|
Post by Mike on Jul 22, 2004 22:02:27 GMT -5
What? No Rondstadt or Raitt comments?
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 23, 2004 7:44:58 GMT -5
mike writes: <What? No Rondstadt or Raitt comments?> Why, what happened? Did they say anything of interest lately? Bill L
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jul 23, 2004 11:12:34 GMT -5
The wonderful Alladin Hotel has struck another blow for censorship. Ms. Ronstat had the audacity to urge people to see F 911 and to vote and the Alladin Hotel threw her out and banned her form performing there in the future. Everyone knows that they are a paragon of virtue, so they choose to strike another blow for censorship.
What is going on in this country? If you express your opinion there is always someone there to try to punish you if your opinion doesn't match thiers. If you go to Vegas don't stay at the unamerican Alladin Hotel.
Keep on Rollin' Peace jashley
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 23, 2004 12:00:52 GMT -5
Jashley says: The wonderful Alladin Hotel has struck another blow for censorship. Ms. Ronstat had the audacity to urge people to see F 911 and to vote and the Alladin Hotel threw her out and banned her form performing there in the future. Everyone knows that they are a paragon of virtue, so they choose to strike another blow for censorship.
What is going on in this country? If you express your opinion there is always someone there to try to punish you if your opinion doesn't match thiers. If you go to Vegas don't stay at the unamerican Alladin Hotel.
Keep on Rollin' Peace jashley This has been a discussion on the HoyHoy digest the last few days. I've also shown an amazing lack of restraint and continued the discussion for much longer than most people can tolerate (on the digest, that is). So here's my take: Freedom of Speech has not only been exercised here, it's triumphed! Ms. Ronstadt was NOT denied her freedom of speech because she was not cut off from her "speech". The audience exercised their freedom of speech (varying reports of which side the majority was on, but that point is moot) by either cheering or booing as they saw fit. The management exercised their freedom of speech by not asking her back (as they are well within their rights to do). And, further more, the owners of the casino (or the potential new owners) have exercised their freedom of speech by dismissing (eventually) the mentioned management and asking her to come back anytime. Lastly, you exercised your freedom of speech by stating that you would never patronize the Aladdin Hotel and Casino. You will find that I'm a very strong supporter of freedom of speech , but that means every side of every issue should enjoy the same freedoms. If you can show me how her freedom of speech was denied, I might agree with you. However, I just don't see that it was. Having said all of that, there's still no excuse for how SOME of the audience reacted (resorting to minor vandalism) and they should (but probably won't) be at least fined. Now, you and I have disagreed throughout this thread, and I know we disagree whether we think her comments should have been made in the first place, but in this case I would have to think that you would agree that this whole incident has been blown WAY out of proportion. I respectfully await any/all comments. Bill L
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 23, 2004 12:05:12 GMT -5
by the way, most of what I just posted are my own words but they were inspired by the discussion on HoyHoy and including some of the arguments used by people like Scott H, Guy V, Ted R, Hankus and a few others (including those who disagree with me). I don't want anyone thinking I'm hijacking their opinions and calling them my own.
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 23, 2004 19:26:02 GMT -5
Bill L, If by chance there is a Don Henley Concert anywhere near you, be sure to go! He is not at all political.
BTW- It is my understanding that due to a "sudden and mysterious" polling of the major newspapers...the comic strip, "Doonsebury" will be canceled in August because of the "many complaints" about its anti Bush & Iraq War scripts.
"while you where sleeping, they came and took it all away..." from the song & record "Inside Job" by Don Henley oops!
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 23, 2004 21:30:27 GMT -5
<I>Mike writes: If by chance there is a Don Henley Concert anywhere near you, be sure to go! He is not at all political.
BTW- It is my understanding that due to a "sudden and mysterious" polling of the major newspapers...the comic strip, "Doonsebury" will be canceled in August because of the "many complaints" about its anti Bush & Iraq War scripts.
"while you where sleeping, they came and took it all away..." from the song & record "Inside Job" by Don Henley oops!</I>
Not a fan of Henley. Not because of the politics, just not a fan. And it sounds like another victory for freedom of speech with Doonsebury. He writes what he wants and people paying for the paper complain. A winner on both fronts. I happen to disagree with the paper for doing it, but they are within their rights. I've never been opposed to different views or opinions being expressed and with Doonsebury, at least, you always knew what the slant would be. It's a loss for the paper, and the readers for that matter. And they'll probably have it back before you know it. And they should because it can be a very funny strip. As always, that's just my opinion and at the end of the day who really cares except me? BTW, there was another walk out at a Ronstadt concert. Varying reports on how many again.
"and it ain't right just because it's in black and white" Deep Purple, "Black and White"
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Jul 24, 2004 10:27:29 GMT -5
Bill ... I tend to agree with your comments about Doonesberry and the exercise of rights by everyone ... Gary Trudeau to say what he wants to say and the papers to choose not to print his material. But ... and this is a very large "but" ... which papers have made that decision? Is it a single paper, serving one community? Is it a "consolidated" chain, serving multiple communities? If the latter, are there viable competitors in the communities affected that can still offer Doonesberry to those who wish to read Trudeau's comments? Or is a large group being denied access to information because a privileged few choose to censor what is available? And what about Gary Trudeau's right to express himself? What "right" is that if his audience is effectively eliminated?
In short, this "freedom of speech" argument is really all about access to information, and who controls that access. The answers to this question appear along a scale (as so many things do), which range from absolute control of access to all information in the hands of a single individual/group/agency to absolutely no control and everything is available to everyone at all times. Everyone has their own range in which they are comfortable, but democracy is NOT a comfortable form of social organization. Comfort and democracy/freedom do not go hand in hand. Every time an Aladdin blacklists someone (for whatever reason) or every time a newspaper refuses to print something, we all move a little closer to the "control" end of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, freedom is not a marketplace value. Either you have it or you don't. A marketplace works best when it is free, and in that respect, the two are related. But Gary Trudeau's freedom to express his opinion (or yours, or mine) is NOT something to be decided by how many people agree with him. If he wishes to make a living expressing his opinion, on the other hand, then marketplace forces DO play an important role in his "freedom" of expression -- you cannot bite the hand that feeds you and expect it to keep feeding you.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 24, 2004 17:59:02 GMT -5
Bill ... I tend to agree with your comments about Doonesberry and the exercise of rights by everyone ... Gary Trudeau to say what he wants to say and the papers to choose not to print his material. But ... and this is a very large "but" ... which papers have made that decision? Is it a single paper, serving one community? Is it a "consolidated" chain, serving multiple communities? If the latter, are there viable competitors in the communities affected that can still offer Doonesberry to those who wish to read Trudeau's comments? Or is a large group being denied access to information because a privileged few choose to censor what is available? And what about Gary Trudeau's right to express himself? What "right" is that if his audience is effectively eliminated?</i>
I don't know enough about which papers (and honestly don't care) but my guess is that, regardless of the instances above, there are plenty of papers in the said market places that would love to have that strip in their paper.
<i>In short, this "freedom of speech" argument is really all about access to information, and who controls that access. The answers to this question appear along a scale (as so many things do), which range from absolute control of access to all information in the hands of a single individual/group/agency to absolutely no control and everything is available to everyone at all times. Everyone has their own range in which they are comfortable, but democracy is NOT a comfortable form of social organization. Comfort and democracy/freedom do not go hand in hand. Every time an Aladdin blacklists someone (for whatever reason) or every time a newspaper refuses to print something, we all move a little closer to the "control" end of the spectrum. </i>
Again, beautifully stated. In many discussions, people overlook essential arguments and tend to start flaming or changing the subject. Democracy is not comfortable. For example, just because I (choose) to get offended by something that you (may) do, does not give me the right to make you stop it. Please read that again and then think of some of the ridiculous law suits that are filed in this country every year because someone is offended by something. Dont look at the small picture, either. Remember, the same freedom of speech that applies to Linda Ronstadt also applies the Nazi Party in US. That is not comfortable, but it is true. And legislating "hate speech" is more an infringement on freedom of speech then not asking a performer to come back to a casino. Again, read it twice. As has been stated by other people, just because it's not comfortable doesn't mean it can't be said.
<i>Unfortunately, freedom is not a marketplace value. Either you have it or you don't. A marketplace works best when it is free, and in that respect, the two are related. But Gary Trudeau's freedom to express his opinion (or yours, or mine) is NOT something to be decided by how many people agree with him. If he wishes to make a living expressing his opinion, on the other hand, then marketplace forces DO play an important role in his "freedom" of expression -- you cannot bite the hand that feeds you and expect it to keep feeding you.
I think you just validated my argument on why it's ok for any newspaper to eliminate his strip. He can voice his opinion and they can voice theirs by discontinuing it. Free market then comes into play if/when people decide to stop buying the newspaper due to the treatment of Trudeau, the politics of the decision or just because the paper sucks in general. That's free market.
I must say this has been a very interesting and educational discussion. But more than anything, I'm pleased to see how it has stayed grounded to the arguments of the discussion and not resorted to name calling and flaming. A hearty Hoy Hoy to all involved. And if I ever meet any of guys at a show, I would be honored to purchase a drink of your choice for you.
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 25, 2004 12:51:27 GMT -5
A hearty Hoy Hoy to all involved. And if I ever meet any of guys at a show, I would be honored to purchase a drink of your choice for you.
Bill L That would "Gentleman Jack & (a little) Seven Up", "Meyers Rum & Tonic", or if Kerry wins...Petrone! What may I get you sir?
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 25, 2004 17:31:16 GMT -5
That would "Gentleman Jack & (a little) Seven Up", "Meyers Rum & Tonic", or if Kerry wins...Petrone! What may I get you sir?
I'll have a Chimay Cinq Cents, Leffe Blond, Hoogarden or any other of the fine Belgian beers that grace this palnet. If not, I'll settle for a tasty stout.
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jul 26, 2004 19:40:26 GMT -5
BillL
First of all I agree that all in this discussion are to be commended for keeping the level of the discussion on a very dignified level. This is not the case in any other discussion thread I have found on the internet. I would be happy to have a drink with any of the participants in this thread as you all appear to be gentlemen, even you Bill, even thoughh we very rarely agree on anything.
This time we are more in agreement than before. Of course the Alladin has the right to not hire Ms. Ronstat in the future and I have the right not to patronize thier casino. However, after I posted my reply I read that the new owners have quickly reversed this decision. It's interesting to note that the old owners ran the casino into the bk courts, could it be that idiot decisions like this one contributed to thier demise.
Also, when I posted the last time I was replying to a question about what happened I was merely stating what happened, admittedly with a little sarcasm thrown in. What I was referring to was not that the Alladin did not have the right to ban Ms Ronstat but to the TONE of the debate in this country. Even in Vegas, where almost anything goes, the knee jerk reaction to anyone with a differant opinion than yours it to try crush them in any way that you can. Even now when I feel this country is in grave danger from the current Admin. I have to defend your right to your misguided views (just kidding) or I would not be defending what this country is built upon.
Can't we be civilized. From what I have read the Alladin not only banned Ms. Ronstat but wouldn't even allow her to return to her room, was she going to hurt the reputation of the Alladin if she took a shower after her show.
Also, we have to be careful that privilages granted by the people, liqour liscenses, gambling licenses, radio licenses, TV licenses are not used to batter free speech. We have to be careful that a free market is really a free market. I don't have time to finish this line of thought just something for you to chew on for next time.
Again, I would be glad to have a drink with any of the people in this discussion if you get to Ohio.
Long Live Free Speech Peace jashley jashley11@hotmail.com
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 27, 2004 7:54:04 GMT -5
J writes: First of all I agree that all in this discussion are to be commended for keeping the level of the discussion on a very dignified level. This is not the case in any other discussion thread I have found on the internet. I would be happy to have a drink with any of the participants in this thread as you all appear to be gentlemen, even you Bill, even thoughh we very rarely agree on anything.
I say: True, there are a lot of rabble rousers on the net. Even truer that it's a relief to have a discussion like this (here, even) without resorting to bullshiat.
J says: This time we are more in agreement than before. Of course the Alladin has the right to not hire Ms. Ronstat in the future and I have the right not to patronize thier casino. However, after I posted my reply I read that the new owners have quickly reversed this decision. It's interesting to note that the old owners ran the casino into the bk courts, could it be that idiot decisions like this one contributed to thier demise.
Bill concurs: That may very well be why those owners ran it into the ground. It is, however, their decision to run their business as they wish. Free market will almost always win out. If you can provide better products, service at better (or reasonable pricing) then there is no reason why your company shouldn't prosper.
J says: Also, when I posted the last time I was replying to a question about what happened I was merely stating what happened, admittedly with a little sarcasm thrown in. What I was referring to was not that the Alladin did not have the right to ban Ms Ronstat but to the TONE of the debate in this country. Even in Vegas, where almost anything goes, the knee jerk reaction to anyone with a differant opinion than yours it to try crush them in any way that you can. Even now when I feel this country is in grave danger from the current Admin. I have to defend your right to your misguided views (just kidding) or I would not be defending what this country is built upon.
Bill says: We defer on this issue and that's fine. This country wasn't founded by a lovefest in Philly. It was founded on various ideas that were hammered out and voted on and they took (in their view) the best of the best ideas and wrote the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And I happen to agree with what they wrote and I still think it is a valid document. There is no denying that this country is split down the middle. That, in my view, is better than a landslide. That's when you get into trouble and end up with a real "regime". Also, there's nothing wrong with sarcasm. My whole life has been based on sarcasm!
J says: Can't we be civilized. From what I have read the Alladin not only banned Ms. Ronstat but wouldn't even allow her to return to her room, was she going to hurt the reputation of the Alladin if she took a shower after her show.
Bill says: I think we've already established (from published reports) that they overreacted. However, let's play devil's advocate for second. Were there any threats to Ms Ronstadt? Could they have possibly feared for her safety (or, for that matter, the safety of others in the hotel/casino) or for their property if they didn't get her out of there? Probably not, but we don't know the whole story. Maybe Paul Harvey can fill us in.
J says: Also, we have to be careful that privilages granted by the people, liqour liscenses, gambling licenses, radio licenses, TV licenses are not used to batter free speech. We have to be careful that a free market is really a free market. I don't have time to finish this line of thought just something for you to chew on for next time.
Bill says: There are those that believe, with a valid argument I might add, that the requirement of licenses for liquor sales, gambling, radio, TV are a violation of free speech. How do you know that the reason you didn't get that broadcast license is because someone along the red tape didn't like you/your point of view/ your wife/husband/kids/dog? Why should the government control who gets a license? Isn't the air (above a certain point) everyones? That's also the discussion regarding satellite transmissions and people have been succesful in that defense. Free market really isn't all that free in some instances. Am I saying all regulation is bad? Absolutely not. Is the government being involved always bad? Mostly. They can screw up just about anything at 100 times the cost and come up with a pile of shiat.
J says: Again, I would be glad to have a drink with any of the people in this discussion if you get to Ohio.
Bill says: If I ever make it out there, we will most certainly enjoy a chilled adult beverage (or 6), crank some Feats and (I'm very sure of this) laugh our arses off.
Until later, Bill
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Jul 27, 2004 8:18:24 GMT -5
It's not difficult to have a rational discussion when the discussants are rational. I must admit, however, that I have engaged in less than civil discourse on certain (unnamed) listserves. I would hope that in most cases I was provoked, and ultimately was able to either walk away from the conversation or to rise above the random tossing of slurs. I guess this implies that I have not always TEXT been successful [hee hee ]. I tipped my glass of Glen Moray in a generally eastward direction last night to honor all who have offered me a drink, and will gladly cozy up to a bar anywhere I run into any of you. To Bill, let me add one last comment. You argued [and here I paraphrase] that there are probably other newspapers in any market area that would be happy to carry a Doonseberry strip if one owner decided not to carry it. In a truly competitive and open marketplace, this might be the case. Unfortunately, we live in a time of concentrated ownership (and not just of media ownership), and "competition" just doesn't quite work as well as it used to. As a result, it is less and less likely that a controversial idea will see the light of day. The Federal Communications Commission (which, surprisingly, is comprised of just 5 individuals -- three Republicans and two Democrats) is currently holding a very limited series of "public forums" in order to gauge the pulse of Americans about concentrated ownership and its affect on local coverage. These hearings are designed to assist the FCC as it attempts to redefine what percentage of the marketplace it is permissible for mega-operators to control, since its last effort was rebuffed both by the Congress (30,000,000 Americans wrote to protest relaxed rules for ownership -- i.e., more stations and papers owned by fewer people) and the courts. Two hearings have been held so far -- one in Denver and one in Monterey, California (which I attended). The Republican chair of the FCC, Michael Powell (who called and scheduled the meetings) has been "unable" to attend either of them. A second Republican member also has been a no-show at both hearings. About five more are scheduled. These hearings are quite important. I went because my favorite local radio station -- KPIG -- has been struggling under broadcast restrictions placed on it by the FCC (free and unregistered access to its internet stream was the last issue), and by threats of format change to the station by its non-local corporate owner (which owns a series of automated "classic rock" stations across the western states). During the hearing, I learned (amongst other things) that during the three weeks leading up to the March Primary elections, the four major networks in the Monterey Bay area (really, only three, since both the Fox and the CBS channels share a studio and often you see the same anchor on newsbroadcasts by both stations) each offered the following average amount of time (per 1/2 hour news broadcast) of topics related to the election: KTVU (FOX from SF): and average of 1 minute and 43 seconds KSBW (NBC): an average of 1 minute and 14 seconds ABC7 (ABC from San Jose): an average of 57 seconds KION (CBS): 43 seconds KCBA (FOX): 37 seconds Now, there are certainly more important news items to cover during an election than the political issues on which we should be informed ... sports and weather certainly need their daily 2-3 minutes, we need to keep track of how many people were murdered or robbed or killed in car wrecks, we need a few seconds of fire and charred buildings from whichever foreign folly in which we are engaged as part of the comprehensive 30 second coverage of "news of the world", and all the other inane stuff that passes for "news" to fill out the 30 minutes that is left after a liberal mix of about 8-10 minutes of advertising. I DO understand how commercial television works, and why it is "free" (unless I subscribe to a cable or dish service) ... I just bring this up because truly open marketplaces and competitive news coverage should be a hallmark of a democracy. There is so much we COULD be doing, and so little that we are, because of concentrated ownership and a lack of competition. Now, gotta go out the door. Peace
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jul 27, 2004 19:51:25 GMT -5
Scott
Thanks for bringing up the new FCC regs. If you read farther up the thread you'll see that I have been railing against these for some time. If you go to PBS.org and the program "The Day the MUsic Died" they have a link to inform you about these regs. Also, MichaelMoore.com has a link form thier home page where you can both be informed and sign a petition protesting these fascists regs. You can go there too BillL even if you disagree with Mr. Moore it won't hurt you to consider some of his ideas. After all I do watch Fox sometimes.
I have seen F 9/11 now and it basically covers ideas Moore has had in his books in the past. Again even if you don't agree with him it will at least give you an insight to what and why some hate Bush and his gang as they do. By the way the two so-called errors in the film, that the Bin Laudin family flew out when the airlines were shut down, the fillm clearly shows that they flew out on the 13th and the film makes clear that they were given a quick superficial interview, Also, he makes clear that one congressman has a family member in Iraq. Both so-called errors have been repeated ad nauseum by his critics, they must not have watched the movie. The movie does have a clear paoint of view. But no one yet has been able to point out any factual errors. Also, it is not so one sided that it doesn't place substantial blame at the democrats door step. See the movie. Let's argue.
Peace jashley
|
|