|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 17:43:26 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure if you're calling me a sore loser or conservative (of which I'm neither since I was disappointed by the candidates to start with) or just commenting on people you've seen making this argument in general, but either way, it is irrelevant to deciding whether or not this is a legitimate concern. Obviously, anyone who does not want to apply equally the concern to Republican administrations can be discredited, but I'm only asking the question in the general sense, not even necessarily agreeing with the argument, just looking for what makes it a bad argument if it is a bad one (beyond the fact that right-wing pundits are making the argument for purely biased reasons).
The fact that Byrd was once in the KKK is part of the reason I don't like him (and trying to filibuster the Civil Rights Act and his notoriety as a master of pork in my former state among other things), but that is irrelevant to the fact that he does have a legitimate history of opposing executive concentration of power (e.g. during the Bush administration and before).
I suppose you could say he only wrote this because Obama is African American, but it is a bit of a leap. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2009 : 18:45:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
All these people are is advisors. That's why, like their counterparts in all administrations, they don't have to be confirmed by Congress. Because the make no policy, the administer nothing, they hire and fire no-one. |
In Byrd's letter, he names a bunch of people in the Nixon and Bush-the-Younger adminstrations who were appointed as advisors, but eventually took over cabinet-level responsibilities and even prevented cabinet members from accessing the President directly. Because they were nominally "advisors," Congress couldn't touch them, since, like with client-attorney privilege, the President has to be free to get advice from whoever he wants to.
(I don't see how appointing someone to "oversee" some White House office or other is "advising" the President, but that's probably just my ignorance of these matters.)
If Byrd is correct in his characterization of previous administrations, then there's definitely something to watch out for. However, if Ornstein is right about Tom Ridge, then Byrd's example there was misplaced:Ornstein cited Bush's naming of Tom Ridge as homeland security czar early in his administration. Ridge had great access to the president but no line authority over the many agencies involved and no budget authority, so his ability to influence policy ended up being extremely limited, he said. And unfortunately, Byrd mentions only people in the Nixon administration as his other set of examples, and there's no reason to doubt that a criminal was acting unconstitutionally.
I suppose it would be nice to be able to get the courts to step in when some advisor or other steps over the Constitutional boundaries of his/her position, the only question is: how does anyone start such a case? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 23:02:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I suppose it would be nice to be able to get the courts to step in when some advisor or other steps over the Constitutional boundaries of his/her position, the only question is: how does anyone start such a case? |
I would think Congress, or a committee or something, could investigate any type of issue with the administration, and then, if they wanted, submit it for judicial review of some sort. The constitutional boundaries could possibly not even be well-defined, in which case investigation could help everyone know what they can and cannot do.
Of course politicians everywhere are going to try to get every advantage they can, so I am sure presidents learn new techniques (e.g. Bush and others' recess appointments, possibly the increased role of these advisors for Obama) to give themselves advantageous positions and more range of motion in their administration. Equally, congresspersons have a vested interest (either immediate political advantage or biases toward legislature by virtue of being a part of it) in acquiring advantages over the executive, like wanting more control over the advisors.
There is little evidence so far, I think, that Obama appointing these advisors is doing much, if any, harm. Investigating the issue would not at all imply the president is doing anything wrong, just the acknowledgement that something different from the historical norm has been occurring with the proliferation of such advisory positions in recent administrations and that its effects, good or bad, and constitutionality have not entirely been evaluated. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 00:44:26 [Permalink]
|
My thinking on this is that it is a non-issue.
If there is some evidence of a hired person overstepping their bounds, and in doing so crosses divisional boundaries within our government, then there is already a mechanism in place to deal with the problem. (congressional investigative powers, if a law is broken they send it to the justice dept)
Lets face it, the world is complex. More now than at any time in our history. The number of details that you need to be aware of to run the country has to be mind boggling. Anyone would need some help sorting through the data you need to make informed decisions on issues.
The president is allowed to seek advice from anyone. This is not in question. Starting with Nixon all presidents have hired people to give them specialty advice, and Obama is no different. He doesn't even have more of these advisers than Bush had. So.
It only makes sense to make the process of getting expert advice as efficient as possible, doesn't it? These people are employees of the president, they have no power other than that he listens to them. No official capacity. The idea of making them accountable to congress is stupid. Why would the president have to seek approval from congress before he seeks advice on some issue?
My question for Robb (he is probably never returning after embarrassing himself in the "speech to schoolchildren" thread) and anyone who is up in arms now about these "czars" is this: Why didn't George W's "czars" make you angry? He had MORE than Obama! (that's from Olberman, so the accuracy may not be there, but Bush did have at least a similar number of these people).
Help me understand the reason why you are pissed off at these "czars" now, but weren't for the previous eight years. Maybe because you never fucking new these people existed until FAUX talking retards started yammering about them. Maybe you should ask yourself why they had no problem with W's "czars".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/25/2009 00:45:08 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 02:55:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. (Government control over private companies) |
Monopoly is bad for business, and this measure ensures that the most rich and powerful organizations just can't grab all the space. This allows for more diversity. That can't be all bad? Look what happened to religion in the Middle Ages: the Catholic Church had monopoly on religion in Europe. Did that produce a desirable outcome?
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. (Extort money to broadcast companies that will not air thier ideology, They call this encouragement oin the first paragraph)
|
Since when is "public interest" in opposition to Big Media ideology? Oh, yeah, when Big Media starts dictating what's in the public interest, instead of what the public actually think is in their interest.
What business is it of the governments to regulate free speech? |
It's not free speech if FOX-"news" has bought up all the rights, and is dictating what is being broadcast and what is not. Then it's FOX-regulated speech, which is hardly free.
By regulating free speech, the government is in position to make sure than everyone has access to free speech, not only the people towing the FOX party line.
BTW He's a supporter of Hugo Chavez as well.
|
The more you harp about how bad Chavez is, the more I like him. A man pissing off republicans, right-wing christians, and conservatives must be doing something good and right.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 20:36:35 [Permalink]
|
| By regulating free speech, the government is in position to make sure than everyone has access to free speech, not only the people towing the FOX party line. |
How does FOX speaking nonsense prevent anyone from their right to free speech? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 21:22:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
How does FOX speaking nonsense prevent anyone from their right to free speech? |
A right to free speech is not the same thing as access to the microphones. According to Fox News itself, it's the number-one news network right now, leaving the others in the dust. In my ideal society, the most-popular media would assume the most responsibility for fair and ethical reporting, so I don't really have a problem with mandating journalistic standards. Fox appears to be a textbook example of the failure of free-market principles in the delivery of accurate information, which is vital to the Constitutional process.
In other words, people who avail themselves of "news" that seeks to misinform them for political reasons because they happen to like what's said are shortchanging themselves of the America they often claim to love. Much more than seatbelt and helmet laws, this sort of thing is a case where people definitely need to be protected from themselves. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 22:01:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I would think Congress, or a committee or something, could investigate any type of issue with the administration, and then, if they wanted, submit it for judicial review of some sort. The constitutional boundaries could possibly not even be well-defined, in which case investigation could help everyone know what they can and cannot do. |
The problem is that Congress can't just ask the courts to review something. There has to be an actually aggrieved party willing to act as plaintiff. Otherwise, "in God we trust" would have been removed from our money and "under God" would have been stripped from the Pledge, long ago. Other concerns, such as standing, are important as well. These are just some of the reasons that the courts don't impeach or try Presidents.
Which brings to mind the real problem, here. That Congress has, in general, been far too timid in fulfilling their role in policing the Executive branch. If a President allows his advisors to act in an unconstitutional manner, that President should be held responsible for that breach of his/her oath. In other words, even if the advisors remain untouchable, the President is not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2009 : 07:10:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
| By regulating free speech, the government is in position to make sure than everyone has access to free speech, not only the people towing the FOX party line. |
How does FOX speaking nonsense prevent anyone from their right to free speech?
|
Radio bandwidth should be public property. Since everyone can't have equal access to bandwidth to transmit on, radio space is rented out to broadcast companies. If those channels are licenced out on a free-market basis, then the richest company can get most space. If they get too much, they can mariginalize and drown the other voices in drek like O'Really, hannity et.al.
That's why there has to be regulation.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 18:09:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Machi4velli
| By regulating free speech, the government is in position to make sure than everyone has access to free speech, not only the people towing the FOX party line. |
How does FOX speaking nonsense prevent anyone from their right to free speech?
|
Radio bandwidth should be public property. Since everyone can't have equal access to bandwidth to transmit on, radio space is rented out to broadcast companies. If those channels are licenced out on a free-market basis, then the richest company can get most space. If they get too much, they can mariginalize and drown the other voices in drek like O'Really, hannity et.al.
That's why there has to be regulation. |
So we are actually talking about access to microphones instead of free speech? That's fine, and I do agree with your ideas to varying extents, but I don't see it as the same thing.
Cable TV has far fewer limitations than radio. Cable TV can carry at least 1000 channels, I don't see that Fox News by any means dominates the airwaves (or underground wires I should say). Many people choose to watch it, but there are plenty of other options available if they wanted to watch -- MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Al-Jazeera (English version), BBC, and the 10 offshoots of each of those networks, and so on. Some locales do not have all of these networks, but essentially everywhere (in the US) people can see ABC, NBC, and CBS -- and if they can see Fox News, they can almost certainly also see CNN.
I don't think anyone is really being marginalized except those without people who want to hear what they have to say. Some of these people do say some good things that are not heard, but it's not because people don't have access to hear them, it is because too few people choose to listen.
@Dave -- If a senator felt strongly enough, couldn't she/he initiate proceedings to impeach and try the president? (I'm not arguing this would be appropriate for this issue.) Thanks for clarifying that courts cannot just review things.
Since you think Congress has not been as assertive as it should in checking the executive, is the concern shown by some senators not, therefore, a step in the right direction in terms of Congress questioning the executive? Ignoring the people who are obviously questioning these advisors on partisan grounds, I think there are people who are legitimately questioning it.
Russ Feingold made some statements I thought were appropriate this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/us/politics/06caucus.text.html |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 21:11:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
So we are actually talking about access to microphones instead of free speech? That's fine, and I do agree with your ideas to varying extents, but I don't see it as the same thing.
Cable TV has far fewer limitations than radio. Cable TV can carry at least 1000 channels, I don't see that Fox News by any means dominates the airwaves (or underground wires I should say). Many people choose to watch it, but there are plenty of other options available if they wanted to watch -- MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Al-Jazeera (English version), BBC, and the 10 offshoots of each of those networks, and so on. Some locales do not have all of these networks, but essentially everywhere (in the US) people can see ABC, NBC, and CBS -- and if they can see Fox News, they can almost certainly also see CNN. |
Cable companies, like power companies, are given "natural monopoly" exemptions to antitrust laws because otherwise you'd have ten different cables companies digging up your yard (and trying to surreptitiously cut their competitions' cables). I can get Cox cable in my home, I can't get Comcast or Time/Warner. And because these companies' CEOs have political biases which may affect which channels they carry and which they do not, it's not like I can just turn the knob and get a different company's outlook. To get something other than Cox's lineup, I would have to move my home.
And getting into a cable provider's lineup isn't just a matter of offering programming and declaring oneself a cable TV channel. There are many more programming providers than any single cable provider offers. The programming providers pay the cable companies for access, based on popularity.
The advent of satellite TV and the ability of phone companies to deliver TV has mitigated the problem a little, but only in that we now have three or four microphones to choose from, instead of one. Really, the choices should be almost limitless.| I don't think anyone is really being marginalized except those without people who want to hear what they have to say. Some of these people do say some good things that are not heard, but it's not because people don't have access to hear them, it is because too few people choose to listen. |
The equal-time question is this: should we allow people to marginalize themselves when it comes to issues of national importance (like the selection of a President)?| @Dave -- If a senator felt strongly enough, couldn't she/he initiate proceedings to impeach and try the president? (I'm not arguing this would be appropriate for this issue.) |
Impeachment is handled by the House of Representatives. In the most-basic form, a single Representative would have to convince a simple majority of the House Judiciary Committee that impeachment is a good thing, and then the committee report would be handed to the whole House for debate and voting, where convincing at least 218 Representatives would be required for an impeachment to proceed to trial by the Senate.| Thanks for clarifying that courts cannot just review things. |
Yeah, that's a question I had for a long time about laws and practices which appear to be unconstutional on their faces - they were still in place because nobody claimed to be harmed by them.| Since you think Congress has not been as assertive as it should in checking the executive, is the concern shown by some senators not, therefore, a step in the right direction in terms of Congress questioning the executive? Ignoring the people who are obviously questioning these advisors on partisan grounds, I think there are people who are legitimately questioning it. |
Just questioning it isn't nearly far enough in the right direction. If there is legitimate concern, the House Judiciary Committee can launch full investigations with an eye towards removal of the offending government officer(s). It seems to me that what probably happens is that committee members do the calculus on how many votes for impeachment they might get out of the whole House, and if it's not nearly enough or just borderline, they won't bother to even investigate. Sort of like how bills with no chance of surviving a filibuster will just get left for dead, and won't even get debated on the Senate floor. Pragmatically, both practices save the taxpayers a lot of dough in that frivolous claims won't be investigated (and wildly unpopular laws won't clog up the legislature), but I think there's a "happy medium" which is being ignored: that some impeachments will require investigation before the charges get fleshed-out enough to convince a simple majority that going forward with them is reasonable (not frivolous).That's good stuff. Quite reasonable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2009 : 21:21:28 [Permalink]
|
| The equal-time question is this: should we allow people to marginalize themselves when it comes to issues of national importance (like the selection of a President)? |
I'm not sure guaranteeing equal time is even effective because people will just stop watching when people they don't want to hear are speaking. Not to mention that there may very well be too many people running for president to give equal time before primary elections. I don't think there is a problem about equal time for the few candidates running after the primaries, for the candidates from the two major parties at least. Gripes about the two-party system are another (very valid, I think,) discussion. =)
Which cable companies offer so few options? I had CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/MSNBC/Headline News/CNBC/CSPAN in rural West Virginia, and that's about as far out as you're really going to get in the country. Admittedly, this is really missing an international voice, but I think this selection, available nearly everywhere, is varied enough to give people plenty of options. There are certainly other news outlets that may have less generic coverage, but I don't think they even get very good viewership where they are available.
It does seem a bit of a difficult situation that we cannot easily get judicial reviews and have to take such drastic measures to decide the legality of these things. I suppose there is little point in generating judicial opinions without teeth.
I suppose it is usually fair to assume a good many congressional hearings are a matter of protocol and everyone has calculated what they think they can expect before initiating them. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2009 : 22:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I'm not sure guaranteeing equal time is even effective because people will just stop watching when people they don't want to hear are speaking. |
Just getting people to change the channel may not be such a bad idea in light of data like this, which says that in the 3rd quarter of 2009, Fox News Channel (the basic cable channel, not broadcast) was the #3 basic cable channel overall, only beat out by ESPN and USA. FNC absolutely dominated in the news category, getting all ten of the top-ten most-popular news programs and generally beating MSNBC and CNN combined for viewers. CNBC, Headline News and CSPAN don't even rate a mention in the quarter's summary.
More later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Czar Crazy
