So this looks bad from the get go. That´s if it passes anyways. Could it spread & even effect the internet? If passed will this stifle America´s already low score of freedom of press & push us to that of China?
Apparently a senator is pushing for journalists to get licensing on the bases of “good moral character.” I doubt it ill pass, but I even doubted some other stupid bills from passing so now I wonder how this will spread.
This is basically saying we need permission to have freedom of speech. Any real journalists here have any thoughts on this?
He doesn´t mean a word of this crap. He´s a Republican and is just doing this to stir up his base, who think that when the Big Evil Media isn´t stumping poor Sarah Palin by asking her to name some periodicals she reads, they´re sacrificing babies to Satan.
I could be wrong. Maybe he really is concerned about the "misinformation" in the media, as he told ... um ... Fox News. (http://mediamatters.org/...
But as much as we might think journalist licenses or other such remedies could improve the quality of information out there, ultimately they´d fly in the face of protected free expression.
If this goes through I see journalists taking softer lines to prevent having their licenses pulled - it´s bad enough now with editors trying not to upset major advertisers. That´s a power I don´t want the government to have.
The second issue is that some of the major media organisations are pushing to be allowed to essentially copyright facts. Now as things stand this could bite them in the backside if a news blog beats them to the punch. If journalists are licensed they can probably exclude a lot of these smaller operators and push through with this.
NASA is pissed off Obama broke constitutional law by canceling their funds without congressional approval. I guess the executive branch thought it had more power then it ought to. I´m sure his skills in bending the constitution will work in his favor on this one. He does have a degree in it.
That´s not true. NASA hasn´t said a thing about the funding cut; Rep. Bill Posey, R-Florida, did ... and I wonder why?
He, and only he, accused Obama of violating a provision in a budget bill that says cuts to that specific program have to be approved by Congress. He´s got nobody on his side, not even Republicans, not even Tea Party leaders, which speaks volumes.
He has supported the unconstitutional Patriot Act and the unconstitutional wars we are in. I understand that he didn´t start them, btw. I also understand he has done little of nothing to end them. And then of course there is nationalized health care which I will admit is a point of contention among constitutional scholars.
Of course, all of the above are clearly unconstitutional to me but then I don´t have a P.H.D. from some yuppie school and I haven´t been pre awarded a peace prize so my opinion doesn´t count for shit. ;)
Ben is on Obama´s side on that one, so it´s not like this fact will shed any light on that subject.
How about the whole Obama trying to muscle out, but then just firing the Americorps Inspector General. & all this after the AIG accused an Obama´s friend of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Though this isn´t against the constitution, & the white house even affermed they fired him over the Kevin Johnson/St. HOPE affair, it was against a bill that even Obama supported, which was the president should give congress 30 day notice to congress before taking action, & not a phone call to force someone to drop out of be fired.
But yea, that whole supporting giving the president such power thing is a big one, but your thinking & not fearing, so you just don´t understand BB.
I´m saying what you already know I´m saying, that it´s partisan politics and nothing more.
I´m pointing out that he doesn´t have any allies, even from Obama haters such as Tea Party members, because it suggests that he might be just a bit out on a limb here. I´m not a constitutional lawyer either, but I know that there are constitutional experts among Tea Party allies (yes, I just reinforced my earlier suggestion that members of the Tea Party might actually know things -- is it really *that* surprising I´d say such a thing?).
As far as the Patriot Act and the wars, first of all I agree that the PA flies in the face of the spirit of the Constitution, but I´m not sure that it actually violates the letter of it. And I think that many, many politicians and students of American politics would agree that you don´t typically repeal gigantic pieces of legislation -- you fix them. I, too, would like to see that fixed.
On the subject of the wars, I really can´t think of anything much stupider than the idea of a nation starting two ugly wars, changing leadership and immediately withdrawing forces from both areas out of some blind obedience to the letter of the law without any consideration to the situation they´d be leaving behind -- namely two countries with almost nothing in the way of security forces. About the only thing stupider than doing that would be ... starting the wars (particularly Iraq) in the first place!
We just walked in their we can´t obviously walk out. @_@
If we want peace we need to throw down our weapons & show peace & not through force because we are not thinking when we use force. Force is to show we are stupid at handling situations & can´t think of how to take care of things without it.
Fighting is only making matters worse & if you support beating them down so they can´t retaliate instantly or in the near future your just as stupid. They will retaliate eventually, so why keep digging our grave further.
There is no trying to understand here, just us thinkoing we know what we know, with so much secrets going on in our government which leads them to divisions that we have no part in because they keep so much from us, it´s BS & peace will never come our way.
I can´t wait for a country to come & treat us how we treat the world. & it´s happened before & we cry fowl, fkin hypocrites.
Leaving these "two countries with almost nothing in the way of security forces" is ok being how we entered as they where. The US government shouldn´t be in any buisness at all, especially nation building. The government doesn´t have the money (our money), The majority of Americans want us out of the war now & believe it is not worth the cost. So our elected leaders are supporting something that the majority doesn´t want.
Even Iraq & Afghanistan don´t want us there. The only ones who really want these wars are the war profiteers. These money makers have more power & more sway over Obama then the majority of people who want us out in the states & out. It´s sickening.
There is no excuses that can save face for these wars. Ben I think you trust our government way too much. You allow them to take advantage over your trust, & I can´t think as to why. I guess needless deaths happen from those who are responsible enough to stop it, yet don´t are high up on your list of those who shouldn´t be questioned because their so damn smart, look they are in the government that´s excuse enough to throw blind support.
Criteria: no freaking fringe kissing morons. Why do some get the government out of our lives right wing conservatives, seem only concerned with keeping government out of corporate business lives yet break their butts trying to control every aspect of private lives. That BP needs the freedom to pollute and mega profit at the expense of the citizens is perfectly OK, what happens in bed between two (or more) consenting adults drives them over the edge.
Senator Bruce Patterson you would be hard pushed to qualify for a license.
I´ve always been of the mindset that when you figure out you´re f*cking up, you need to stop f*cking up immediately.
I also understand that we can´t simply close up shop in Iraq and Afghanistan at five o´clock on January 21, 2009.
In the end, we were promised a sixteen month time period for complete withdrawal from these wars. So the way I see it, there should be a surge of incoming troops right now and man how I know these men and women would love to spend Independence Day 2010 with their families and friends.
Don´t you think they deserve that after what they were promised and what they´ve endured?
I don´t know who you know but knowing the people I do right here two miles from Barksdale Air Force Base I can say with certainty there are still a good many young men and women being deployed to these countries for eighteen month tours.
Well obviously I am very passionate about the wars right now so I am just going to drop that issue because I don´t think we will come to any good conclusion of it. That & I am interested in how the journalist licensing would spread if not contained to points & laughter.
The whole you can´t be a journalist unless you have morality, or one that we condone is stepping in the wrong direction for freedom in this country, especially when journalism is such an important part of our society. Obviously there is a lot of responsibility the journalist holds & that they can easily take advantage of their position something like this doesn´t solve any problem, nor would it really do anything accept make it that much harder to become a journalist for those who someone at some moment doesn´t condone.
What is this guy really trying to solve? Is his actions nefarious when it comes to freedom of Press? Will Michigan be stupid enough to follow this guy (they did elect him)?
Would this just boost internet journalism? Rouge journalists who are true to the profession & not to others´ standards. Will Michigan loose a lot of good journalists if passed? Is this parallel to any other countries, & if so which?
BB: I don´t recall any promise to end both wars within 16 months -- if you could show me that, I´d appreciate it. I do agree that we need to get the troops home as soon as possible, but not at the expense of the people whose countries and lives have suffered irreparable damage because of Bush.
@vhan: I think the notion of licensing journalists is a lot like the notion of banning flag burning -- somebody´s almost always talking about it, but nobody´s ever going to follow through. I think they´d basically be unenforcible; someone would refuse to use licensed journalists just to take a stand on the issue (and distinguish his/her media product), and I think it would quickly unravel after that.
Any attempt to license journalists will have to overcome steep legal precedent; I just don´t see it happening.