You stated:

And certainly one can argue that a whole bunch of little companies competing with each other is a richer ecosystem than a few lumbering giants. There�s just one problem: there are those, primarily in the government but elsewhere as well, who really want one, big, uniform news organ keeping all the people in lock step as Orwell predicted. So how do you fight that? I think you need big media companies to fight the government, because the little guys, who depend on the actions of government bureaucrats to award them licenses and keep them in business, can�t afford to stand up to the tyranny that all governments tend toward.

You need power to combat power, in other words. And to the exact extent that you allow government to regulate the free flow of ideas from media, you encourage that little censorious element that 1984 was all about. Remember, we have more diversity of ideas in the media today than we did in the 70s, not less. So I don�t trust any politician who wants to impose shackles on media ownership and operation.

The problem with this is that the pendulum can easily swing too far, once the large corporations get too much power. Eventually they will start telling the government what to do. We’re already seeing this happen with copyright extentions in aeternum, the virtual elimination of “pirate” radio stations that could compete with the big guys, etc.

It seems to me that a compromise can be reached in this matter rather simply, by both eliminating media ownership rules (that is, any company can have all the outlets they wish) and by lowering the barriers for entry into the market (thus allowing low-power, “pirate” radio stations to compete with the big guys).

Perhaps we should suggest this to the folks at Clear Channel, et. al., and see what kind of reception we get.

Completely aside: as far as racial profiling is concerned, it might also have been good for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to carefully monitor and thorougly investigate white Christian males around the time of the 1996 Olympics. Wouldn’t you agree?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003749

“The problem for the Democrats is that their base is so furious, it may be impossible for them to nominate someone level-headed enough to make a plausible president.”

–Ben

Another completely unsubstantiated straw man. Next troll please.

Dean for America in 2004!

Many people would say that I wasted my vote by voting Green, but this election I have decided to everything in my power to oust our current �hail-to-the-thief�.

This election I am advertising my support for Howard Dean to friends and family so that we won�t have to deal with Bush for another 4 years.

PS –

-Like many people on this Blog, I am curious about Dean�s views on Intelectual Properties (ie – patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dresses, etc.) and the threats of the RIAA against small budgeted individuals who are forced to settle out of court.

-How does he feel about the idea of patented human genomes and patents reguarding information encoded within DNA�Is it right for a corporation to own the decifered codes or is it ultimately everyone�s right to that inherent information?

Granted it cost millions to unravel the codes and decifer the information, but is it correct to let some corporation own a monopoly on what many believe to be public domain�kinda like the �public� air waves that are tightly regulated by the FCC (bastards).

-Lastly I am curious about his views on Stem Cell Research. Most candidates won�t touch this with a 10 foot pole (understandably).

I assume as a doctor he would acknowledge the great deal of information we would be able to gain from stem cell development and the ultimate positive result on the entire human population.

Thanks for joining our Blog!!