tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8700897171174652085..comments2024-03-29T06:09:09.845-04:00Comments on the daily howler: CHILDHOOD’S END: The death of a dream!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82513122965234631912020-01-17T08:19:30.646-05:002020-01-17T08:19:30.646-05:00Concerning financial and business news you can buy...Concerning financial and business news you can buy in to a RSS channel. This gets you email alarms on the most recent breaking news in the business and hold division. Driving news channels and reporting working environments have overwhelmed the web.<strong> <a href="https://mediosindependientes.org/" rel="nofollow">medios independientes</a> </strong>nickmiddleton010https://www.blogger.com/profile/16701534760902792410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77580754401660220012012-04-10T21:59:58.622-04:002012-04-10T21:59:58.622-04:00I have nothing insightful or informative to add. ...I have nothing insightful or informative to add. I just wanted to say that I think you've been writing great criticism recently, a notch above even your usual diligence. Keep up the good work!<br /><br />EricAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85575545453447775262012-04-10T14:20:20.258-04:002012-04-10T14:20:20.258-04:00Anon 9:30,
You dismiss far too quickly the change...Anon 9:30,<br /><br />You dismiss far too quickly the change in the broadcast news' political undercurrent since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (and similar legislation around that time). The networks gave FDR all the time in the world for his fireside chats to sell the New Deal. Murrow and Cronkite were hardly corporate stooges. In 1949, CBS covered the proceedings of the United Nations General Assembly. The big three's coverage of the Vietnam War was quite different than our current war coverage.<br /><br />Our government used to hold the broadcasters to the principle that with great power comes responsibility. Hopefully our culture will come to believe that yet again.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5436767147223178372012-04-10T13:42:55.740-04:002012-04-10T13:42:55.740-04:00You know who else disgracefully threatened our dem...You know who else disgracefully threatened our democratic structure:<br /><br />President Warren G. Harding who criticized the Court's overturning of Child Labor Laws and President Reagan (twice) who criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer and abortion and George W. Bush who condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63630421395546486912012-04-10T13:30:14.204-04:002012-04-10T13:30:14.204-04:00There is literally a zero percent chance that OBam...There is literally a zero percent chance that OBama is unfamiliar with Marbury v. Madison. Zero. Instead of pretending he is unfamiliar with that case, maybe you should consider the possibility that he misspoke. The fact that you wont consider that possibility says a lot.<br /><br />His errors re: Lochner were minor and irrelevant.<br /><br />Its clear the president was making 2 points: (1) Striking down this law would be judicial activism of the sort conservatives always complain about and (2) the constitutional basis of the law is very strong and striking it down would be unprecedented. <br /><br />I think Obama can be faulted for misspeaking and I suspect the error was made because he was trying to score political points by using conservative rhetoric.<br /><br />What I find hilarious is that conservatives like you have been whining about "activist judges" for 30 years and republican politicians and presidents (including Saint Reagan) have repeatedly stated that Courts which strike down acts of congress are acting improperly. Conservatives were against Marbury before they were for it. Flip floppers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-37358135518234616262012-04-10T12:30:21.228-04:002012-04-10T12:30:21.228-04:00@Hypo,
We've had close to 60 years of commerc...@Hypo,<br /><br />We've had close to 60 years of commercial broadcast networks in the U.S., and not one has ever promoted working people's interests or told the truth about finance, taxation and American foreign policy.<br /><br />The only real-world choice is between MSNBC as it is -- an ineffective promoter of vaguely liberal or partisan Democratic interests -- or a far more effective promoter of right-wing interests, like Fox. Comcast/GE are not going to pay for a network which informs the public and which would, in turn, call into question their and their advertisers prerogatives, claims of wealth and societal influence. OTOH, they're quite likely -- if the current business model fails -- of aping Fox, as MSNBC used to do.<br /><br />Which is why the fixation here with MSNBC strikes this reader as an enormous waste time, no more rewarding than flagging every lie and idiocy which occurs on Fox.<br /><br />Maybe Bob wants to demonstrate that corporate America is depraved whether it's coverage is nominally right-wing or nominally liberal. But this is hardly news and since corporate America isn't subject to a veto, it's not clear what he's achieving.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15592920561668909542012-04-10T10:28:00.177-04:002012-04-10T10:28:00.177-04:00Anon 1:37-
The reason I believe MSNBC is bad for ...Anon 1:37-<br /><br />The reason I believe MSNBC is bad for the American political landscape is that it follows the sad trail of Democrats being happy with denigrating Republicans, and, importantly, having no complaints about putting their thumbs on the scale to score points against the enemy party. I despise the attitude that the ends justify the means.<br /><br />From the New Deal to the mid 70's the legislation fought for by the Democrats was a very healthy mix of free enterprise and socialism. I agree with Dean Baker and Paul Krugman's economic analyses, and believe that the truth of these positions could be convincingly portrayed. MSNBC ignores the importance of this economic battle.<br /><br />Fox News does two things simultaneously. They belittle liberals, and they put out the drumbeat of unfettered capitalism. They get black eyes all the time for going too far in the former, but the repetition of their other message runs deep. How many take it as an axiom that lower taxes are always good, even when fighting two wars?<br /><br />MSNBC gets the black eyes without the payoff. Where is the propaganda that is metronomically announcing that taxes and spending create a better society? We used to have Democrats out there fighting for urban planning and public transit, unions and living wages.<br /><br />You are correct that this is hard to imagine with the corporate fat cats signing the checks, but by pointing out that these are just bread and circuses, maybe we can regain the belief that it is worthwhile for the government to regulate the amount of political speech large players can enjoy. The ethos of the FCC rules that were in play a few decades ago created in the broadcasters the separation of news and entertainment within their overall structure. These ideas do not need to be abandoned forever.<br /><br />The way MSNBC does business pushes us away from serious political discussion. How and when they do it should be exposed for all to see.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59635599840593536612012-04-10T09:34:53.810-04:002012-04-10T09:34:53.810-04:00For the record, I do believe that Obamacare should...For the record, I do believe that Obamacare should be ruled constitutional. In Roe v. Wade, as I understand it, the part of the decision regarding trimesters was the Supremes creating law from the bench. That part has since been overturned.<br /><br />My main point was supposed to be that very often these larger philosophical legal stances are usually abstract enough that they are just used as flourishes to support one's current side of the debate. Even in Jefferson's and Lincoln's rhetoric. My apologies for lack of clarity.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54714612547225486832012-04-10T09:15:42.259-04:002012-04-10T09:15:42.259-04:00Apples, meet Oranges. Roe v. Wade was not about &q...Apples, meet Oranges. Roe v. Wade was not about "judicial activism." It was an extension of the privacy rights in the Griswold precedent, which held that the decision to take contraceptives rested between a doctor and his/her patient, not the government at any level. <br /><br />Even in this case, there is no argument that governments can compel by law every citizen to buy an insurance product at a prescribed minimum level. State governments do that already with auto insurance, and Romneycare in Massachusetts does it with health insurance.<br /><br />The argument in this case is whether there is sufficient compelling public interest that would permit the federal government to do it under the commerce clause. And I think that the evidence is pretty clear that there is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26362927820946891272012-04-09T16:37:27.068-04:002012-04-09T16:37:27.068-04:00@Hypo
If I read you correctly, you're saying ...@Hypo<br /><br />If I read you correctly, you're saying that if we could only reform MSNBC in unspecified ways then MSNBC would be a full-time left-wing network, untied to the Democratic party?<br /><br />But that can't be right, because MSNBC will never promote a left-wing network..... <br /><br />Or do you want a "fair and balanced" network -- "fair and balanced" being defined as the center between Republicans and Democrats and giving voice to both, but to nobody else? But we've already got that at the networks and PBS, presented with the usual inevitable corporate bias to the right (who's paying the bills, after all?).<br /><br />Meanwhile, you claim to abhor corporate approved messages, and you're worried that MSNBC will affect election results. But how will it adversely affect results? By getting Obama elected? If you hold the views you claim to hold here, surely that's a better result for you than a Republican victory? <br /><br />Or is MSNBC bad because it will work actively against the handful of leftists in the party, in favor of Obama and Democratic centrists? So in your view, MSNBC's main failing is its refusal o promote socialist candidates?<br /><br />Of course of this makes sense. Unless we assume that you're actually critiquing MSNBC from the right, and not from the left as you claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53127421098366656712012-04-09T16:29:09.698-04:002012-04-09T16:29:09.698-04:00What President Obama said was a disgrace, a comple...What President Obama said was a disgrace, a complete disgrace, threatening to our democratic structure. No misspeaking but threatening the Supreme Court justices. Simply disgraceful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25985314841209861382012-04-09T16:23:45.604-04:002012-04-09T16:23:45.604-04:00Wow. A mind-reader AND a constitutional scholar!Wow. A mind-reader AND a constitutional scholar!John Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02637351629319676659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83828796708871606052012-04-09T16:05:13.861-04:002012-04-09T16:05:13.861-04:00The "walking back" was minimal because t...The "walking back" was minimal because the original statement by Obama was about 97% correct as a matter of Constitutional history. There is no good faith argument that the ACA, including the requirement that everyone carry a minimum level of insurance so no one free-rides on everyone else and the risk pool is maximized to keep inurance as inexpensive as possible, is not fully Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The only good faith result is a 9-0 ruling upholding the law. This is not a close case. Any refusal to join in that result is purely political, and a Supreme Court justice has abolutely zero right under the Constitution to invalidate a law based on political views and not on the Constitution itself. <br /><br />It is also "unprecedented" for the entire modern history of the Supreme Court, since the days when everyone agrees a reactionary court was legislating against every intervention by Congress or the states to protect Americans from economic exploitation -- even against laws intended to keep young children out of mines for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. At worst that was a technical inconsistency.urban legendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49891935501601801972012-04-09T16:04:11.328-04:002012-04-09T16:04:11.328-04:00You can't blame judges in every case. Some la...You can't blame judges in every case. Some laws are so poorly written they cannot cover all the possible permutations of violations they are intended to punish.<br />A judge then has to divine the intent of the legislative and executive branches without having been present when the law was debated and finally passed.<br />It is bad lawmaking that often forces judges to become mind readers, not necessarily an ideological bent or simple bias.gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9821458212026081312012-04-09T15:47:51.833-04:002012-04-09T15:47:51.833-04:00Yes, Bob, people did complain about Obama's sw...Yes, Bob, people did complain about Obama's sweeping statement and the notion of judicial review. O'Donnell's point was that those complaints were a ruse, and the real thing they objected to was being called out for their hypocrisy. That's why the statement O'Donnell highlights is different from the statement Obama critics kicked around -- because in his view their complaint was disingenuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60169753880165403792012-04-09T15:20:31.687-04:002012-04-09T15:20:31.687-04:00Be careful when painting with broad strokes about ...Be careful when painting with broad strokes about judicial activism, because I think you just used Jefferson and Lincoln to effectively argue against Roe v. Wade.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55151259189897542242012-04-09T14:59:06.218-04:002012-04-09T14:59:06.218-04:00Anon 10:00,
No, I am worried that MSNBC will beco...Anon 10:00,<br /><br />No, I am worried that MSNBC will become entrenched as a faux opposite, balancing network to Fox News. Thereby making it more difficult to get non-corporate approved messages into the political discussion. Isn't that a bit more likely than your imaginings, all three of which have a strong player with a far leftist perspective.<br /><br />You bring up the DNC, and if I read you right, with disdain. Why don't you think MSNBC is just as much an enemy to the left side of the Democratic party as the DNC is? Don't fool yourself, these networks can be quite powerful, especially at election time.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17018908918486842962012-04-09T14:10:20.293-04:002012-04-09T14:10:20.293-04:00last anonymous was 'the scowler'... not my...last anonymous was 'the scowler'... not my day.the scowlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24158041647103315612012-04-09T14:08:11.681-04:002012-04-09T14:08:11.681-04:00anonymous, i just realized i basically restated so...anonymous, i just realized i basically restated some of what you said. and you said it better in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63239999560186846322012-04-09T14:04:41.238-04:002012-04-09T14:04:41.238-04:00"Stop talking about MSNBC, Bob -- it's ir..."Stop talking about MSNBC, Bob -- it's irrelevant! It has many viewers, you say? Well, *I* don't know any!"Swannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9330978533903068912012-04-09T13:19:40.238-04:002012-04-09T13:19:40.238-04:00both pres. obama and odonnel said or glossed over ...both pres. obama and odonnel said or glossed over things which which were not accurate. but the point they were making more broadly was correct in my opinion.<br /><br />i think obamas goal was to jawbone against judicial overreach in overturning the laws passed by an elected congress. this was the aspect of his remarks which odonnel emphasised to the exclusion of the presidents errors.<br /><br />the president and odonnel are in good company in their apparent anti-judicial review stance.<br /><br /><br />from 'the writings of thomas jefferson':<br /><br />“You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.' <br /><br /><br />also, lincolns first inauural addrress, 10th paragraph from the bottom:<br /><br />http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp<br /><br />but mr. somerby appears uninterested in the bigger picture when theres a chance to nitpick his (ancestral?) enemies while falsely equating msnbc to fox.the scowlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62323452308876484922012-04-09T13:00:26.563-04:002012-04-09T13:00:26.563-04:00@hypo,
So, in a media climate already overwhelmin...@hypo,<br /><br />So, in a media climate already overwhelming controlled by corporate America, including MSNBC, you're worried that in 20 years MSNBC may be as far to the left as Limbaugh is the right? Or that the Democratic party will be all Occupy Wall Street in 20 years and MSNBC will be the reactionary restraining factor -- sort of like the DNC today? Or that MSNBC will be the rabble rouser that gets leftists elected, same as Rush gets the right-wing in office, despite the fact that its corporate parents would never stand for that?<br /><br />In any case, I get it now: Bob dare not let up on MSNBC, even for a single day, because who knows what MSNBC may become, in 20 years? It might even have influence on American public life, by then!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26360598312137187172012-04-09T12:08:15.022-04:002012-04-09T12:08:15.022-04:00There are many who believe, with reasonable argume...There are many who believe, with reasonable arguments, the the judicial branch should only decide if laws that are passed are valid or not, and not create law. I personally believe that there can be situations where it is the only way forward, but the strict reading may be closer to the framers' intent. However, how strong a majority passed a particular law is very flimsy ground, to say the least, to rule a law constitutional.<br /><br />Also, the post calls Tribe the law professor, and Obama his student.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7989711010717124702012-04-09T11:51:56.398-04:002012-04-09T11:51:56.398-04:00Schoolmaster,
As the post alludes to, Rush wasn&#...Schoolmaster,<br /><br />As the post alludes to, Rush wasn't so big back in '88, but because he cultivated a gullible audience, he has become a very powerful figure in the Republican party. Do you want someone from MSNBC to be that sort of spokesman for the Democrats in twenty years?<br /><br />Sadly, the Democratic party is closer to the likes of MSNBC than the OWS movement. I see very little of the ideals of OWS in proposals from elected Democrats, and much of the wealthy's agenda camouflaged in anti-Republican complaints. Just like we see on MSNBC, or read about in the NYT and Washington Post.Hyponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27022569791743922172012-04-09T11:51:14.075-04:002012-04-09T11:51:14.075-04:00Different anonymous here.
Brother, what ridiculou...Different anonymous here.<br /><br />Brother, what ridiculous nitpicking and self-serving misreadings. It's obvious Obama (who, BTW, was not a Constitutional law prof and has never claimed to be) was speaking generally, on broad principles, and in general there's nothing incorrect about his statement. And there's literally nothing in his statements that suggests he is unfamiliar with judicial review. You literally couldn't graduate from law school without knowing about the principle of judicial review.<br /><br />Where was this sort of criticism of Bush's quoted remark? Read his again: "Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting it. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy and it needs to stop."<br /><br />Now, I never took Bush's statement to suggest he really meant that he thought it was illegal for judges to strike down a law; it was routine politicking. But can anyone argue that it's Obama's statement that was the more extreme and dangerous-sounding? Jeez, move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com