on such creatures during some number of days prior to an election.

[ Parent ]
Royal We (2.80 / 5) (#110)
by ocrow on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:11:41 AM EST

(and I use the royal "we" of which I'm not sure I'm a member)

The term 'royal we' refers to oneself, as in "We were crowned on the 2nd of June, 1953." There's always only one member of the 'royal we', and it is the speaker.

I think the term you are looking for is the 'managerial we', as in "We'll get this work done by tommorrow morning, won't we?"

[ Parent ]

thank you, yes (nt) (none / 2) (#160)
by speek on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:24:09 AM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Royal We (none / 1) (#322)
by kraant on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 09:28:31 PM EST

I thought that monarchs used it because they are the country and the country is them.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Bush's destruction of the United States (none / 2) (#249)
by truth versus death on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:57:09 PM EST

Is an issue.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
sure (none / 2) (#272)
by speek on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 10:09:31 AM EST

I am just taking an opportunity to slam campaign finance reform and how it can bite the little people in the ass - those whom it supposedly helps.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Good things to point out. (nt) (none / 2) (#276)
by truth versus death on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:13:53 PM EST



"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
on CBS (2.42 / 7) (#5)
by xutopia on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:14:08 PM EST

Source : http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/34/Media2.html CBS/Westinghouse
CBS owns six Seattle radio stations (KZOK-FM, KMPS-FM, KMPS-AM, KYCW-FM, KRPM-AM, KBKS-FM), plus 131 radio and 17 TV stations in other cities. Westinghouse is a major corporation that owns investment firms, pension management firms, waste disposal companies, nuclear power plant maintenance companies, and is involved in satellite communications, telecommunications, security systems, and mobile rerefrigeration. It also owns CBS, a major corporation unto itself. On cable, CBS owns Home Team Sports, The Nashville Newtork, and 1/3 of Country Music Television. Of course, it owns CBS Network News as well.

Source : http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/CBS Today it(CBS) is owned by Viacom.

Other very interesting things :
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp

Better boycott idea (2.60 / 10) (#17)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:52:38 PM EST

Boycott CBS News programs and election coverage. Why should we watch coverage by a network that practices political censorship?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
I'd like to mention... (none / 2) (#27)
by creativedissonance on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:14:54 PM EST

...that I'm not actually advocating a boycott. Some people are all for it. I'm not sure how useful it will be. I'd rather use the issue to help with education and organization.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Because (none / 1) (#123)
by godix on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:00:09 AM EST

... by not picking sides there's a chance they actually might present some non-biased coverage? Not that I actually think that's true, but it has a lot more chance of being true than if they had decided to run a blatently partisan political ad during the election cycle.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
Picking sides? (none / 1) (#238)
by pyramid termite on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:31:02 PM EST

Selling ad space is not picking sides - people on the right should be able to buy ad space, too.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Depends on your viewpoint (none / 1) (#251)
by godix on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:22:03 PM EST

As a matter of pure logic you are indeed correct, selling ads is not making a political statement. As a matter of reality, giving a viewpoint airtime is endorsing that viewpoint and CBS knows it. That's exactly why all networks go out of their way to say 'we don't believe this shit, they just gave us some money' before those halfhour infromercials. Just think of it this way, when was the last time you heard a pro-democrat ad on Rush? Besides CBS realizes something that K5 apperently doesn't, odd as it may seem there are some who will tune into the Superbowl to see a football game rather than see one political party lying about the other. This ad doesn't belong on the Superbowl anymore than an ad saying 'Dean sucks off little boys, beats old people, and uses the flag for toilet paper' would.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
Superbowl (none / 1) (#264)
by marx on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:46:27 AM EST

I don't think people tuning in to see the Superbowl do it to see Imacs or watch ads about drugs either, yet this is exactly what has been shown. Your reasoning says that the logical conclusion is that no ads should exist during the Superbowl, but yet they do.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Actually some do (none / 1) (#267)
by godix on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 03:55:26 AM EST

I don't think people tuning in to see the Superbowl do it to see Imacs or watch ads about drugs either

I do know a few people who actually tune in to the superbowl specifically for the commercials, although to be fair they're more interested in the big production ones like beer or soft drinks. Given the fact that memorable superbowl commercials are watercooler talk around the nation the next day I doubt my friends are alone.
Your reasoning says that the logical conclusion is that no ads should exist during the Superbowl

Just because there are some ads doesn't mean there should be blatently partisan attack ads which lie and turn many off of following politics entirely. Saying that would be like saying that because republicans lie about their principles it's ok for democrats to lie also.

Hmmm, now that I think about it this ad is nothing but democrats lying and plenty of people here are defending it with arguements that basically boil down to 'bush lies so....' Maybe I should have picked a better example.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]

How obnoxious (2.07 / 13) (#19)
by gibichung on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:01:19 PM EST

Anti-smoking and anti-drug commercials are public health services, not political ads.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
So what about pro-smoking and pro-drug ads? (2.57 / 7) (#21)
by Trevasel on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:06:06 PM EST

Why don't they run those? They aren't political.
-- That which does not kill you only makes you stranger - Trevor Goodchild
[ Parent ]
actually, I disagree... (2.85 / 7) (#23)
by creativedissonance on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:08:37 PM EST

...Government regulation of what we can or cannot consume is definitely a political issue. The only reason Altria Group / Phillip Morris is running those ads is because they were forced to via lawsuit. There is extensive federal and state regulation of tobacco use. I'm pretty sure that the 'truth' ad is partially government funded. The White House spot is absolutely a political issue ad. Don't you remember the marijuana = terrorism ad?


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Truth (none / 2) (#28)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:18:03 PM EST

I think the truth project is funded entirely by the state lawsuit settlement. The net result is higher cigarette prices, and smokers involuntarily pay for anti-smoking propaganda. Lovely.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
I think it's great.. (2.25 / 4) (#44)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:31:48 PM EST

And hopefully it continues and prices get higher so I don't have to smell the stench of cigarette smoke everywhere I go.

[ Parent ]
Well, that's lovely (1.83 / 6) (#48)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:46:16 PM EST

I hope they put a tax on homeless people. Hopefully they'll die off and I won't have to see them or smell them any more!

Dumbshit.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

You have to be kidding.. (none / 2) (#67)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:43:21 PM EST

You can't seriously be comparing the two circumstances.. I really shouldn't complain they've banned most forms of public smoking where I live (any building except for your house basically) ..

But there opposites.. if you didn't tax smokers they'd probably die off faster and help reduce the problem?  Sorry that this is becoming a silly trollish argument.  I'll try to put more thought into my next comment.

[ Parent ]

You authoritarian asshole (1.00 / 5) (#155)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:13:25 AM EST

Thanks for supporting government denial of my rights. No, really, thank you. I wasn't using them anyway.

You may think it's great because you don't like smoking, but what are you gonna do when they use the legal precedent to ban something you do like?

Fucking myopic asshat.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

It's your right to make other people... (none / 2) (#161)
by Karmakaze on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:27:18 AM EST

It's your right to make other people breathe your smoke?

As far as I know, there aren't any laws (or even pushes for laws) prohibiting smoking on your own property.  Just in public spaces where other people have to breathe the fumes.  

They also have noise pollution laws, you know.  Are you going to argue how unfair it is that they're taking away your right to blast music at 1am?
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

Noise laws (none / 2) (#164)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:39:36 AM EST

Not applicable, as they don't ban noise, just excessive noise. The other guy was talking about banning smoking in public entirely.

Further, there are restaurants, bars, and clubs which play music. Many localities have banned smoking in such facilities entirely. If people had really cared that much, there would have been "non-smoking" establishments to suit their needs. That wasn't good enough, though, so they deprive others of liberty.

No one "makes" another breathe their smoke (or very rarely, anyway). If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

BTW, I'm a non-smoker, and I hate the smell of tobacco.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

I'd argue it does apply (none / 2) (#206)
by Karmakaze on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:18:02 PM EST

The noise ordinances ban the amount of noise it takes to reach out of one person's space and into another's at an intrusive level.

Smoking causes the fumes to move from the smoker's personal space into that of everyone around the smoker, and continues to fill that space for a significant time afterwards.  I can't leave my place of work without walking through a cloud of smoke, whether there's anyone smoking at the time or not.  Sure, nobody's holding a gun to my head, but short of holding my breath as I walk through the cloud, I have no choice but to breathe it.  Train stations used to be the same way.  

I don't hang out in bars in the first place, so I don't have much of an opinion on that, but as far as parks, government offices and mass transit are concerned, smoking bans are completely reasonable.

There are ways to get a nicotine fix that do not require bothering everyone downwind.
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

You're more moderate than the other guy (none / 2) (#208)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:33:17 PM EST

came off as.

government offices
Check.
mass transit
Check.
parks
WTF? It's outdoors. Or does the simple sight of a smoker offend you?

Note my bias: I've no problem with banning smoking in enclosed public places. I don't really see any justification for banning smoking outside, though.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

I didn't used to either.. (none / 2) (#236)
by cosmokramer on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:24:06 PM EST

Until they banned smoking in restaurants and my tolerance level dropped significantly.  Now I can smell someone smoking from 50 feet away and even if they've left that spot for several minutes.  

I agree it's a tough one when it comes to a precedent for other possibly controversial laws but I think the noise by-law is a good comparison and not many people think it is a bad or abusive law.

[ Parent ]

so where do you draw the line? (2.00 / 4) (#266)
by bluehead on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 03:51:31 AM EST

I mean, God forbid someone should offend our delicate noses, but it really pisses me off when someone comes around with their stank breath or their BO or their perfume or their cologne or their farts or their dirty stinky noisy children or their shoes with their bit of dogshit stuck to their shoe's treads or their bright colored clothing that hurts my eyes or their dull colored clothing that hurts my aesthetic sense or their SUV spouting out clouds of exhaust and their goddamn liberal commie ideas that they should control the entire world around them and mold it and shape it by force and rule of law until it fits their masturbatory fantasies of what the world should be, spewing from their minds like projectile dog vomit, forming a crystalline reflection of that which only, and can ever only, as long as the world population numbers anything other than one, exist in their own minds. dot dot dot

Hard like a criminal.
[ Parent ]
Close .. (none / 0) (#297)
by cosmokramer on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:48:39 AM EST

I think people should just be responsible and atleast try and pretend to give a damn about what's happening around them or what impact the things they do has on others.  That's all I try to do so I can't ask much more.

Remember the classic.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0) (#315)
by bluehead on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:56:53 PM EST

nt

Hard like a criminal.
[ Parent ]
so, in other words (none / 2) (#274)
by speek on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 10:25:40 AM EST

These laws are turning you into a hypersensitive, intolerant wuss who clamors for more and more stringent laws in a horrible feedback loop destined to result in total sterility?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Something like that :) (none / 0) (#296)
by cosmokramer on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:46:50 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I have no desire for them to BAN it.. (none / 1) (#235)
by cosmokramer on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:19:04 PM EST

I simply don't want to have to smell it.  Smoke in your house .. have smoking "lounges" have whatever you like.. just don't walk by me in the street and blow smoke in my face is all I ask.  It should be considered assault.

[ Parent ]
negative rights (none / 1) (#273)
by speek on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 10:21:44 AM EST

You are seeing only the tip of the iceberg of negative rights theory gone horribly awry. Have smoking "lounges"? Sorry, that's not legal anymore where I live. It's a short step from this to seeing potato chip eating as theft (ie because of socialized health costs). Suddenly we're living a world of ubiquitous assault, theft, and harrassment. Oh joy. Despite the fact that we live better than any humans come before, we are all made into suffering victims.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

homeless (none / 2) (#149)
by F a l c o n on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:43:18 AM EST

I hope they put a tax on homeless people. Hopefully they'll die off and I won't have to see them or smell them any more!

Taxing won't do that. Cut their benefits or just throw them into detention centers so they can work for their daily food ration.

The actual solution is social, however, not legal or bureaucratic. I've travelled to countries where I've seen absolutely no beggars or bums. Many people were poor. Some probably called less their own than your average bum in a western city.
But the social stigma against begging or loitering around was powerful, and those people found themselves something else to do.
--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

I grew up in a country without beggars (none / 2) (#190)
by epcraig on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:36:46 PM EST

It was the United States of America - pre President Ronald Reagan.
There is no EugeneFreeNet.org, there is an efn.org
[ Parent ]
"consume" drugs? (1.50 / 6) (#31)
by gibichung on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:25:14 PM EST

We have a choice between the welfare state and absolute personal responsibility -- because you can't have both.

So everything the government does is not "politics," as, first, it is charged with providing public safety. Second, it has a financial interest in protecting public health because the government is the nation's largest provider of health insurance for its millions of employees as well as Medicare and Medicaide programs. The government can ban drugs and campaign against cigarettes for the same reason it can require you to wear seatbelts. The Supreme Court agrees. As for the terrorism/drugs connection, it undoubtly exists and the government has a responsibility to provide for the common defense.

Again, everything the goverment does is not "politics," and even if it can be called such by a few looneys, it doesn't compare to a partisan attack ad intended to influence an election.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

of course, that's not really true (2.50 / 4) (#53)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:34:55 PM EST

We have a choice between the welfare state and absolute personal responsibility -- because you can't have both.

You could have state supported entitlements without state mandated lifestyles. In fact, we do, for the most part. So much for your false dichotomy.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

choice (2.75 / 4) (#145)
by F a l c o n on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:37:58 AM EST

We have a choice between the welfare state and absolute personal responsibility -- because you can't have both.

Ever heard of the word "compromise" ?

You can't have both completely. You can easily have both partially. In fact, every modern state does exactly this, they differ in the extend only. In some the welfare is minimal, and personal responsibility high. In others, you have more welfare, and less responsibility.

The debate on where the optimum lies is still open, and there probably is no one right answer.

--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

Oo. (none / 1) (#263)
by Megahitler Electrodictator on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:44:44 AM EST

Your reasonable defence of laws made in the light of public safety may, unfortunately, be vulnerable to a harsh attack. For without additional qualification, despotic policies may be justified by the principle of public safety. "Is your unqualified advocacy of this principle," an adversary might claim, "not evidence of your infatuation with the exercise of authority, and your blindness to its profound danger?"

To answer this harsh criticism, it seems paramount to demonstrate that the law has been written with the utmost concern for its humanitarian consequences, and that its every clause has been meticulously designed to do no more harm to the individual than is absolutely required. Further, one may stress the dire nature of the particular threat to public safety and the dire consequences of ignoring it.

I suspect, however, that modern drug policy betrays this reasonable and humane standard.

[ Parent ]

Health? (2.85 / 7) (#25)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:10:56 PM EST

Forcing me to pay taxes and using the money for propaganda isn't my idea of a public health service. If the drug propaganda ads are a health service, why aren't they written by doctors? Why do they say you're supporting terrorism by smoking weed? If it's all about health, why are they intentionally muddling the issue?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
The welfare state (1.50 / 10) (#32)
by gibichung on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:30:51 PM EST

It is a consequence of the welfare state. As the U.S. government is the largest provider of health care in the nation, it has a financial interest in your health that lets it forbid you to smoke dope or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. It is also required to provide for the common defense, and when it can strengthen the security of the nation and promote public health at the same time, why not?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Nice troll (1.75 / 3) (#33)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:36:44 PM EST

I'm done here.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Nice try (1.20 / 5) (#35)
by gibichung on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:46:31 PM EST

But I'm still right. You can read a hundred court opinions on the matter. I can point you to a few if you like.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
nonsense (none / 1) (#294)
by heavenstorm on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 06:34:06 PM EST

First of all, there is very little socialized healthcare in the US.  The government may be the largest 'provider' of healthcare, whatever that means, but individual people still have to pay for their own healthcare.

Second, health insurance companies are free to deny policies or raise rates to high-risk individuals (whether this defeats the purpose of insurance is another issue).

Third, what is bad for health is not necessarily costly for healthcare.  For example, an instantly fatal head injury is bad for your health, but costs nothing to treat, and also guarantees you'll never pay for healthcare again.  As it happens, smoking on average does not increase healthcare costs.  Smoking will kill you, but you were going to die anyway - the question is, does dying of smoking cost more than dying of whatever else would kill you?  On the average, no, it does not.  In general, there is no a priori reason to believe that things that kill you faster will cost more than things that kill you slower.

Lastly, whether this would theoretically provide a framework in which these sorts of laws would be justified is moot.  The laws' -actual motivation- is -not- saving healthcare costs.  Healthcare costs of pot??

[ Parent ]

yeah right, (none / 3) (#99)
by davros4269 on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:10:58 PM EST

than what are the Bud frog ads??
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]
Is anti-Bush ad a public service ad? (none / 1) (#260)
by John Asscroft on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:10:33 AM EST

Hmm.

Not that it matters. It won't run. My friend Sumner Redstone, owner of CBS, will make sure of that.

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Get a grip (1.46 / 15) (#22)
by Arkayne on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:06:26 PM EST

Non-smoking ads are not political ads. Wake the fuck up.

I've already addressed this... (2.00 / 5) (#24)
by creativedissonance on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:09:27 PM EST

...here.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Being unable to view the ad... (1.13 / 15) (#36)
by leviramsey on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:48:59 PM EST

I cannot comment on its content. But if it's anything like the ad that essentially compares Bush to Hitler, then CBS is well-justified in refusing to run it due to standards and practices.



It's pretty tame. (2.81 / 11) (#38)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:55:09 PM EST

There's little kids performing various laborious jobs such as cleaning floors and working in factories. Then it says something like "Who is going to pay for Bush's budget deficit?"

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

It's Another Lie, But Not The Worst One (1.27 / 11) (#39)
by thelizman on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:14:48 PM EST

I wrote a diary entry on MoveOn's ads. It's actually one of the better ads - it's subjective, lacking in facts, but the insinuation is valid - deficits today are paid tomorrow. However, you can easily disprove the "Bush's $1 trillion deficit" line, since the so-called Bush Deficit is actually $530 billion.for FY2002 and FY2003 combined (that is, the deficit reported by the Treasury after FY 02 and 03 ended and all receipts were tallied). With 9.3% + GDP growth, it's unlikely we'll see a deficit higher than the FY2003 one ($370 bn).

You can read about the other ads. I'm writing a lengthy piece refuting all of the popular liberal lies out there, and the ludicrous deficit claims are the ones I've already tackled. I've got alot of homework, so the others might take a while.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Lies? Let's go to the source ... (2.92 / 13) (#62)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:16:27 PM EST

... ,you're most likely to trust. The figures projected by the White House from 2003-8 are easily over a trillion dollars - in fact, by 2005, we've shot past that figure.

You cite a 9.3% + GDP growth. I can't find it on this page. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I consider MY source to be fairly authoritative.

So who's lying here? You, or MoveOn.org and the President?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
So, you're saying that (1.40 / 5) (#74)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:19:06 PM EST

claiming deficits from 5 years in the future are already spent money - that's not deceptive?

That's like saying I owe $50,000 because I'm thinking about buying a BMW.

OTOH, that "9%" growth rate thelizman claims is ridiculous. We'll be lucky if the annual rate is 1/2 that.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

I'm saying that the President's own ... (2.87 / 8) (#79)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:31:29 PM EST

... policies and the projections resulting from those will add over a trillion dollars to our deficit, by his own admission. For this to change, there would either have to be a dramatic improvement in revenue or a major change in policy. If you claim this is deceptive, then the President is the source of this deception, isn't he?

Of course, if the dollar continues to slide, it would lessen both the worth of the deficit and of any increase in growth. That's a can of worms we probably don't want to open.

Unfortunately, it may well be opened anyway.

Economically, we may be in pretty shaky, if not scary shape soon. I wouldn't blame Bush for a lot of this, but running deficits like he's been doing isn't helping.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Lucky Lucky (1.20 / 5) (#88)
by thelizman on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:52:12 PM EST

The growth rate for 3Q FY 2003 was 8.3%. Granted, the annualized growth rate will be lower, but I believe 9% numbers from 4Q along with high actual 2Q numbers will make the annualized GDP about half of that.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
That kind of growth (2.60 / 5) (#128)
by aphrael on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:09:34 AM EST

has never been sustained over the course of years, in this country at least. To base your projections vis-a-vis a budget on that kind of figure is to engage in wishful thinking of the insane variety.

[ Parent ]
They're not claiming it's spent money (3.00 / 6) (#121)
by dachshund on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:43:16 AM EST

That's like saying I owe $50,000 because I'm thinking about buying a BMW.

No. It's like saying: "who's going to pay back the $50,000 car loan on that BMW."

This is exactly the kind of question you'd put to someone who's announced their intention of making an irresponsible purchase. A sane person might even put their wallet back in their pocket after you pose this question; hopefully either Bush or the American voter will do the same thing.

[ Parent ]

That's "the Bush deficit" just like (2.25 / 4) (#156)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:18:02 AM EST

when he was campaigning, we refered to his tax relief plan as "the Bush tax cut".

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
I'm more worried about the total debt. (2.00 / 5) (#165)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:44:47 AM EST

Even if the projections are on target and Bush's tax cuts add a trillion to the debt; the total debt is the figure we should be worried about.

So, when Democrats point out the $1 trillion that Bush has/will add to the the total, forgive me for wondering why they don't want anyone to notice the existing 7 trillions.

I also notice the Democrats haven't proposed any spending cuts to keep the budget in line with income.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

Not doing anything about it? (none / 3) (#167)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:58:31 AM EST

It's kind of hard to do something about your outstanding debt without balancing your budget first.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
Then why not be upfront about it? (2.00 / 5) (#168)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:08:36 AM EST

Why focus on the new crap when there's already a pile head-high in the back yard?

Frankly both sides are just selling us more crap. Clinton balanced the budget by assuming the dot com boom would last forever; we'd be running a debt now whether Bush or Gore was elected. (Although Gore's debt would doubtless be smaller).

Consider that if Gore had been elected and there had been no tax cut, the economy would not have recovered as much as it has - so revenues would still have fallen, and the budget would have fallen into deficit.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

Or, perhaps (2.25 / 4) (#175)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:03:00 AM EST

Gore's administration would have handled the pre-Sept 11 airline crisis in a more suitable manner, and the early-warning indicators of recession would have lessened, causing consumer and investor confidence not to nose-dive during the summer of 2001. If you look at the business cycle over the past years, you'll notice that this recession is early.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry. (1.50 / 4) (#234)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:56:39 PM EST

Did you just blame the dot com collapse on the airlines?

WTF?

You seriously think we'd still be talking about Dow 14,000 if Gore was president?

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

No, of course it's not that simple (none / 3) (#281)
by curien on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 04:09:49 PM EST

The airline industry is historically an early-warning indicator for the general economy for a few reasons. They have very small profit margins, they're a largely unnecessary luxury service, and they feed the economy greatly in a large feedback loop. When the airlines needed to be bailed out, this should have sent warning klaxons blazing in the administration: it certainly did so i the offices of most economists. The administration chose to address the issue in a way that benefited the airline corporations immediately, without ensuring that the economy in general would remain stable.

While the dot-com bubble would have burst inevitably, it might not have had such far-reaching economic effects had the administration dealt with other issues in a more sensible way. And doubtless, our recovery would have been quicker.

What I'm saying is simply something that any observer of the Bush administration should find obvious: Bush's policies are designed to benefit corporations, sometimes to the detriment of other groups and interests.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

In a hole (2.60 / 5) (#195)
by Happy Monkey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:57:52 PM EST

Why focus on the new crap when there's already a pile head-high in the back yard?

Because you can't start digging yourself out until you stop digging yourself in.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Simple (none / 2) (#246)
by felixrayman on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:01:27 PM EST

Clinton balanced the budget by assuming the dot com boom would last forever; we'd be running a debt now whether Bush or Gore was elected

No, Clinton balanced the budget by spending less money than was coming in. It really is that simple.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Re: Simple (none / 1) (#317)
by rpresser on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:19:06 AM EST


No, Clinton balanced the budget by spending less money than was coming in. It really is that simple.

More money was coming in because of the booming economy, and spending didn't rise as quickly. Clinton's legislation didn't balance the budget all by itself.  It was helped by a booming economy.  This seems clear even to me, an economic idiot.

Of course, had the economy not been booming, Clinton's legislation would have been different. And if my zayda had tsitskes, he'd be my bubbie.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

Republican calendars (2.42 / 7) (#171)
by error 404 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:32:51 AM EST

Let's see, it's 2004 now, 2005 is 5 years into the future.

You know, things are starting to make sense now: robot from the future (no, wait, Conan the Barbarian) running Reagan's state, the timing of that act of self-defense in Iraq, the conversion of the Founding Fathers from rationalist deism to modern literalist Christian Fundimentalism, ...

I've got to throw away my Dilbert calendar and order one of the RNC ones. Linear time just isn't doing it for me anymore. No, wait - linear time won't be doing it for me last week yet.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Another Liberal With OLD Ideas...and info. (1.00 / 10) (#86)
by thelizman on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:50:07 PM EST

The figures projected by the White House from 2003-8 are easily over a trillion dollars - in fact, by 2005, we've shot past that figure.
The keyword is "projected". Clinton "projected" a $1 trillion dollar surplus, but his disasterous economic policy resulted in less than $180 billion in surpluses from the dot-com boom.
You cite a 9.3% + GDP growth. I can't find it on this page. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I consider MY source to be fairly authoritative.
Let's see, the title of that page is economic assumptions. None of the data is beyond 1Q 2003, which means they missed the 3rd and 4th Q GDP growth (8.3% in that article, 9% was seen in Octobers numbers IIRC). So, you're using data nearly a year old from an article about economic ASSUMPTIONS - it certainly made you look like an ass.
So who's lying here? You, or MoveOn.org and the President?
Per our previous discussion of lying, the answer is both you and moveon.org.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
There's a bottom line here (2.90 / 11) (#94)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:56:48 PM EST

I've cited the President's own figures. You have just claimed these are "old ideas", "data a year old", "projections" and "assumptions".

If that's making me "look like an ass", what does that make the President look like? Why does he offer us outdated information on his website?

What a Bizarro world you live in - where, to support a President whose policies you believe in, you have to call his own facts and figures "lies". Congratulations - you have just tied yourself up in Orwellian knots. If I'm wrong, the President's wrong, and if the President's wrong why are you supporting him? If my citing his facts and figures makes me a liberal with OLD ideas, doesn't that make him one too? And since when does complaining about a budget deficit make me a liberal? I thought that was a conservative cause.

By the way, isn't taking ONE QUARTER worth of figures and "projecting" them over the next year, as you did an assumption in itself?

Again, congratulations. You've contradicted yourself completely and utterly.

BTW, what happened to 9.3%?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Yossarian says: I will not fly today. (none / 1) (#173)
by sllort on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:48:11 AM EST


--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Your sig is funny. (none / 1) (#240)
by cburke on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:42:56 PM EST

Just thought I'd mention that. :)

[ Parent ]
Yes, well (none / 0) (#299)
by sllort on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:58:37 AM EST

It's always bothered me that you have to pass through a metal detector when the most deadly knives in the world aren't metallic. WTF is up with that?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Bothers me too. (none / 0) (#318)
by cburke on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:23:02 AM EST

Like my Swiss Army Knife is really that much more dangerous than a ball point pen or a sock full of quarters.  And then there's the ceramic knives.

But as long as metal detectors continue to detect machine guns, I'm going to say I'm not worried about another 9/11.  Ooh, a ceramic knife...  What are you going to do with it?  Cut your throat when you realize you can't get into the cockpit and that the four hundred enraged passengers don't give a fuck that you're holding a knife and clearly intend to kill, dismember, and possibly eat you?

[ Parent ]

You make a good point. (none / 0) (#319)
by sllort on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:45:23 PM EST

If I hadn't recently flown a regional hop on a 767 where they left the cabin doors open, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Seriously? (none / 1) (#320)
by cburke on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 02:32:09 PM EST

If I hadn't recently flown a regional hop on a 767 where they left the cabin doors open, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Locking the cabin doors has been just about the only security procedure they've introduced that actually makes sense.

Figures they would suck at enforcing it, but be damn thorough in making sure no one brings sharp scissors onto the plane.


[ Parent ]

You Are A Liar (1.00 / 4) (#229)
by thelizman on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:57:03 PM EST

Ive cited the President's own figures.
No, you've cited "projections" based on data that is almost a year old, and doesn't take into account the last three quarters of FY03. You are making a false statement with the intent to decieve. You are a liar.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Dude, huh? (none / 0) (#310)
by OddFox on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:35:35 PM EST

lizman said:

Clinton "projected" a $1 trillion dollar surplus, but his disasterous economic policy resulted in less than $180 billion in surpluses from the dot-com boom.

Dude, what are you talking about? Since when is a surplus disastrous? It's a hell of a lot better than the deficits we're encountering now.

As if it wasn't bad enough that you apparently can't read what you're typing, you have your facts wrong. CNN disagrees about your assessment of a $180 billion surplus (Which, even if it had been that much, is nearly $60 billion more than the record surplus seen in 1999), for year 2000 the fiscal budget had a surplus of $230 billion.

Oh, but I forget, I'm a liberal and therefore must be lying and wrong. Guess I better just get back to supporting terrorism and plotting the deconstruction of America in general, then, and stop bothering upstanding patriotic citizens such as yourself.

If you want to check out some more of my lies, though, you can do some research. A word of warning, though, facts may be harmful to people accustomed to blissful ignorance.



--------------------------

"No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
" - RATM


[ Parent ]
Oh, and I almost forgot! (none / 0) (#311)
by OddFox on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:42:52 PM EST

Clinton projected a $1.3 trillion surplus that was supposed to be amassed by 2010. You make it sound like they (The Clinton-Gore administration) actually made a crazy-ass claim that they'd have a $1.3 trillion surplus by the end of the year 2000.

Some more research.



--------------------------

"No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
" - RATM


[ Parent ]
the hitler ad... (2.76 / 13) (#54)
by creativedissonance on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:37:36 PM EST

...wasn't created by MoveOn.  In fact, the winning ad wasn't, either.

The Hitler ad was submitted by a volunteer, and -rejected- by MoveOn.

Way to propagate a bogus meme!


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]

It's not anything like the Hitler ad (2.83 / 12) (#68)
by GreyGhost on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:59:21 PM EST

And you're right...not having seen it you shouldn't comment on it.



[ Parent ]

It's like some kind of meta-godwins-law thing (2.00 / 6) (#83)
by mcc on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:41:57 PM EST

Godwin's law implies that if you wind up comparing someone to Hitler where this is not appropriate, you do not have anything valid or supportable to say, because you are rather than supporting your position with argumentation resorting to personal attacks of the most extreme and low order. This is because there is effectively no accusation you can make worse than comparing something to the Nazis.

On the internet, everyone knows this. What this means is that in the specific case of debate, there is effectively no accusation you can make regarding someone's argumentation style than accusing them in an informed manner of invoking Godwin's law.

So what does this say about someone who has to respond to moveon.org's style of argumentation by inappropriately accusing them of inappropriately comparing someone to Hitler?

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

hmmm.... (none / 2) (#114)
by Wah on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:44:40 AM EST

So what does this say about someone who has to respond to moveon.org's style of argumentation by inappropriately accusing them of inappropriately comparing someone to Hitler?

That they publsih faux news, perhaps?
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

The Hitler ad (2.80 / 5) (#169)
by error 404 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:14:39 AM EST

MoveOn set up a contest where people were invited to post a 30 second spot.

Some idiot posted the Hitler ad, and MoveOn removed it.

Somebody posted inapropriate material to a web site and the site owners removed it. That's never happened before, has it?


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

wow. (2.33 / 9) (#43)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:29:51 PM EST

I don't see much wrong with that ad...you might claim that it's misleading, but so are most bud ads.

Pretty sad, but is CBS actually required to run ads they disagree with? If so, then shouldn't they also be required to run ads from people who can't afford to pay them?

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

Hell no (2.60 / 5) (#63)
by simul on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:32:16 PM EST

But I was an early MoveOn supporter, and I would certainly boycott the hell out of CBS's other advertisers if CBS refused to show the ad.

I can spend my dime where I damn well please.

I think boycotts, instead of sanctions and laws, are far, far more effective... and don't involve the "government telling people what to do".

Boycotts are when people run the show....

Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
[ Parent ]

I agree with you... (none / 2) (#71)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:08:10 PM EST

but living up here in canada, I'd never get to see the ad anyway.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
I'm in. (2.66 / 6) (#104)
by felixrayman on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:32:20 PM EST

Good idea, let's do it. Where's a list of CBS's major advertisers? Let's write them and promise not to purchase their products or services because they advertise on CBS.

I'm game.

CBS has every right in the world to refuse to air the ads. And we have every right in the world to tell the companies that pay the salary of the executives at CBS that due to their support of extremist organizations such as CBS, we will no longer choose to do business with them.

Anyone have web space for a list of CBS advertisers, and a log of letters to said advertisers along with their responses, if any?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
damn right it's misleading (none / 2) (#124)
by the77x42 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:33:58 AM EST

it should be all immigrants.

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+immigrants +work


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]

-1, quicktime is for faggits (1.02 / 38) (#56)
by Hide The Hamster on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:39:27 PM EST




Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

huh? (none / 2) (#98)
by davros4269 on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:07:16 PM EST

-1 because you don't like the movie format that the ad is displayed in? How is this relevant to the issue at hand?

Quicktime is a fine format - get Linux and then you can view Quicktime clips without that annoying Quicktime trash that sits in your system tray and takes over all of your file associations...
Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
[ Parent ]

Right. (1.13 / 15) (#61)
by readpunk on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:00:38 PM EST

So CBS has it's lips squarely placed on the power cock. So does every other entity with a ton of money. Who cares?

./revolution
Complacency is the enemy. (2.50 / 4) (#70)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:07:45 PM EST

Everyone should care... I can't think of many issues that have more impact on our world than the control corporations have over everything.  But I'm sure you know that and have just given up.  I suppose it takes a lot of energy to care.

[ Parent ]
Ha ha. (none / 1) (#73)
by readpunk on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:18:03 PM EST

I care an awful lot. Have you read anything else I have posted to this site? My point is that I am not surprised, not that I am not disgusted. No want wants to see jingoism/capitalism burn as much as I do. I'm doing my best around where I live to do things too, though recently I have been in a rut Anyway, I just wanted that to be clear.

./revolution
[ Parent ]
and it all starts with k5. ^_^ (none / 2) (#77)
by Hide The Hamster on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:26:35 PM EST




Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
Hey dipshit (1.00 / 4) (#69)
by GreyGhost on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:04:06 PM EST

I bet you don't even know what a communist is.

Gasp! You mean CBS might subject this ad (1.25 / 12) (#78)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:30:50 PM EST

to the same scrutiny that it subjects every other ad it receives?!?

Who do those people think they are?!?

Call the government! Call the FCC! Wait. The FCC is why the broadcasters have standards groups to check the ads in the first place...

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c

So what standards do you think ... (2.75 / 4) (#82)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:39:26 PM EST

... are being violated here?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
The 'Do Not Be Critical of Bush' Standard (2.44 / 9) (#90)
by The Turd Report on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:38:53 PM EST

*duh*

[ Parent ]
(slaps forehead) Duh! (nt) (1.50 / 4) (#95)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:59:03 PM EST


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
No way. Don't bite the sponsors. (2.50 / 6) (#103)
by khallow on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:26:31 PM EST

Bush isn't that special. The people who buy ads, they're special. Imagine that you bought a multi-million dollar ad on Superbowl Day only to find that witty MoveOn ad goes first, steals your thunder, and you're the butt of the MoveOn assault! You might as well have burned that money.

That sums up the "problem" with the MoveOn ad. It nails a lot of the CBS income ("sponsors"). They won't run the MoveOn ad because their big money sponsors will pull out. It's not that Bush or his supporters are blocking the ad directly. CBS just isn't dumb enough to run this thing.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

hit (2.60 / 5) (#144)
by F a l c o n on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:32:00 AM EST

You pinpointed the exact problem. CBS is in the pockets of a few big ad customers, who incidently support the other side, so they won't run an ad that might stir someone up.

There's nothing wrong with that, in principle. CBS should just go the whole nine yards and stop any references to being independent, objective, or anything besides their advertisers mouthpiece.

The whole problem is that the media presents this front of unbiased news and reporting when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

Like it matters (2.57 / 14) (#87)
by JayGarner on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:50:33 PM EST

By the time the Super Bowl rolls around, because of all the hype and press coverage MoveOn.org has generated, actually broadcasting the ad would be an anti-climatic event of little interest to most people.

Which, come to think of it, kind of describes the typical Super Bowl. 49-0 at the half, but stay tuned for Britney Spears and Roy Horn's triumphant return from the jaws of death. Yawn.

The ad has been rejected (2.82 / 23) (#89)
by llamasex on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:24:43 PM EST

http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39590

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- Viacom's CBS today rejected a request from liberal group MoveOn to air a 30-second anti-President Bush ad during the Super Bowl, saying the spot violated the network's policy against running issue advocacy advertising.

A CBS spokesman said the decision against broadcasting the spot had nothing to do with either the Super Bowl or the ad's specific issue but was because the network has had a long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network.


I have no idea if this is done out of bias, fear of retribution, or if its normal operating procedure, and I don't think we will ever know

Howard Dean punched me in the face
Of course ... (2.70 / 17) (#96)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:04:24 PM EST

... after all, the liberal media are always trying to suppress views that don't support ... oh, wait ...

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Can you point to a single issue ad (2.20 / 15) (#101)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:24:04 PM EST

that CBS has ever run (the network, not a local station)?

The only bias here is that they fear controversy.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

According to Salon (2.91 / 12) (#105)
by llamasex on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:32:50 PM EST

According to Teinowitz, CBS actually plans to run three such ads during the Super Bowl -- an anti-smoking spot, a public service announcement about AIDS, and a commercial from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

But I said in my post I don't think we will ever know if CBS is on the up and up about their reason for rejecting the ad

Howard Dean punched me in the face
[ Parent ]

And as others have pointed out... (1.83 / 6) (#151)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:46:45 AM EST

Neither AIDS nor drug prevention are considered "issue advocacy".

Did CBS, for example, play any of those republican ads sniping at the Clinton health plan?

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

AIDS is not an issue! (1.80 / 5) (#172)
by sllort on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:43:20 AM EST

Life, What A Wonderful Choice!!!
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Clearly AIDS is an issue... (2.50 / 4) (#232)
by PhoTwenny on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:04:45 PM EST

..but I don't think AIDS in itself is as controversial as others. While there are many issues surrounding AIDS, the public health slant is probably favorably received by most. I doubt there are very many people in the pro-AIDS camp. ;)

It will most likely just be generic AIDS awareness, maybe with a nod towards practicing safe sex.  It will probably tell us how many people die from AIDS every year/week/day/whatever, rather than "ask your congressman to do something about it."


[ Parent ]

Right. After all, the pro-death lobby (none / 3) (#245)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:34:03 PM EST

has been trying to get AIDS drugs banned for years.

We already spend more money on AIDS than on diseases that kill a lot more people each year. What part of a "AIDS is bad" commercial do you consider advocacy?

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

Clearly the way to see if you are right (2.88 / 9) (#186)
by mcc on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:00:51 PM EST

Is to attempt to run a pro-drug or anti-drug-war ad and see if CBS runs it or rejects it as "issue advocacy".

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]
I think it's obvious... (3.00 / 9) (#185)
by jmzero on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:37:22 AM EST

The class of ads they really care about is "those ads that might offend a large number of viewers".  Anti-smoking ads are so pervasive that they're unlikely to be noticed by anyone.  Anti-drug ads are the same.  

A strong anti-Bush ad, on the other hand, is a good way to remind conservatives "You would prefer watching Fox News - we here at CBS are liberal, scary, and probably have tatoos".

I don't know whether a broadcaster should be able to act this way, but I think it's silly to pretend that the bottom line is something other than "offending Republican viewers".
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

sure... (2.80 / 10) (#106)
by pb on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:34:55 PM EST

Really, there's nothing new going on here, move along...
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry? (1.87 / 8) (#152)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:48:14 AM EST

Doesn't that article prove my point?

None of the networks accept issue advocacy ads. They're too afraid of pissing off the viewers.

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

you should be? (2.60 / 5) (#215)
by pb on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:46:35 PM EST

If by "issue advocacy ads" you mean "ads the network doesn't want to run", then I see your point. However, in that case, your point suffers from a circular definition.

If on the other hand you mean "ads that advocate a position on a given issue", then I think you're mistaken. Which you may learn by carefully reading the article.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

We are gathered here today (2.35 / 17) (#97)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:04:08 PM EST

To pay our respects to our honored dead.

He who has left us was our friend, but sometimes also our enemy. He made us smile, but also sometimes hurt our cause deeply. In any case, he has moved on to a better world, and we will miss Mr. Liberal Bias in the Media deeply.

Let us bow our heads and pray.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
well then, (2.25 / 8) (#102)
by tweetsygalore on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:25:41 PM EST


perhaps it's time to boycott the advertisers.  and sell
your CBS stocks and/or your stocks at the advertisers'
companies while you're at it.

a thought
C

p.s.  why IS everyone so afraid of george bush and his cronies and colleagues?  these people are the ones who should be ashamed and afraid for plundering the national treasury AND betraying public trust.
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan

I'm watching you (1.80 / 5) (#111)
by John Asscroft on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:16:09 AM EST

And I have the full power of the United States Government behind me. At any time I can allege that you send support to terrorists, and seize your bank accounts. At any time I can allege that you bought your house with drug proceeds, and seize your house. And because I seized your bank accounts, you won't be able to hire a lawyer to get back your house. At any time I can allege that you're an enemy combatant, and send you over to my friend Donnie's Naval brig at Norfolk for as long as I feel like.

Fear me? You SHOULD fear me. I'm your worst enemy, and you LIE-berals aren't going to be allowed to spread your un-Christian *FILTH* across America for much longer.

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Get real. (1.44 / 9) (#117)
by Brandybuck on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:13:33 AM EST

The ad showed a bunch of kids working in factories and hotels. But no one anywhere is advocating this. The ad talks about a trillion dollar deficit (not debt), but that number is so absurd it boggles the mind.

Showing it on television would be a joke. People will instantly recognize it as ludicrous, associate it with the Democrats, and be more inclined to vote for Bush.

[ Parent ]

You're right...repealing the child labor laws (2.00 / 4) (#146)
by GreyGhost on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:39:46 AM EST

Won't happen until Bush gets his second term. And after they get their hands good and rough doing honest work instead of milking their parents...there is the DRAFT. We're going to need plenty of fresh blood if we want to occupy France and Canada.

The budget deficit talk is actually true though.

[ Parent ]

The ad wasn't subtle, but too subtle for you. (none / 3) (#194)
by Happy Monkey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:50:41 PM EST

Of course nobody is advocating 7 year olds working as supermarket checkers. The ad isn't suggesting that. The ad is sayng that Bush is saddling today's children with the biggest debt in history, and they are the ones who will be working it off.

And we're well on our way to the trillion dollar deficit mark already. (The debt is far beyond that.)
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
a man or woman after my own heart... (none / 2) (#224)
by tweetsygalore on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:28:54 PM EST


whoever you are.

cheers
C
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
[ Parent ]

i see (none / 1) (#223)
by tweetsygalore on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:27:59 PM EST


i'd have to watch it again, i suppose, and see if
my impression remains.  hmmm.

thinking...
C
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
[ Parent ]

Silly interpretation (2.75 / 4) (#184)
by jmzero on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:32:20 AM EST

p.s.  why IS everyone so afraid of george bush and his cronies and colleagues?

This isn't about not offending people in power.  This is about not offending viewers.  Whether it's right or wrong to stop the ad is still a valid question, but let's at least frame it in realisitic terms.  

CBS is in the business of selling advertisements.  They'll be able to sell this ad space to somebody, but they may never get back a viewer they lost to an ad they didn't like.  For some networks it is an option to alienate a whole class of people (eg. Fox or Spike or A&E), but CBS is the kind of place that has to tread carefully.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

hmmm, wimpy (none / 2) (#220)
by tweetsygalore on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:26:21 PM EST


i guess they'd rather live on their knees than die on their feet.
courage really ISN'T for everybody.

boldly
C
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
[ Parent ]

Here are some ways you can take political action (2.50 / 12) (#107)
by MichaelCrawford on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:45:18 PM EST

While I suggested these for the unrelated issue of copyright reform, here are some things you can do to take effective political action on just about any issue.

If more people did such things, we wouldn't need MoveOn's ads.

It's my objective to get every American user of the peer-to-peer file sharing networks to read Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads by November. There are more American p2p users than people who voted for George Bush, so I figure if I can get them all to read my article enough of them would take action that they could shake up the elections.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


Yo. (none / 1) (#262)
by Megahitler Electrodictator on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 01:58:06 AM EST

I would like to suggest, in reply to your impressive article, another response to the assault on file-sharing. Namely, it is to demand innovative new technologies that serve and protect the interests of individuals: the technology of anonymous or unobservable communication, for example.

By this means, the freedoms of expression and association may be secured with technology as well as law, much as window-blinds guard the privacy of one's home.

[ Parent ]

Their reasons are wrong. (1.08 / 24) (#108)
by fae on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:06:31 AM EST

The ad should be dumped because it is pure bullshit.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
Not really... (2.42 / 7) (#112)
by D Jade on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:17:21 AM EST

Sure, it's not the best ad in the world. But it tells the truth.

Do you seriously think all of the debt that the "do nothing" president running your country will be paid off in your lifetime?

Not likely!



You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Eratta (2.50 / 12) (#135)
by limekiller on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:11:09 AM EST

fae writes:
"The ad should be dumped because it is pure bullsh"

This reminds me of Vinny's opening argument in My Cousin Vinny.

But seriously, have you seen the ad?

Do you recall that Bush was handed the biggest surplus in American history, ever? See, surplusses can be thought of "rainy day" money. Or perhaps it would be better if I framed it as "rainy few years" money.

So he gave back Americans a bunch of money. You'll notice that O'Neil recently noted that Bush, during one of his meetings, said something along the lines of "we've given the rich a huge tax break, how about giving the middle class some?" But that's another rant. So all that safety-net money is back in the hands of it's rightful owners, but not saved for future problems. Then the economy tanks due to what Greenspan might have referred to as "irrational exuberence coming home to roost," if you will.

Bush then gives 50bn to the airlines. Forget that they had 50bn of their own in safety margin coffers. Forget that he didn't give them the money on the condition that they do anything like, say, not lay off thousands of employees.

Dubya then engages in a 87bn (so far, that's just an installment, let's not forget) war vs. a country that the Army War College this week labeled as "unnecessary." Perhaps you could do the math on what interest on 87bn looks like.

Now Bush is pushing through more tax cuts that nobody -- nobody -- outside of his own cabinet thinks has a snowball's chance in hell of fixing the economy.

So ...you'll have to excuse me, fae, if I take umbrage with your bulletproof "t'aint so!" argument here but ...who is going to pay for this 1tn (12 zeros, fae) deficit?

I'd tell you the answer but you can feel free to go to moveon.org to get the answer.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

Which Part Is The BS? (none / 2) (#243)
by kenmce on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:21:49 PM EST

So are you saying that we are not going into debt or that our children will not have to pay for it?

[ Parent ]
Trolling (none / 1) (#275)
by Crackerbelly on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 11:36:44 AM EST

Speaking of BS....how about some reasons behind you're statement? Oh wait, maybe you don't have any and just like being the turd in the punch bowl.

[ Parent ]
12:07 am, 1/16 (1.25 / 12) (#109)
by felixrayman on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:07:55 AM EST

Netzero ad, Late Show with Dave.

CBS advertiser:

Hi, as a current user of dial-up, I am looking for better and faster alternatives. Your service, which I saw advertised on the CBS late show, looks like just what I was looking for. Unfortunately for both of us, I am currently boycotting all advertisers of CBS.

The reason is that CBS has refused to allow moveon.org to air political ads on its network. If the money of organizations who express my views is not good enough for CBS, I figure my money is not good enough for the companies that ARE allowed to advertise on that network.

If you rethink your policy of advertising on CBS, I'd be glad to rethink my policy of avoiding your products and services.

Thanks for your time,
Sincerely,
felixrayman.

Sent to livehelp@support.netzero.net.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

12:37 am, 1/16 (1.57 / 14) (#113)
by felixrayman on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:33:20 AM EST

The reason I am sending this to you is cause Ford doesn't have an email address online (what are they scared of? ), and I figure you are all one big company, so can you print this out and give it to someone at Ford?

Thx.

Hey there Ford,

I seen your commercial for the Ford F 150 on the Dave Letterman show.

It looks like a really cool truck. I have been thinking about buying me a new truck for a while. The thing is, I ain't buying anything that is advertised on CBS. THe reason is that CBS won't show ads from moveon.org.

The Democrats stand up for working people, and moveon.org is speaking out on issues that concern Democrats. Issues like unions, the minimum wage, stuff like that. And if moveon's money ain't good enough for CBS, my money ain't good enough for companies with ads on CBS.

Maybe I'll buy one of them Japanese SUVs or something instead. Anyway, stop advertising on CBS and maybe I'll take an F150 on a test drive.

Thanks for your time, Sincerely, felix rayman

Sent to customerservice@volvocars.com.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

Get real (1.27 / 18) (#115)
by Brandybuck on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:05:39 AM EST

The MoveOn ad is a joke. Get over it.

[ Parent ]
Better yet (1.66 / 6) (#159)
by johnny on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:51:46 AM EST

Take it on a drive. Just don't buy it.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
[ Parent ]
1:09 am, 1/16 (1.46 / 15) (#116)
by felixrayman on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:07:14 AM EST

posted to feedback form at http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/info_faq_applications.shtml

While watching the David Letterman show on your network, I noticed a commercial for the show "Cold Case". The show looked compelling and interesting.

Unfortunately, I am boycotting all advertisers on CBS, so I will not be able to watch this show.

The reason for my boycott is the refusal of CBS to accept advertising from moveon.org. moveon.org represents my political views. If you refuse to air advertisements from it, I must regretfully refuse to support companies that advertise on your network.

Until such a time as you accept political ads that represent my political views, I will be very careful not to spend a single dollar with any company that advertises on your network, and I will be very vocal in letting those companies know exactly why I am boycotting them.

Thanks for your time.
felix rayman

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

Letterman (2.00 / 4) (#153)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:00:42 AM EST

But you allow yourself to watch Letterman? Will you be morally obligated to stop watching Letterman if you see an ad for it on CBS?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
A hypothetical question (2.66 / 9) (#119)
by C Montgomery Burns on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:33:49 AM EST

Would CBS reject an ad along the following lines:

"We, the members of the American Association of X, wish to congratulate President Bush on his outstanding performance in his war against Terrorism"

?
--
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
Intelligent design

Interesting test (2.40 / 5) (#178)
by danharan on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:21:11 AM EST

Maybe some right-wingers that don't like Bush could try that. Could be a very funny one, especially if they overstuff it with propaganda, e.g. linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda, mentionning Niger's Uranium, talking about an international "coaltion of the willing".... :)

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 3) (#211)
by bakuretsu on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:57:31 PM EST

Except that most people (particularly the regular viewers of Fox News) would probably believe those assertions, since nobody seems to have gotten any smarter since they were used to promote Bush's policies the first time.

Sarcasm only works when it's recognized as such.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]

wont matter anyway (1.81 / 11) (#125)
by alukaiser on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:34:46 AM EST

Come on people- its the superbowl- everyone will be too drunk to care esp. if the eagles win

Man, being reasonable, must get drunk. -Lord Byron

Notes on the Deficit and Social Security (2.97 / 35) (#127)
by dachshund on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:02:05 AM EST

I originally intended to post this as a reply to someone who disputed the claims of the MoveOn ad-- specifically, the $1 trillion deficit number. I think this is an important enough issue that it should be discussed in the main thread.

So far from the sources I've found, Bush has racked up somewhere between $530 and $615 bn in actual debt (2002/2003), and should add an estimated $475-$500 bn to this total by the end of fiscal year 2004. (The sources of these numbers include the White House and remarks made by Treasury Secretary John Snow). I think it's safe to trust the White House and say that we will be somewhere near $1 trillion in the hole by the end of FY 2004; even a massive economic turnaround would still leave us well above $800 bn. And we're a couple months into the year already, remember-- FY2004 began in October 2003.

But let's not stop there. In addition to the reported deficits, Bush has "borrowed" approximately $320 billion in excess Social Security funds since he got into office (FY2002/2003). Which means that our "real" gov't deficit as of the end of FY2003-- meaning all moneys borrowed that will have to be paid back-- runs above $800 bn. And we're on track to spend an additional $160 bn in excess SS funds again this year.

Of course, that's only using budgets that have already been submitted. If we look into the future, it gets worse. By 2008, according to its current figures from the White House, the Administration plans to borrow another $980 bn in official deficit, and nearly an additional $1 trillion from Social Security.

The worst part about "borrowing" money from the SSTF is that some people are actually convinced that the money is somehow "free", and we're not actually borrowing when we use it. What really happens when we raid the surplus is that we write ourselves a promise to pay ourselves back someday when we need it. Of course, who pays back these IOUs? Why, the taxpayer, of course. So the government is essentially overtaxing most middle and working class people by about 15% (7.5% employee/7.5% employer), and using that money to fund general operations. If we wish to retire someday, we will have to pay for whatever gets borrowed today, which means we essentially pay for our retirement again.

This technique didn't begin with Bush. What's changed, however, is that we're no longer using SSTF funds to retire debt-- something that ultimately would have put us in a better financial situation than we would otherwise be. Instead, we're using the money to fund all sorts of pork and overseas spending. What makes it such a particular problem today is that this borrowing is hiding the true magnitude of the deficit from us so the administration can continue the policy. In fact, with the SS borrowing, the FY2004 estimated deficit comes out to about $640 bn, or a whopping 6% of GDP, which is about as bad as it's been in most of our lifetimes.

So that's that. Dispute my numbers. It's late and I've probably made a few mistakes. But the financial outlook is not good, and people need to stop covering it up and look at it for what it is. The ad with those kids should strike a chord with anyone who cares about the future of this country, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. (Many points borrowed from this excellent piece in Slate.)

And where was Congress? (1.30 / 10) (#199)
by trimethyl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:49:49 PM EST

IIRC, Bush doesn't spend anything directly. He asked Congress for money, and they provided. It isn't Bush's fault - it's yours. You and all the other Republican voters who sat on their hands as Democrat senators and representatives got elected to Congress.

I think the primary difference between the Democrats and Republicans now is a matter of when they're going to pay off the debt. Democrats want to raise our taxes now, Republicans later. The Republicans in the House and Senate understand that when a Democratic President gets elected, they can raise taxes, pay off the debt, take credit for balancing the budget, and campaign for re-election on the premise of reducing the "President's outrageous taxes".

Because, as we all know, the President gets blamed for everything that Congress does.



[ Parent ]
Huh? (3.00 / 8) (#203)
by mcc on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:13:05 PM EST

At the moment, the House of Representatives contains 228 republicans, 205 democrats, and one independent. The Senate contains 51 republicans, 48 democrats, and one independent (although there was a brief time during Bush's term when it was 50 democrats, 49 republicans, and one independent).

While of course it is an excellent point that congress, not the president, makes the decisions on the budget ultimately-- although the current congress probably follows the will of the current president moreso than at any point in a long time-- ascribing the cause of the current deficits to "Democrat senators and representatives" seems somewhat of a nonsensical thing to do.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

Illusions about the Small Government Party (3.00 / 9) (#213)
by Valdrax on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:18:06 PM EST

It isn't Bush's fault - it's yours. You and all the other Republican voters who sat on their hands as Democrat senators and representatives got elected to Congress.

Actually, all of our last bills for the US budget have been written up and proposed by the Republican President's staff and have been approved by votes that closely followed party lines in our Republican controlled Congress.  Our President has been pretty authoritarian about threatening to veto budget bills that don't meet with his agendas, particularly in the realm of privatization of public parks.

Let's face it.  This is a repeat of the Reagan years, when the Republicans became the party of pork and deficit madness.  It isn't the Democrats who are pushing non-defense discretionary spending to increase greater than ever before in US history.  It's the Republicans.  The Republicans have been under the illusion that they can keep pulling money out of their asses while cutting taxes and that the economy will catch up to the point that tax revenue will exceed expenditures.  However, the Republicans seem to forget that if we ever do go over budget that they'll just make another tax cut to stop all that "government waste."  Even Keynes said that we should reraise taxes in times of plenty.  Republicans ignore that part of his philosophy while being in love with the part about cutting taxes in times of trouble.

I'm not sure if this is naivety or an honest desire to drive down taxes by working ourselves into debt under the theory that we'll never have to repay it or that they'll be able to transfer their wealth overseas when the crash comes and weather the accompanying global economic downturn.

Personally, I miss the small government Republicans.  It's too bad they're too afraid of Democrats to stop backing the current President and put forth an honest-to-goodness alternate Republican candidate.

[ Parent ]

I think the dream is (none / 2) (#271)
by speek on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 10:00:21 AM EST

to bankrupt the government to the point where social entitlement programs are seen as too costly to continue, and so end the "welfare state" and reduce the government to a dependent plaything of the biggest corporations.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Right, except (none / 2) (#287)
by mcc on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 10:39:11 PM EST

Except that was also the theory in Raegan's time.

And that isn't what happened. Instead we just had deficits that got bigger and bigger until we wound up with a democratic president, who instead came to the conclusion that the state of the U.S. military in its state at the time was too costly to continue and decided to sort of almost come sort of close to balancing the budget (until a surge in the stock market created a short-lived illusory surplus) by scaling back massively the military budget while expanding social programs.

Now we've got a Republican (and really rather Reaganesque in many ways) president again. And he hasn't done anything except just expand the deficit more and more while, well, not really doing much to social programs at all. From a purely monetary standpoint, if anything, he's made the welfare state bigger.

The "we're trying to destroy america's budget to save it" excuse, whether ethical or no, might have made sense as a rationalization at one time. However, that point is long gone, and it does not make sense anymore as an explanation for "conservative" political behavior. The actions under the Bush administration cannot be explained away as anything other than plain and simple fiscal irresponsibility.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

"Starve the beast" is just cover (none / 2) (#288)
by dachshund on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 11:04:12 PM EST

to bankrupt the government to the point where social entitlement programs are seen as too costly to continue, and so end the "welfare state" and reduce the government to a dependent plaything of the biggest corporations.

Though I think this argument is reprehensible, I don't even believe that it's the primary motivation behind the Bush policy. If it's believed at all, it's mostly considered to be a side benefit. But mostly, it gives some ideological justification for old-fashioned selfish power politics. Specifically:

1) Tax cuts are a reliable way to pick up votes.

2) Congress is a whole lot more likely to support a President's policies if he doesn't make a stink about their spending habit.

3) Contributors are more likely to give if they're getting some sort of direct financial benefit from your policies (that includes gov't contracts and steep tax cuts.) If each contributor gives one penny for every dollar they save, you've built yourself a huge re-election fund.

In each of these cases, the administration is spending your taxpayer dollars primarily to keep itself in power. Which is even more craven and anti-democratic than the actual "starve the beast" folks, who at least believe they're doing what's right for the country.

[ Parent ]

These are the budgets Bush asked for (3.00 / 5) (#241)
by dachshund on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:09:57 PM EST

YBush doesn't spend anything directly. He asked Congress for money, and they provided

Yes, but in this case Bush got pretty much what he asked for. If you look at his proposed budgets, which have not yet been submitted to Congress, you'll see they're heavily loaded with deficits as well.

You and all the other Republican voters who sat on their hands as Democrat senators and representatives got elected to Congress.

The Republicans control Congress. Bush could submit lower budgets, and they'd have a decent chance of passing. Or he could use his veto power to impose fiscal restraint. He has not.

If you are of the opinion that this can all be blamed on the Democrats, then you need to re-adjust your world view, because it no longer aligns with the facts.

[ Parent ]

Yes, it can be blamed on the Democrats... (none / 1) (#292)
by trimethyl on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:16:25 PM EST

Deception is a staple of political posturing; I don't doubt that the Republicans will be able to paint the Democrats responsible for the deficit. As has been said by another "when fact is fiction and TV reality..." Politics is an ugly business which has nothing to do with truth...

[ Parent ]
Deficits (none / 1) (#312)
by malfunct on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:17:30 PM EST

I don't dispute your numbers, they seem fairly reasonable. I also don't dispute that some of our spending now is not going to be productive in the future and that rather disturbs me.

That said I must mention that deficit spending in a recession is not unheard of and there is actually reasonable evidence that it helps the economy eventually. In fact there is reasonable evidence that the last major deficit spending during an economic downturn is responsible (along with the perfect timing of the internet revolution) for the huge growth in the 90's.

So we need to be careful with our spending but I really don't think things are as grim as the ad portrays.

I don't know why CBS wouldn't air it though, its well within the bounds of reasonable political expression. I wonder if its an issue of special restrictions during the superbowl that are not present for other non-superbowl ad spots? It would be nice if they would come out and say what points it fails thier standards on so that at least people know why they nix it (if they even do because its not a done deal yet as far as I have seen). The only thing truely devious about the ad is putting the responsibility for the deficit 100% on the president since clearly he had nearly 600 acomplices in congress to help him out.

[ Parent ]

In regards to my comment on congress (none / 0) (#313)
by malfunct on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:22:02 PM EST

I think it is important to point out to those people that say "congress just gave him what he wanted" as a defence of congress and a way to put blame fully on the president that its most certainly not congress's job to give the president whatever he wants if its not what they think is good for the country. They are called checks and balances for a reason.

[ Parent ]
Economic recovery won't be sufficient (none / 1) (#314)
by dachshund on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 09:40:45 PM EST

Traditional Keynesian economic theory holds that it's beneficial to run deficits only as long as those deficits can be paid down at some not-too-distant point in the future. However, current trends seem to argue strongly against this possibility. We're going to be less able to pay down the debt in 10 years than we are today, and then things will start to get really difficult.

What's different about this time around is that the tax-cuts are so deep and the deficits apparently structural in nature-- so that even if we have another 90s-style boom, we're unlikely to get back into the black again (let alone reduce the debt.) This is the open secret of the current Administration, and it's unfortunately not getting enough attention.

The "perfect storm" that's driving us in this direction is the combination of:

1) Major Social Security deficits due to arrive somewhere between 10 and 15 years from now

2) A long-term restructuring of the tax code such that even with the most optimistic projections for economic growth, the CBO does not anticipate that we'll have a balanced budget in ten years.

3) Military and non-military spending trends that seem to be completely out of control, and no major effort to halt them in the pipes.

[ Parent ]

Too much spending... (none / 1) (#321)
by malfunct on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:31:25 PM EST

Yeah, there is too much spending, and the reason is that government is trying to do things it was never meant for.

I expect my government to do 2 things for me, defend me and provide for and encourage free trade. The other things that a government does is a waste of my money, but I guess I'm a heartless capitalist.

[ Parent ]

win/win (2.40 / 15) (#132)
by Shren on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:14:35 AM EST

Possibility 1) : CBS runs the ad. MoveOn gets what they wanted. MoveOn wins.

Possibility 2) : CBS doesn't run the ad. This fact gets run in every single blog on the web, because the appearance of first ammendment issues is more sexy than actual first ammendment issues. MoveOn gets more visitors (and thus more donors and volunteers). MoveOn wins.

Strategy like this makes me think that the anti-bush crowd (the political ones, not the terrorists) might actually win.

First amendment? (2.33 / 9) (#134)
by squigly on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:43:12 AM EST

It's nothing to do with the first amendment.  It's about freedom of speech, and that freedom of the press only applies to people who own one.

CBS has a responsibility to make sure its output is balanced.  They have to be seen to be a non-biased media corporation to be respected.  They also should have an obligation to present a balanced view of if they're using public airwaves.

That said, if they don't allow any political ads at all during the superbowl, then I agree that this is a non-issue.  

[ Parent ]

Public airwaves (none / 2) (#257)
by John Asscroft on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:58:08 PM EST

CBS uses the public airwaves to reach its clientelle and operates under a "public interest" license from the federal government. So it's not "their" press, it's the public's press. But the question is moot anyhow. My good friend Sumner Redstone is never going to run an anti-Bush issue ad on his network (CBS), just as, when he became aware that a mini-series about Ronald Reagan depicted Reagan as a doddering fool, he ordered that mini-series off the air. And there's nothing you can do about it, because we have the guns, and all you got is your little prick, which isn't going to do you much good when the anti-terrorism task force breaks down your door to haul you away.

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Private corporation. (none / 1) (#269)
by Hide The Hamster on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 09:17:14 AM EST




Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it's a first ammendment issue. (none / 1) (#298)
by Shren on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:02:18 AM EST

Let me quite myself:

the appearance of first ammendment issues is more sexy than actual first ammendment issues.

Maybe I wasn't clear in the above sentence, but I was trying to say that while there isn't a first ammendment issue here, many will claim that there is.

[ Parent ]

problem (2.77 / 9) (#141)
by F a l c o n on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:18:16 AM EST

Only problem with your analysis: Anyone interested enough in these things to read any of the blogs it would run in already knows what the ad says, and almost certainly has his mind made up about the election.

It's the unwashed masses that you need to reach. The ones watching Fox and reading Times.

--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

Active nonviolence (2.83 / 6) (#176)
by danharan on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:17:14 AM EST

"Dilemma demonstrations" and similar strategies are well known in non-violent circles.

Non-violent theorists hold that a person can only hold power so long as people co-operate with them: soldiers that will shoot, journalists that will massage news, lawyers that will represent you, people that vote between the accepted parties, etc, etc... Withold support and the whole edifice collapses.

They're forcing CBS to show its true colours, and become explicit about who they are helping, shattering the social myth of journalistic neutrality. It is very clever strategy.

How long could Bush sustain his policies if the US wasn't a media island unto itself?

--

There are other strategies that are being implemented which do not make the news but are just as effective in the long-term.

Soldiers refusing to co-operate is one sure way to bring down even a mighty empire. As the lies get more exposure and the death toll rises in Iraq, some soldiers are asking what the consequences are for going AWOL.

Even a $10,000 signing bonus won't tempt many U.S. soldiers to stay in Iraq

In case the draft becomes "necessary", some Americans are visiting Canada to organize safe havens for conscientious objectors.

How long could Bush sustain his policies without military might?

--

Some non-violent activists have taken a systematic look at who and what institutions are co-operating with Bush's policies, and are now trying to get them to withdraw that support.

I think they're winning :)

[ Parent ]

there is no first amendment issue (2.23 / 13) (#133)
by luthe on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:23:35 AM EST

CBS has no requirement to run any ads, if it wants to deny the add on pure spite they are legaly (IANAL) able to.

The free market at work...nothing to worry about (1.37 / 8) (#136)
by GreyGhost on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:31:43 AM EST

Right? What a bunch of crap. If there was a strict separation in power between the government and the multinationals that hold control over CBS and the other media outlets - then maybe you might have a valid complaint. Since there isn't - then there are First Amendment issues at stake here because the same people who run the country are also sitting on the Boards of these companies or have friends and connections with them.

You're full of shit.



[ Parent ]

Well (2.50 / 10) (#148)
by CaptainZapp on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:42:51 AM EST

One could argue that as a broadcaster they profit from a public resource (airwaves) for free and probably operate on a license.

One could further argue that certain obligations apply. For example that a broadcaster should not be allowed to reject ads if they are not offensive or insulting (which this ad is clearly not).

So your free market rahrahrah doesn't hold much water, mate.

[ Parent ]

I think (2.20 / 5) (#170)
by melia on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:18:59 AM EST

One could argue that as a broadcaster they profit from a public resource (airwaves) for free

I would have thought CBS has to pay for the right to it's bandwidth.
Disclaimer: All of the above is probably wrong
[ Parent ]

That would make sense, but no, (2.85 / 7) (#174)
by error 404 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:52:55 AM EST

they "hold it in trust".

In theory, they are managing it for the public good. It made sense at the time the rules were made. Now people (rightly, I think) see bandwidth as a valuable commodity, and it seems a bit bizzare to be giving it away.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Bandwitdth as commodity (2.75 / 4) (#222)
by cburke on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:27:49 PM EST

It made sense at the time the rules were made. Now people (rightly, I think) see bandwidth as a valuable commodity, and it seems a bit bizzare to be giving it away.

Or at least, it seems bizzare to be giving away overly large swaths to only a select few.

Spectrum bandwidth has become a valuable commodity due to all the things we can do with it now that weren't available at the time these rules became available.  At the same time, having and holding spectrum has become less important, since we can do much more with less bandwidth than before.  The problems that used to exist with one person in an area wanting to use the same frequency as others in the area are more or less solved with recent technology.

So basically the uses of spectrum have exploded, while the amount of spectrum that needs to be dedicated to each user has shrunk, in many cases to nothing.

Which does make giving huge blocks of spectrum to a single user seem a little backward.

[ Parent ]

Nice try (2.37 / 8) (#179)
by theElectron on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:22:16 AM EST

Broadcasters reject ads from the National Rifle Associations ALL THE TIME.

Maybe not for long though, eh?

Neener.

Neener.

Neener.

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

So let the NRA and MoveOn.org BOTH ... (none / 3) (#221)
by pyramid termite on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:27:04 PM EST

... buy time. Why not?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Well duh! (none / 1) (#254)
by theElectron on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:13:57 PM EST

Because I LIKE the NRA. I DON'T LIKE MoveOn.

Besides, it ain't like the media has or ever will take a principled stance on anything. They're looking out for themselves like everybody else. Ultimately you've got to form your own distribution channels.

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

True but.... (2.40 / 5) (#187)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:01:59 PM EST

The requirements for use of the public resource is pretty well defined and as far as I know CBS meets them (i.e. participating in the EBS, etc)..... as far as I know surrendering editorial jurrisdiction over the adds they air isn't one of them.

[ Parent ]
Transcript of the ad, please? (2.00 / 7) (#139)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:29:35 AM EST

For those of us who don't want to install the abomination known as QuickTime?

Thanks in advance,


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Worth installing....here's a transcript (2.88 / 9) (#143)
by robroadie on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:30:35 AM EST

footage of young children working at low-paid low-skill jobs - rubbish collection dishwashing, recycling sorting....for 20 seconds

fade to black

white text "guess who's going to pay off President Bush's £1 trillion deficet?"

further footage of child working

fade to black

[ Parent ]

tyvm, but shouldn't that be in $USD, not lbs? -nt (none / 3) (#189)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:32:59 PM EST

nt could mean Nanite Terminators, Nice Tits, or Nissin Top, but it actually means NO TEXT.
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
why is Quicktime an abomination? (2.00 / 5) (#181)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:24:07 AM EST

I have always wondered that. it does not take over all your media files or spma your system with icons to buy anything like Real or AIM or winamp does.

[ Parent ]
oh...BTW (1.50 / 4) (#182)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:25:10 AM EST

there is no transcriipt...it is a visual ad.

and, since it is an indi film, of course it will be in QT....all the work is done at home on a Mac.

[ Parent ]

mplayer. Plays everything. (NT) (none / 1) (#253)
by Mr.Surly on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:28:49 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Replies to all: (none / 2) (#261)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 01:18:42 AM EST

MrSurly: mplayer? you mean Windows Media Player? I refuse to upgrade to the new one. I like mine bloat, spy, and DRM-free. Well, it's not bloat-free, but it's not as lardy. Also, the interface is simple: a thin-lined box around the movie. IMAGINE THAT! Whereas the goofballs who made QT 5 and Wimp 8 decided it would be a good idea to waste 40% more screen real estate on big rubbery looking buttons for all the Ralph Wiggums out there who think a computer is a glorified iPod. On the same topic, I refuse to upgrade my Winamp 2.09. It plays mp3's adn wav's exactly how I want them played. Can't handle .ogg's without upgrading to the cruftware new version. :-( And sadly, no .ogg players out there seem to have decent control features.

modmans2ndcoming: huh? It DOES take over all your filetypes unless you're quick enough to uncheck a box in install, as I recall. It also tries to connect out when I run a file. What legitimate reason does an app have to attempt a remote connection without asking, when I'm opening a local file? None. At least it doesn't fail to open the file when my firewall denies it. PLUS, the thing is bloated as hell. It takes forever to load. Let me clue you, I don't use movie players to watch DVD's, I use them to watch short things. Porn and humor, banned T.V. commercials and Faces of Death. I don't have the bw to download anything bigger, and so I'm not interested in a program that takes half as long to load as the entire movie takes to run.


-Kasreyn

P.S. not bashing the iPod, in fact I want one SOOOOOO much it makes me really ashamed of myself. ^_^;; Why did APPLE, a company I hate, finally make an mp3 player with a nearly-large-enough HD?? Fate is SO cruel.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Not Windows Media Player (none / 1) (#265)
by marx on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:59:54 AM EST

He means MPlayer

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

MPlayer is not Windows Media Player (none / 1) (#289)
by Tyler Durden on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:21:59 AM EST

MPlayer is an open source movie (and other media) player for Linux.  

More info here for those interested.

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Re: MPlayer (none / 1) (#293)
by Colonol_Panic on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:56:54 PM EST

MPlayer isn't just for linux, it runs on pretty much everything.

Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's Yours?
[ Parent ]
A non USain (2.00 / 8) (#142)
by Cackmobile on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:29:37 AM EST

Whats is the ad about!

What a cock monkey our President is (1.58 / 12) (#147)
by GreyGhost on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:41:05 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Well that was informative.(nt) (none / 1) (#228)
by Jazu on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:50:13 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Thanks! I do my best! (none / 2) (#239)
by GreyGhost on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:39:09 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Whats is the ad about? (none / 2) (#242)
by kenmce on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:10:47 PM EST

The ad shows children working at tedious dead-end jobs.  The ad suggests that your children will have to spend the rest of their lives washing dishes (or whatever) to pay off the debt that the present  republican administration is building up.  

The republicans are saying that the debt does not matter because we are somehow going to build up the economy bigger than it has ever been before.  Then the debt will seem small and easy to pay off because the country will be so very rich.  

I don't understand how they can promise this.  I thought that global economics was poorly understood and subject to forces that no one can predict or control.

[ Parent ]

News, but not news (2.76 / 13) (#158)
by Tyler Durden on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:46:07 AM EST

I find it interesting that CBS will not air the ad, but not at all surprising.  Adbusters has been trying for years to air their anti-television commercials, with little success.  

CBS is prtty much screwed either way though.  If they air the ad, then all the Bush supporters get miffed.  If they don't, then the anit-Bush folks are tweaked.  

I think it will be interesting to see if MoveOn.org can get the ads aired at all, or what level of success they get... 50%, 20%, 80%?

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie

tehy lookm at it like this (1.00 / 8) (#180)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:22:29 AM EST

pissed off 80% of the country if they air it, or piss off 10% if they don't (the other 10% don't give a damn)

<disclaimer> the above statment is obviously not intended as a fact or even close to reality </disclaimer>

[ Parent ]

CNN will be running them... (2.40 / 5) (#205)
by baron samedi on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:15:36 PM EST

CNN will be running the ads, but who watches CNN anymore?

I dunno, CBS says they don't do political ads, and I consider the anti-smoking and anti-drug ads to be public health messages, not necessarily political ads, so as much as I would have liked to have seen CBS run the ad, it is their call.

Now, technically the public owns the airwaves, but we gave up our interest in that department long ago.

After checking out the ads that were up for selection, I was kind of disappointed that they eventually selected the one they did. I think it's too subtle, there were others that I felt drove the message home more forcefully. It's a great ad, but I think it will go over the heads of many of the people the ad is supposed to reach.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

i watch cnn (none / 3) (#207)
by Work on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:30:53 PM EST

its still the preferred newschannel of millions...

[ Parent ]
Not all are public health messages (2.80 / 5) (#226)
by PhoTwenny on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:37:54 PM EST

I agree that some of the smoking and drug commercials are health messages, but the "Marijuana funds terrorists" commercial they ran last year was most definitely not a public health issue.  It was bullshit propaganda.

I like the commercial with the kid that had been grounded for smoking pot.  His mother explains why she grounded him, and he "straightened up" in the end.  I particularly like that the only "enforcement" evidenced in the commercial was good parenting.  THAT is a good public health message.

But telling people who buy a domestically grown crop that they are responsible for blowing up the WTC?  That is most definitely a political message, and has nothing to do with public health.

[ Parent ]

I have to agree (none / 0) (#304)
by baron samedi on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:33:11 PM EST

Yes, those ads are ridiculous, as everyone with half a brain knows that most of the (good) pot in this country is domestically produced, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy is totally warped.

Those ads, I would argue, are misleading and silly, and have no hope of dissuading anyone from smoking reefer, and their message is the result of a calculated political policy, but nonetheless, they are not political in the sense that MoveOn's ads are political.

I think that CBS doesn't want to run it because they're afraid that the Freepers and other wing nuts will Dixie Chick the Super Bowl.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Damn liberal media!!! (2.66 / 12) (#162)
by tthomas48 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:34:52 AM EST

Oh wait.

this is not the media making this decision (1.12 / 8) (#177)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:20:09 AM EST

it is managment.....reporters and editors are the media, tehy are still mostly liberal.

[ Parent ]
Um, no (2.83 / 6) (#183)
by curien on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:27:45 AM EST

"The media" is the method of transmission of information: TV broadcast, in this case. People usually use "the media" to refer to those associated with actually transmitting the information. So yeah, the anchors and reporters and editors are "the media", but so are the companies, managers, etc.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
when some one says (1.00 / 4) (#188)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:22:00 PM EST

"the media is liberal"

they are talking about the Reporters and editors.

you can fool yourself into thinking that your argument is a reflection of reality because theoreticaly you are right, but unfortunatly, the spirit of the comment, the reality of it, is that the comment refers to the people reporting and editing the news, not the industry.

[ Parent ]

Then the statement is meaningless. (2.75 / 8) (#191)
by Edward Carter on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:43:22 PM EST

When some one says, "the media is liberal,"
they are talking about the reporters and editors.

The point is that the owners and managers have much more control over the agenda of the media than reporters and editors do, especially given the power of owners and managers to hire and fire reporters and editors.  You might as well say the media is liberal because most CBS janitors vote Democratic.

[ Parent ]

the point is not that (none / 2) (#209)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:47:20 PM EST

the point is that Reporters and Editors have all the control over the news with little in put from managment.

Editors have editorial control, not managment.

[ Parent ]

Not all control (none / 1) (#244)
by puppet10 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:23:10 PM EST

Editors and the reporters only have as much editorial control as the owners of the broadcast equipment allow them.

Though they can fight and publicise through other means any ham-fisted or other controls placed on them by management - which reduces or mostly eliminates the most egregious cases - more subtle messages could influence the latitude they feel they have.

The guy bringing a story or editing a story can fail to report to the public if the person with the printing press stops the presses (or quietly remove those that management doesn't feel are compatible with their views) and there's not much the non-owners of the printing press can do after trying to make a stink about it except find another guy with a press or set up their own - and for television media this is becoming increasingly more difficult with the exception of public access channels which by design are very local.

I can see that this kind of pressure probably doesn't lead to outright suppression of many stories, particulary ones that are juicy for ratings, but its concievable it could slant what the editors and reporters feel is an important story and how certain stories should be framed.

[ Parent ]

here is a fact (none / 1) (#248)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:53:42 PM EST

it does not happen in the major outlets.

it is a good theory, but it is just not practiced.

[ Parent ]

Oh I see now (none / 1) (#283)
by puppet10 on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 05:33:11 PM EST

Its good to know you're omniscient and know the mind of all the major news editors and reporters.

I'll keep that in mind when I evaluate your opinion from now on.

[ Parent ]

you don't have to be Omniscient (none / 0) (#306)
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:05:34 PM EST

there is just no evidence to proove your suposition, but there is much to support mine.

[ Parent ]
Then where is your evidence? (none / 0) (#308)
by puppet10 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:36:50 PM EST

It seems youre trolling but I'm not too busy atm so what the hell.

A relatively famous case of the money controlling the reporting is the Brown and Williamson investigation by 60 minutes which was pulled by the corporate lawyers (just before a large merger occured with westinghouse), and then was released after the Wall Street Journal and other news sources got up to speed and released it first.

From the NY Times:

    "The most troubling part of CBS's decision is that it was made not by news executives but by corporate officers who may have their minds on money rather than public service these days. With a $5.4 billion merger deal with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation about to be approved, a multibillion-dollar lawsuit would hardly have been a welcome development."

So the story did get out in this case because it was a big story, but CBS was willing to give up the scoop on it and not broadcast the story with the possibility the story would not get out.

This is just the first case that came to mind.

[ Parent ]

You have never worked in the media (nt) (none / 1) (#279)
by scruffyMark on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:33:55 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Nope. (2.50 / 4) (#202)
by LittleTrouble on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:09:08 PM EST

"the media is liberal"
they are talking about the Reporters and editors.


When people speak of a media bias, they are implying that there is, overall, a political slant to the published (or broadcasted) information. The fact is that management exercises editorial power, and that has a real effect on the overall political slant of released stories.

So while your over-simple interpretation is convenient to those who want to make the fallacious "liberal media" argument, it ignores reality.

[ Parent ]
that is not a fact. (1.00 / 5) (#210)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:50:51 PM EST

Managment does not have editorial control over news and how the news is slanted by the individual reporter, editors and writers.

when a reporter chooses to use words that suggest a certain notion to be true, or has a facial expression on TV or an aditude with a guest that telegraphs their political slant, managment has nothing to do with it.

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (none / 3) (#214)
by error 404 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:30:08 PM EST

Management never gives raises or hires or fires reporters or editors. Nobody ever pays attention to The Big Boss.

Sheesh.

OK, there used to be a theoretical wall between the editorial and ad sales departments, but that went away a long time ago.

News is just another business now. Mangement may step back from day-to-day operations, but in the long run, they are going to hire and promote employees who advance their interests - which mostly means selling ads, but partly means other things, political and aesthetic agendas. A successful media company, like any other successful company, delegates individual editorial decisions to, well, editors, and management periodicaly reviews the product that the reporters and editors generate. If management doesn't like the product, management makes changes. The labor pool for reporters and editors is huge and the number of positions relatively small. The jobs are very sought after. Except for a few big names, any one of them, or an entire team, can be easily replaced. And if you can't find a reporter or editor who agrees with your point of view, you can certainly find an unemployed one willing to whore a lifetime away dreaming of making a name.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Managment does not give a crap (none / 2) (#231)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:03:02 PM EST

as long as there are ratings.

ok, I will say that in the case of CNN, Teddy boy certainly had a strong hand in the people he picked for the network, making sure he agreed with them.

but as far as MSNBC and the networks go, the rep;orters and editors are liberal as hell and managment does nothing about it.

[ Parent ]

There you go (2.50 / 4) (#268)
by rusty on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 09:02:06 AM EST

"Management only interferes when it's liberal management."

Blinders: Fully engaged.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

no..... (none / 1) (#280)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:59:02 PM EST

I just did not include Fox News since that is a foregone conclusion, and the discussion was about LIBERAL media, Fox news is a right of center source.

[ Parent ]
TV, you say? (none / 1) (#227)
by Jazu on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:39:35 PM EST

Call me crazy, but the sense I get is the only thing the TV news people have in terms of opinions is "Thinking too much gives you wrinkles". Have you noticed how done up their hair is?

[ Parent ]
I guess you never watched "today" (none / 1) (#230)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:00:25 PM EST

 and seen Katie Courick give an interview that involves politics or CNN and watched Christian Amonpore, those are just 2 examples.....you can look everywhere and see the opinions showing through in the words tehy choose and the body language.

[ Parent ]
Ahh... (none / 0) (#323)
by tthomas48 on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 10:55:05 PM EST

so we have two conclusions to draw:

1) right-wing hatred of left-wing media = big ratings, and thus people like Rupert "Son o' Hitler" Murdoch and Ted "Call Me Liberal Cause I married a Vietnam Protester" Turner hire only liberal reporters because they know it will ensure an audience.

2) there are no right-wing reporters (or Fox news has hired all of them)

Trust me, if these were true liberals, and not people who occassionally got up on the left side of the bed anytime the president spoke they'd be slappin' their knees and hootin' and hollerin'. It would be constant news lead in of "We have the president's state of the union address from last night, and wait till you hear our new clips of what other words that jackass can't pronounce."

You must also admit (although you won't) that it's a bit unfair that the "liberal media" has to convey their "liberalness" through body language and story slants, when the "conservative media" gets to shout it at the top of their lungs.

[ Parent ]

woo, let's get into another media bias discussion (none / 1) (#284)
by startled on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 07:34:26 PM EST

Ah, fuck it. I'll just provide a link for my side here. You provide another, and we'll google back and forth. Or not. That sounds like a horrible way to spend your time. http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

[ Parent ]
Say what? (none / 1) (#285)
by limekiller on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 07:46:42 PM EST

modmans2ndcoming writes:
"it is managment.....reporters and editors are the media, tehy are still mostly liberal."

Let me see if I have this right...

The owners are not liberal but they let their reporters and editors run amok, slanting the news to the far left, ...and they do this why?

Can you cite any sort of study that shows that the media is leftist?  I've got hard evidence -- by way of Chomsky -- that it's the other way around.

Better yet, what would convince you that you were wrong?

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

thank you, CBS, I salute you. (2.08 / 12) (#193)
by Anon 20517 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:50:06 PM EST

There are certain spheres where politics just don't belong.  If you ask me, the Superbowl is one of them.  I don't want to put up with the argument that this ad will inevitably spawn when I go to a superbowl party.

Yes, the White House running terrorism/drug ads is below the belt, but it can still be construed as a public health announcement ("Drugs are bad, mmmkay?").  There'll be pleanty of time for both sides to take swings at each other in the coming months.  I plan on watching the game with friends of mine from all over the political spectrum, I'd really rather not have this issue come up.

With respect... (2.11 / 9) (#197)
by TheDon on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:17:07 PM EST

I think you miss the point. While you and many others probably don't want to deal with this issue at least Moveon.org understands a reasonable time and opportunity to air the ad.

As you say, you and your friends from across the political spectrum will be watching the game when the ad is hoping to air. You're all in hight spirits and probably more prone to discussing the issue as friends.

Furthermore, discussion is what this issue needs. If the ad doesn't air during the Superbowl then chances are that other times would be like preaching to the choir. This particular ad doesn't need to convince the left, it needs to convince the right. Bush supporters should watch that ad to realize that left or right, this particular leader isn't doing a very good job.

My personal opinion is if you don't support the left, that's fine but at least find a leader better than Bush.

--------------------------

Memory says, "I did that." Pride replies, "I could not have done that." Eventually, memory yields.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
[ Parent ]

I don't care. (2.57 / 7) (#200)
by Anon 20517 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:52:51 PM EST

I'm pretty sure I understand the point.  The Superbowl is the most watched television event in the country and moveon.org seeks to exploit this fact for political gain.  

I have, however, come to the conclusion that many people are incapable of having a rational discussion about politics.  Emotions and pride inevitably get involved and it often gets ugly, or at least uncomfortable.  I don't want this to ruin the atmosphere of an otherwise relaxing, light-hearted night.  I don't care how much discussion the issue needs.

For the record, I'm definitely not going to vote for Bush in November.

[ Parent ]

Well, I don't care that you don't care (none / 3) (#278)
by scruffyMark on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:30:35 PM EST

The Superbowl is the most watched television event in the country and moveon.org seeks to exploit this fact for political gain.

So, auto makers, pharmaceutical companies, computer makers, etc., seek to exploit the fact for economic gain. Is that really any different - money is power. At least the overtly political ads just ask you to think. Thinking's free.

I don't want this to ruin the atmosphere of an otherwise relaxing, light-hearted night. I don't care how much discussion the issue needs.

So keep your mouth shut for about ten seconds after the ad airs. Nobody's going to force you to discuss the ads if you don't want to. Anyway, it's no one's fault but your own if you choose to hang out with buddies that can't have a sensible discussion of issues they disagree on.

[ Parent ]

Drug Ads (2.00 / 7) (#198)
by araym on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:42:15 PM EST

How can you say the ad they ran during the Superbowl that linked drug use to terrorism was a "public health announcement"?

-=-
SSM

[ Parent ]
it's not too hard, really... (none / 3) (#201)
by Anon 20517 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:58:11 PM EST

They hoped to curb drug use in this country (their stated goal) by associating drugs, which many people think are relatively harmless, with terrorism, which most people in this country strongly oppose.

Self-interested/self-promotional? Yes. Dishonest? Sure. But the argument can easily be made that the purpose of the ad was to decrease drug use.  Hence, it was a "public health announcement".

[ Parent ]

Public health vs. political. (3.00 / 6) (#218)
by cburke on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:12:53 PM EST

You're saying it is a health message because the thing they're trying to stop you from doing is bad for you, according to some other sources you're aware of but which are not mentioned in the ad itself.  I don't see how that makes it a health message.  I think being a conservative Bush supporter is bad for your health due to the cognitive dissonance involved, but I don't think you call any of my arguments for why supporting Bush is bad a "health announcement".

"Pot is bad for you health, so you shouldn't use pot" -- public health announcement.

"Pot sales support terrorism, so you shouldn't use pot" -- political message.

Other examples:
"Cigarettes are bad for you, so stop smoking them." -- health message.
"Cigarettes allow the fat cats at Phillip Morris to get even richer and further exploit the working class for their own benefit, so stop smoking them" -- political message.

"Unprotected anal sex can lead to the transmission of STDs, so stop doing that." -- health message
"Unprotected anal sex is morally reprehensible, so stop doing that."  -- political message

[ Parent ]

I agree with you (none / 2) (#219)
by Anon 20517 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:23:02 PM EST

but I obvioiusly think the CBS execs were thinking about it from the perspective that I mentioned and not yours.

[ Parent ]
It saves lives (2.00 / 6) (#225)
by squigly on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:49:26 PM EST

Terrorism can seriously damage your health.

[ Parent ]
Smoking a bowl, drinking beer, watching the game.. (2.16 / 6) (#204)
by mmuskratt on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:15:14 PM EST

So, here I am, smoking a bowl (of tobacco, of course), drinking a beer (non-addictive and totally safe...not a drug) and watching football when I see that people who smoke dope are supporting terrorists! Oh my! Next thing you know, I'll be hearing some kind of leftist crap about how the Taliban nearly eliminated the opium trade, and that the US merely re-enabled Afghanistan to provide 75% of the world's heroin by ousting them in the hunt for...oh what's his name? The only reason this is an issue is that Bush's re-election team wants to save his 99 million dollars right now for a later slew of ads in the future. If it were a Republican ad, I wonder just how much thought CBS would give to the issue...

easy solution (2.00 / 5) (#212)
by bsmfh on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:09:11 PM EST

Get WarnerBros to include 5 seconds of the Harry Potter trailer on the front of it, and I'm sure CBS will run it.

Who cares? (2.11 / 9) (#237)
by trhurler on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:29:39 PM EST

Seriously. Political ads ought to be outright banned during the Superbowl anyway; nobody wants to see serious shit while watching the big game. That said, if they're not going to be banned outright, they at least ought to be issue ads instead of attack ads.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

I've got a better idea (none / 1) (#247)
by pyramid termite on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:18:11 PM EST

Let's ditch the Presidential Debates and have Bush vs whoever with their advisers suit up and play football.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
What team? (none / 2) (#252)
by godix on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:28:07 PM EST

Bush would obviously be playing for the Texans, and probably rename them back to the Oilers, but who would the democrat be playing for? The Pittsburgh Stealers is my guess.

Sorry, bad pun. Nevermind.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]

No, Bush would be Darwin College (none / 1) (#259)
by pyramid termite on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:03:19 AM EST

... and the Democrats would be Huxley College.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Been done... (none / 0) (#316)
by rpresser on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:57:39 PM EST

Music video for the Genesis Song "Land of Confusion".  Alas, only puppets were harmed during the making of that film.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Cause God knows... (none / 1) (#302)
by poopi on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:24:13 PM EST

... it just distracts from the riveting ballet that is the Superbowl! Yawn...

-----

"It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

Remember, boys and girls... (2.00 / 6) (#255)
by John Asscroft on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:48:11 PM EST

the 1st Amendment applies only to speech I like, whether or not it's using public property (the airwaves) to reach you. I mean, c'mon. Did you *really* think that my good buddy Sumner Redstone, owner of CBS, was going to allow some vile heathen ad attacking his buddy George W. Bush to run on his network?! You LIE-berals are so naive.

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.

Remember boys and girls... (none / 2) (#256)
by Bartab on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:53:32 PM EST

The first amendment does not compel private entities to publish your opinions. It doesn't even compel public entities to do the same. Nor does it compel anybody to pay attention.

Moveon is not suffering any violation of the first amendment.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Airwaves are public property (none / 3) (#258)
by John Asscroft on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:01:35 AM EST

CBS is operating under a public interest license from the federal government to use the public airwaves to send its content to people's homes. So it's not CBS's press, it's the public's press. All CBS provides is the content sent via the public's press. Not that it really matters, because we got bigger guns than you got (nyah nyah! We even got the ATOMIC BOMB!).

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Just in the same way (none / 2) (#270)
by Hide The Hamster on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 09:25:05 AM EST

that the roads are "public property", your car is not subject to public use. Cock.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
You can only use your car the way *I* say (none / 1) (#277)
by John Asscroft on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:54:24 PM EST

And my cronies can pass any laws they want regulating how you use your car. If you've lived in a big city, you'll see that lane on the freeway with the big diamond on it. Well, guess what. We don't let you use that lane unless you carry some other person with you in your car. It's the public's highway, and the public (via yours truly) is telling you how to use your private property (your car) if you use that lane? You betcha! And, I might add, we have all sorts of OTHER rules on how you use the public's roads, like drive on the right side of the road, stop at red lights, and so forth. Gosh isn't that evil, telling people what they can do with their private property when they use the public's property as the transmission medium? Try driving in Baghdad right now, where there ARE no rules, and if you don't get an RPG up your butt, you probably will have a nervous breakdown anyhow, hah!

In the same way, we can tell CBS how they can use the public's airwaves. But the situation with CBS is even simpler, because CBS has an EXCLUSIVE license -- a government-granted monopoly. Unlike the public highways, only one person is allowed to use Channel 12 (this is despite the fact that there now exists cellular multiplexing technology that could basically allow anybody to become a broadcaster, but that'd mess up my nice little arrangement with Sumner and Rupert and GE and Disney, so we will never allow it). CBS's monopoly on Channel 12 is a government-granted monopoly, making CBS basically an outsourcer for a government service. Just as private prison providers must abide by the restrictions on government activity when they run government prisons, private broadcasters must abide by the restrictions on the government's activities when they run government broadcast channels. Well, unless I say they don't have to!

Hopefully this clarifies the situation a bit. If not, it doesn't matter, since whatever you believe, Sumner isn't going to run that commercial! I mean, the whole POINT of this Administration is to allow Administration cronies to use government property to make lots of money for themselves, why would our cronies want to interfere with that by allowing opposing views onto the public airwaves?!

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

So? (none / 1) (#286)
by Bartab on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 08:13:15 PM EST

I addressed this tired, lame, false, argument in my original message. The second amendment does not compel a publisher, be it public or private, to print your opinions.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Consistency (none / 0) (#324)
by libcrypt on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:34:18 AM EST

I agree that the First Amendment doesn't compel anyone to publish a particular opinion. Funny how this realization escaped the legions of right-wingers who squawked about First Amendment violations when Rush Limbaugh was booted from ESPN over his "free speech" about Donovan McNabb. I wonder how many of them have suddenly come to a full understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment after CBS's possible rejection of the MoveOn ad.

``Hatred to break it to you, but the white man is no longer holding anyone down.''


[ Parent ]
This is merely a setback. (2.50 / 4) (#282)
by amike on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 05:23:35 PM EST

CBS rejecting this ad sucks, but it's their Super Bowl to air, and they have that right. But it's still not the end of the world for MoveOn. With the money they have from the Super Bowl ad -- a cool $2.25 million -- they could run that ad multiple times on any popular prime time TV show they want. Even the expensive ones. And some network's bound to take their money.



----------
In a mad world, only the mad are sane. -Akira Kurosawa
Airwaves are the Peoples's--Not CBS's (none / 3) (#290)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:24:37 AM EST

CBS and the other major broadcasting networks didn't pay fair market value for use of the airwaves. They got a free license-and with it a responsibility to the American public. Personally, I think CBS shareholders deserve to be expropriated for this disgusting display.

[ Parent ]
Think of it this way then (none / 2) (#291)
by ctkrohn on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:33:02 AM EST

CBS certainly owns its own broadcasting equipment. Therefore it has the right to decide how to use that equipment. Ownership of the airwaves is a controversial issue, but I don't think it's one that needs to be brought up here. It's simply a matter of whether CBS has the right to use its own equipment. I agree that it is unfortunate that CBS did not air the ad, but unless you say that private ownership of broadcasting equipment is unjustified, I don't think you can claim that CBS did anything ethically wrong on its part.
- ctkrohn
[ Parent ]
CBS surrendered certain rights (none / 1) (#295)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:11:22 PM EST

when they accepted the public trust of the airwaves. Their shareholders should be expropriated. They are just corporate welfare queens.

[ Parent ]
Is CBS the only TV network? (none / 0) (#325)
by The Real Lord Kano on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 08:36:22 PM EST

There are ABC, FOX, NBC, UPN and WB networks. They can try to get their ad on any one of them.

CBS is obligated to show some children's programming. CBS is obligated to show some PSAs. They are in no way obligated to show political ads with an extremist agenda.

LK

[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (none / 2) (#300)
by n8f8 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:15:36 AM EST

The only objections I could see to running this commercial are:

1. Pissing off your most of your viewers

2. The President doesn't write the budget ,Congress does. Its one thing for Politicans to lie to the public, quite another for a network to be seen spreading that same lie.  

But I enjoyed the commerial from an artistic viewpoint.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

Whaaa!!??? Network TV spreading lies? Unheard of!! (none / 1) (#301)
by poopi on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:20:11 PM EST

Sarcasm, just sarcasm - nothing to see here - move along.

-----

"It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

Can anyone explain the ad to me? (none / 2) (#303)
by TheModerate on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:42:13 PM EST

Why will the deficit be paid by child labor?

"What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer

Well, they won't be children then (none / 2) (#305)
by error 404 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:03:13 PM EST

The deficit will be paid (unless it turns out that the economy can support more or less infinite deficits) by people who are children now.

I guess they could have shown adults working wearing t-shirts that explained that it's 2020 now and they are paying toward their parent's....

But then, the abolute literalism of k5'ers is not reflected by the general population. There are people out there, many of them not as smart as us in most ways, who understand symbolism and metaphor and sarcasm and many other means by which ideas may be expressed more easily or more emphaticaly in indirect ways.

In this case, the children working in the picture are symbolic of the same children working as adults in the future. While this is a blurring between the symbolic and the literal, it is within the parsing capabilities of a majority of the population.

Indirection. It's not just for linked lists anymore.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Download via BitTorrent (none / 2) (#307)
by brettd on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:30:26 PM EST

Their site may be really fast, but every $ spent on bandwidth is a dollar that could be spent otherwise.  Hence- I've made a Torrent of the 5-6 ads that are available on the bushin30seconds site, including the ad they want to run for the superbowl.

The torrent file can be downloaded from any of the following URLs:

http://66.79.177.160/~suprnova//torrents/980/BushIn30Seconds(5).torrent

http://alanb.no-ip.org:6969/stats.html?info_hash=924a2f63806f635c1a9754530bc0f454499a6ba9

The tracker's pretty unreliable- gives connection refused errors- but leave it open for a bit, the client automatically retries.  If you get a refused on the alanb URL, keep trying- it will eventually work. Quite frankly I was too lazy to set up my own tracker...

Google is your friend for finding out more about BitTorrent(where to get it, etc).

Of course, the NFL also banned... (none / 1) (#309)
by doormat on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:33:38 AM EST

Ads for Las Vegas. The Mayor (Oscar Goodman) has complained and talked about lawsuits (although those threats seemed more out of anger than any legitimate legal grounds). This is the second or third year in a row where the NFL has refused to show advertisements for Las Vegas during the superbowl. Las Vegas and Move-on ads. I dunno if there is a connection there or not...

Hmmm.. lets see, Paul Tagliabue's political contributions.

|\
|/oormat

Governments v. Corporations (none / 0) (#326)
by syzme on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 09:55:19 PM EST

For some reason, in modern society we draw a clear line between the power which governments exercise and the power which corporations exercise.

Traditionally (ie, a long time ago), this would be a non-issue: the only assemblage large enough to limit rights in wholesale lots were governments. Today, however, corporations exercise just as much power as governments, if not more in certain arenas.

This debate is a good example. Corporations have finally gotten to the size where they have absolute dictatorial control over which speech the majority of Americans will see in a given day! That is huge power! I don't have the numbers with be, but I could bet that that the majority of Americans who will watch TV on Super Bowl Sunday, will watch at least a little of the Super Bowl. All of that power in the hands of an unaccountable oligopoly.

I'm not supporting immediate communist take-over of the NFL. Hell, I don't really know if I'm even advicating anything. Just shit to think about.

CBS May Reject MoveOn.org Superbowl Ad | 324 comments (270 topical, 54 editorial, 4 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!