Public Reality Radio :: Faith and Reason

I am not quite as shameless at self promotion as some, and probably need to do more.  Bill Freeman and I host a weekly call-in radio program which you can find here:

Public Reality Radio :: Faith and Reason

Two hours of largely, ok mostly, unscripted stuff from the loop left and and other fun regions of faith and politics.  It happens most Fridays at 10am Eastern Time (yes we are still in the eastern time zone here.)  Even on Fridays we are not live, we are rebroadcast and if you clicked on the link above you know you can listen online, through your computer.  Heck, WPRR 1680 also has an Iphone app.  You can listen there too.

Why?  I hear people moaning about all the conservative media attention, and yes there is Rachel and Keith and Bill and even Jon, but none of them let you be part of the show. 

Except us. 

You want Occupy Radio?  We got it.  Or better, “You are it.”  Our best times are provided by listeners who ask questions, provoke us, or just want some answers. 

“Mr. Know It All” (the Bullwinkle character not the Kelly Clarkson song) would be me, and I have clarified all sorts of questions theological and historical. 

Mad Max (that would be Bill) love to play the flame thrower which has me saying “Well, what Bill is trying to say is…”  

Worth dropping in.  Should I send you a reminder?

Why Politics is Messed Up

Everybody wants to know why national politics is so bad, and almost everyone agrees that money is a big part of it.  But even if money is the problem, no one is asking how it got that way. 

Then, a few days ago I happened upon an article in either the NYTimes or the Washington Post that detailed how much influence college football has over the colleges where they play it, especially Division 1 schools  Now I can’t find it but after searching, this one squib will hint at it: Increases in Television Money Boost College Football Coaching Salaries – Forbes

College Football seeks money tor the same reason politics seeks money – influence.  And in America influence comes through your TV.  Politicians get elected by advertising, and the more they advertise the more likely they will be elected.  Gov. Romney won Florida because of his advertising as much as anything else.  By one account, The LA Times, TV is the dominant persuasive force.

You spend money to get votes (or viewers in the case of college football) and getting said votes or viewers makes you powerful.  That in turn requires even more money to stay there.  Those who are successful are rewarded with elected office or lucrative contracts. 

Sport and politics are a means to another end, power.  And once power is obtained, money keeps you there. 

This was always true, but until the advent of cable TV it was limited to a few outlets – NBC, CBS, ABC, and a rag tag of UHF stations.  Once cable TV came, and with it more news stations and more channels and a more scattered audience, the places college football teams could be televised and politicians could advertise exploded. 

The problem is not money, but the desire for TV time.  And with cable or satellite companies now offering hundreds of stations the market is virtually infinite.  That’s why only the campaign with the most money can hope to win, because TV is the way people get their political ideas and only those who can saturate TV can hope to prevail.

But there is hope.  Instead of limiting money, which is (according to the courts) a form of speech, let’s limit the time available to advertise.  Who says TV stations must sell as much time as someone wants to buy? 

Yes, I know about the market.  But let’s not confuse the market with the forum.  Political advertising is like a candidates forum, and when you go, one candidate cannot do all the talking, right?  If four candidates showed up and one claimed the right to do all the talking we would say that isn’t fair.  How can we choose when only one gets to speak?  Or one gets to do most of the talking? 

Democracy demands that we give all voices an equal chance to be heard so people can make a reasonable choice.  I say, let’s limit the amount of TV political advertising because broadcasters (even cable ones who still send their signals through the air before they get to you) are licensed to broadcast because the airways are publicly owned. They must limit the amount they sell and cannot sell more than a portion of that to any one candidate. 

We rightly call it corruption when politicians use public goods for private and partisan advantage.  TV and radio and the internet are public byways, essential to the working of democracy.  When any one person or party effectively controls them, that is corrupt. 

I’m all verklempt from my birthday yesterday.  Discuss!

Your Heard It Here First…

Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary - NYTimes.com 

Did you read what I wrote yesterday? 

I feel like the cartoon guy in a long robe and beard holding a sign. 

How Time Flies

 

So, it’s been a busy time all right.  That and my New Year’s Resolution to keep a diary has taken up some of that time.  Still, I owe you some thoughts from time to time, and how could I resist this: Newt Gingrich slams John King for question on ex-wife (2:01) - The Washington Post. 

You already heard about it, of course, but did it strike you as weird that the truly despicable fellow got an ovation for calling the reporter despicable?  I know that ‘the best defense is a good offence,’ but this was breathtaking.  It ranks up there with the fabled definition of ‘chutzpah’ as killing your parents and asking for mercy because you’re an orphan. 

Some years back an acquaintance recommended a book, “The Sociopath Next Door.”  I think Newt is a sociopath.  He is intelligent, focused, passionate and other interesting things.  But people are merely means to ends, tools to be used, perhaps toys to be enjoyed.  (See Kant’s Second Formulation)

When it comes to caring about something, he is the only one in that universe.  In some ways, now that I think about it, that may make him the incarnation of American conservatism. 

'We're going to take back America' -

Isn’t that we are always hearing?  Ok, not always, but often enough to be recognizable.  According to the the Dubuque Telegraph Herald the razor thin victor, Gov. Mitt Romney: says 'We're going to take back America.’

From whom or what? 

The current president is whom, and by extension all those who voted for him.  Romney’s words, but not only his, essentially say I stole America, and all my fellow unamerican americans.  When Romney says he and his should ‘take back America’ he means my politics are illegitimate. I and mine are bad, he and his are good.

I have heard that sentiment from lots of the candidates.  It seems a very common notion out there in Republican land.  But if you Google ‘take back America,’ you get as many left wing as right wing sites.  So this is not a one sided phrase. 

Lots of people think other people have stolen the country.  What is bothering me is that the logical consequence of saying this is to declare that folks who disagree with you are not your fellow citizens at all.  This phrase is semantically equivalent to saying, “I am a true American, and you are not.” 

Why doesn’t anyone question this language and its implications?  Yes, I know about rousing the base and all that, but at what cost?  Must we demonize the other party to win elections? 

And we wonder why we are so polarized.