Doomed All of us who were opposed to Barak Obama's nomination and subsequent election to the US Presidency knew all this stuff before he was elected. We knew that he had made a deal with Micahel Moore to shut up. Moveon.org to shut up. That his apparent moderate stances did not jive with everything he had been, stood for or was in his life up to his run for election. The silence on the far left was deafening. It was so very apparent that a deal had been struck. The deal was simply shut up till after the election and then Ill take care of you. Well now we are seeing what that means. I have to marvel at how masterfully the moderates were duped into electing this guy to the White House. Now for my disclaimer. I dont believe Obama is a communist. I do believe he is a socialist...which is not a bad thing...its not a crime to be a socialist. Some of our best friends in Europe are socialists. It would not surprise me in the least if he came out one day and said Im a socialist. America is essentially 1/2 socialist right now. Obama and the far left simply want to finish the transformation. Who wins the coming debates determines Americas future and I believe that whole heartedly.

Jay_C You're right, It's time for him to go... Yeah, Beck has been talking about this guy’s as well (about Chavez and the how he “handled those pesky rich media owners”… how his agenda goes WAY beyond the fairness doctrine.) Also, he mentioned how Obama wouldn’t be lying if he supported Marks’ idea… Obama said he wouldn’t go for a “fairness doctrine”… Yet, Mark’s idea is a completely different set of radical means to meet a much more radical end. Great Article… http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,544162,00.html

Jay_C Right Doomed, we are starting to see more and more buyers remorse.. These are either stupid, mindless choices (horrible, horrible vetting process).. The list is mounting..or purposeful choices (not sure which one is worse)..Either way not a coincidence.. Obama should be *making the case for his / their agenda*, rather than trying to sneak these czar's agenda's past us. And the media is covering it up, hoping we don't notice. I like Obama personally..from what I know..good father, husband, etc.., but I *severely* dislike his politics.

Michael Merritt What, no "R" word? I'll do it for you, then: Racist! And I'm being quite serious.

Anonymous Finally I found the link to download the session that Mr. Lloyd spoke at, Media Reform and Social Change. http://www.freepress.net/node/41323 Listen to this mp3, Mark Lloyd speaks first (they rearranged the schedule) and only for about 19 minutes and 15 seconds. My comments below are from quick notes and while substantially accurate are not exact quotes. The bit in question happens right around 14 mins in. He speaks of how in Ruwanda one group took over the state radio and used it to help incite genocide. Then he goes on to speak of Chavez and how his revolutions failed until he too took control of the media. Then he talks about how during the lead up to the Iraq war how the US media were not sheep as some had said, but were beating the drum to war. It is clear when you listen to it that Mr. Lloyd is not a fan of Chavez, but was using him as an example like Ruwanda and Iraq media hype to illustrate the power the media the media has over the people.

Jay_C Anonymous, regardless of who you seem to think he is/ is not a fan of.. whe know that: 1) Lloyd said white people had to be removed from powerful positions in the media “to give minorities a fairer chance” 2) That he said: What we're really saying is that the *Fairness Doctrine's not enough*. And that having a sort of over-arching rule that says broadcasters ought to be "fair" or ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply enough. Unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard, structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness. The Chavez thing just falls in line with his thoughts above... Even if he doesn't like Chavez, his mindset on the media is the same…to forcefully take it from the "haves" and give it to someone else... be that the government, or the little guy... The means of doing it would be different…Lloyd would make the rules so strict, it would make it impossible for companies to operate…they would go bankrupt, and therefore would force them out of business. A more “subtle” and “civil” method, but the same “radical ends” as Chavez would be attained. As Van Jones said…. "I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

Anonymous Hi Jay_C For #2 I guess you are referring to this article entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine" ... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/lloyd_fairness.html which in turn is about this paper “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf I like giving the links and encourage people to listen and read because all to often you are responding to a few short quotes taken out of context. I will rather poorly summarize the two papers. In “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” the basic premise is that there is an imbalance in the coverage of political talk radio. Since deregulation large corporate entities such as Clear Channel have been able to purchase a much larger number of stations in the past. This leads to homogenized content that represents that organization more than the local community. (Compare this to the similar affect that Wal-Mart can have on small local retailers.) To give you some idea of the scale we are talking, Clear Channel owns the stations in this list or more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadcast_stations_owned_by_Clear_Channel The paper goes on to talk about what can be done suggesting: Restoration of local and national station ownership caps Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. I think the reason this is getting so much attention, and in turn Mark Lloyd, is because the vast majority of political talk radio is conservative, 91% to 9% in the study done in the paper, and any change is perceived as a threat to conservative talk radio. In terms of the "white people" quote I think the actual quotes were... "There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions," he said. "And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." I believe these are from the mp3 I posted earlier and would suggest you listen to the entire talk rather than just snippets.

Jay_C No Anon, Here is the actual paper… http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf you (may have just miss-copied and pasted, so I won’t hold that against you) But no again, my comments inline, within parenthesis(()): In “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” the basic premise is that there is an imbalance in the coverage of political talk radio. ((Because nobody listens to progressive radio on the public airwaves…I.E. Air America tried, and failed,the only one that has any listeners is NPR.. and that is Government Funded, so it can put out crappy content and stay around)) …Since deregulation large corporate entities such as Clear Channel have been able to purchase a much larger number of stations in the past, ((yup, because they carry content that folks listen to, and in turn have advertisers that pay them a bunch of money for them to buy up other stations to put make other stations good as well)) This leads to homogenized content that represents that organization more than the local community. ((Booo-Hooo…Should we talk about breaking up the NYTIMES owning the Boston Globe, and the rest of it’s media empire…Oh no, that is ok in your book, right?)) (Compare this to the similar affect that Wal-Mart can have on small local retailers.) To give you some idea of the scale we are talking, Clear Channel owns the stations in this list or more. ((Again.. should we talk about the NYTIMES?)) The paper goes on to talk about what can be done suggesting: Restoration of local and national station ownership caps Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. ((These last two get perilously close to the use of “localism” to silence conservative radio stations, about which part of what our criticism is all about Anon!!)) I think the reason this is getting so much attention, and in turn Mark Lloyd, is because the vast majority of political talk radio is conservative, 91% to 9% in the study done in the paper, and any change is perceived as a threat to conservative talk radio…. ((Yup, since the progressives can’t compete they want to change the rules…simple as that..and this is a sneaky way to do it..)) In terms of the “white people” quote I think the actual quotes were… “There’s nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions,” he said. ((Yeah, he is saying.. It’s such a shame…We don’t want to do it… but…sigh...for the greater good, well, we’ll have to... You don’t see anything wrong with that??)) “And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.” ((Forcing diversity..for the sake of “fariness” is never the answer …Whatever your color is, if you have a message I want to hear, and you are on radio, I will listen If you are talking about something I don’t care about, I won’t listen..)) I believe these are from the mp3 I posted earlier and would suggest you listen to the entire talk rather than just snippets. ((I heard all these comments in full context Anon.. Your attempt at revisionist history hasn’t changed the facts…The liberals have TV, and print media… Now they need to go as far as changing the rules so they can elbow their way into radio too?? Sorry, but present a message Americans want to hear, and perhaps we will listen, otherwise, go play somewhere else))

Anonymous Hi Jay_C I copied and pasted both our links and the look identical, maybe you were comparing the first link and not the pdf? You don't have to worry about bringing up the NY Times, I think that when things turn monopolistic it doesn't matter whether they are conservative or liberal we all stand to lose. I don't think that this should be illegal, but like zoning laws and other regulations on business, I do think it should be scrutinized and if needed subject regulation. The paper does discuss the liberal vs. conservative content question. "This argument is misleading on numerous fronts. Although talk radio audiences tend to be more male, middle-aged, and conservative, research by Pew indicates that this audience is not monolithic—43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate.16 The ideological breakdown of the country as a whole during this same period was very similar—36 percent conservative, 21 percent liberal, and 35 percent moderate. It is difficult to argue that the existing audience for talk radio is only interested in hearing one side of public debates given the diversity of the existing and potential audience." I know that localism has become the code word for stations having content forced on them, but that doesn't appear to be the intent. I don't know that Clear Channel revenue is tied to selling advertising in a particular local market, I suspect you get more national buys. So the question would be if the local population of a given area is being served if the station is paid for from a national budget. You seem to recognize these same issue in other media, print, TV, but if the show is on the other foot they seem unreasonable. Personally I think there has to be some regulation. Mr. Lloyd seems a reasonable pick for a democratic administration, he is not a screaming liberal Van Jones or Reverend Wright. Is he who a Republican administration, I am sure not, but I am sure their time will come. Diversity will take place if for no other reason that the changing demographics.

Jay_C Sorry, you were right about the cut and paste.. The paper does discuss the liberal vs. conservative content question. Yes, I saw that ... but once again... this doesn't address the point that since the progressives can’t compete, they want to change the rules in their favor…under the ruse of "fairness"... Right? You can't actualy expect me to belive this is just a coincidence.. "It is difficult to argue that the existing audience for talk radio is only interested in hearing one side of public debates given the diversity of the existing and potential audience.” Oh,sorry if you misunderstood, I never aluded to that that at all! I said progressives that support Lloyds proposals want to squash conservative viewpoints... In fact, I am eager to hear other viewpoints.. But that doesn't change the fact that these radio broadcasting companies are private businesses that should be able to say what they want, hire who they want, fire who they want, take money from who they want and etc...(within existing regulations)... There is no reason to change the rules... Other than the internet, radio is the last megaphone of any conservative thought.... For this reason, and the fact that radio outlets like Air america have failed over the airwaves is why this progressive administration wants to change the rules a-la Mark Lloyd. I guess this will drive my point home......look at TV, there is FOX news for the 99% of the conservative view.. that's it.. all the others slant liberal.. why did Lloyd pick Radio vs news, TV, etc.. why radio?? why not TV, balance the scales there that seems to need it more.. I think, it is becuase it is, as I said above the progressives can't compete... and they want this for themseves to...They want it all. I brought up the New York times as an example to show that you had a double standard. I never said I was against their being able to do what they are doing. It is not a Monopoly, but it is no different that what you are suggesting about radio.. "I know that localism has become the code word for stations having content forced on them, but that doesn’t appear to be the intent" There is at the very least a grain of truth in what you say about localism... Regardless of Initent on it's face, I have learned not to go on that anymore.. and ask questions to find out for sure... And the way this guy wants to run things doesn't give me a warm fuzzy..

Anonymous "But that doesn’t change the fact that these radio broadcasting companies are private businesses that should be able to say what they want, hire who they want, fire who they want, take money from who they want and etc…(within existing regulations)… There is no reason to change the rules…" -- Jay_C The problem then is the regulations. With the Telecommunication Act of 1934/1996 the Federal government has more control than you describe. From Mark Lloyd's "Forget the Fairness Doctrine"... "Unlike newspapers and movies and blogs and cable channels, the federal government gives commercial broadcasters a free license to use public property—the airwaves. There are still more people who want these licenses than the government is able to satisfy. In exchange for this very valuable and scarce license, and federal protection against “pirate” (unlicensed) radio operators, broadcasters are supposed to operate in the public interest." and from the Telecommunications Act... "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act." "SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES. (a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage." So part of the problem is that historically radio has been treated more like your ISP than your favorite website, it has been more regulated more as a public utility. Another example of a similar situation is net neutrality. So currently the pendulum has swung more to the corporate "big content" side and away from the more locally responsible media, that is responsible to their audience. To me neither extreme is the solution, but rather some balance in between. I don't see the problem as liberal or conservative, but rather the amount of media control in the hands of fewer and larger corporations, again when taken to an extreme, a potentially bad thing.

Jay_C All the telecommunications act snippet you copied there says is that there should not be discrimination (as far as I am aware there is not) "I don’t see the problem as liberal or conservative" I don't either, but I think Lloyd does, that is another beef I have with him. "So part of the problem is that historically radio has been treated more like your ISP than your favorite website, it has been more regulated more as a public utility. Another example of a similar situation is net neutrality." I think it should be regulated more like an ISP as long as it serves the public (which it does), and doesn't discriminate (which it doesn't). Speaking of ISP's, that brings to mind the other Czar... Cass Sundstien, that wants have increased regulation of the interenet and a new bill that would give Obama the authority to shut down the internet during an "emergency"... But that is another subject.. But yet it is another person that President surrounds himself with that has ideas way outside the manstream.

Anonymous I would hope you would agree that whenever a single or small group of entities control any industry it is worth keep an eye on, entities including government, industry, political parties, religious groups, etc. In terms of S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009 I think the area of may objection is in regards to the responsibilities and authority of the president. "(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;" "(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks." Most people seem fine with the president's control over the Federal Government's systems or networks, the issue seems to be with the "critical infrastructure information system or network" clause. I suspect that the wording will be tightened up before it moves out of committee, but the key is that in either case the system or network has to already be "compromised" implying that it is threatening other systems or networks. I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim this gives the president power over the entire Internet.

Jay_C "I would hope you would agree that whenever a single or small group of entities control any industry it is worth keep an eye on, entities including government, industry, political parties, religious groups, etc." Keep an eye on? yes...That is our job as citizens.. but when a very few decide it is time to "change the rules", I keep an eye on that too... (hence my position on this issue) As far as Sundstien and the cybersecuity act? You said.."I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim this gives the president power over the entire Internet." True, but look at what happened in Iran with his attempt to shutdown their internet access to the outside world. I' am not saying this president would do that, but I would want to know how I would be effected.. Look at all these things together Anon.. It is a pattern of more and more Government control over things that most moderate Americans are not for.. And the fact that folks like Beck, Malkin, and Breitbart have to be the ones that shed sunlight on these issues so they CAN be debated is worrisome... Where is the rest of the Media on these issues....Heck, where is the Administration? Why can't they send someone on these folks shows to perform intervews to allow more sunlight onto these issues? They wont. They ignore Beck, Malkin, and Breitbart's questions, and that is worrisome as well. They are not asking unreasonable questions.

Anonymous "You said..”I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim this gives the president power over the entire Internet.” True, but look at what happened in Iran with his attempt to shutdown their Internet access to the outside world. I am not saying this president would do that, but I would want to know how I would be effected.." I don't think we can equate what happened in Iran to a much more hypothetical worst case scenario in the US. I find it hard to imagine something similar (political) happening in the US that would result in the draconian methods similar to those applied. In the US you would probably be more successful at either infecting a larger number of computers or convincing people there was such a virus and not to connect to the Internet. I still doubt these would be that successful, especially over time. We are quite the nation of geeks. When I look at a lot of what is going on, NEA, ACORN, TEA Party, Czars, the Obama singing, etc, I keep seeing things that also tend to either attack Democrats or promote Republicans. If you think that Glenn Beck, Breitbart, etc, really want the "fringe" media covering this I think in some ways you are mistaken. At the moment they have an exclusive scoop, just look at Fox's current ratings. So you have a bit of a dichotomy where these groups want the stories covered to widen the exposure, and yet the media outlets benefiting from it are enjoying the exclusivity and the chance to deem the rest of the media the fringe. With the TEA party I don't see much they are protesting that isn't basically anti-Obama. Even when they speak against bigger government I don't see them attacking things like warrantless wiretapping, the DMCA, the federal spending that went on pre-Obama. Also with the founding roots in FreedomWorks and American Liberty Alliance it is a little hard to believe they are a non-partisan group. I do think it makes sense to investigate these things and to explore the relationships, but you also have to keep in mind the agendas of those behind things on any side.

Jay_C "I don’t think we can equate what happened in Iran to a much more hypothetical worst case scenario in the US." Why build a system like a deck of cards? Why not build a fortress instead? Sure, so long as the winds are low, you are right, we are fine…. But do you know what the future holds? This is the same mentality that brought our financial sector to its knees... Believing “that would never happen”…well, “it” did. That should be a lesson to us in all our endeavors to think of the worst case, and plan for it. The old adage… “Plan for the worst, hope for the best” still applies. You are suggesting we build the deck of cards, and cross our fingers. “When I look at a lot of what is going on, NEA, ACORN, TEA Party, Czars, the Obama singing, etc, I keep seeing things that also tend to either attack Democrats or promote Republicans. If you think that Glenn Beck, Breitbart, etc, really want the “fringe” media covering this I think in some ways you are mistaken. At the moment they have an exclusive scoop, just look at Fox’s current ratings”’ Well, that contradicts what they are saying… Did you see the episode of Beck where he held u a picture of a Pulitzer, an challenged the other media outlets to get on some of what he was dredging up? Beck has attacked Republicans too. McCain was his latest… did you happen to see his interview with Kuric last week? “With the TEA party I don’t see much they are protesting that isn’t basically anti-Obama. Even when they speak against bigger government I don’t see them attacking things like warrantless wiretapping, the DMCA, the federal spending that went on pre-Obama. Also with the founding roots in FreedomWorks and American Liberty Alliance it is a little hard to believe they are a non-partisan group.” Well, because you weren’t looking for it.. Groups like citizens against government waste (a participant in the tea parties) Like him or hate him, Ron Paul (another piece of the tea party movement) These have all been around before Obama was in office. Look up C.A.G.W. they have been around for a while. It is just that now more people are getting on board with the teaparty movement. “I do think it makes sense to investigate these things and to explore the relationships, but you also have to keep in mind the agendas of those behind things on any side.” I can’t control what you choose to not want to look into. But I do have a question.. Were you in favor of looking into warrantless wiretapping, the DMCA, the federal spending pre-Obama? If so, where are you now with similar complaints under Obama (the ones I have mentioned above) if not, what DO you think should have been, or should be looked into now?

Anonymous Not quite sure what you mean by building a system like a deck of cards, I read this as house of cards, if that is incorrect let me know. The system is already out there in terms of the Internet I don't think we will see any huge changes to the Internet infrastructure to facilitate the president seizing control. Let's take the worst case scenario to date, 9/11. Would it have made sense for the president to "order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;”? On the contrary at that point I think we needed the Internet as one of the means of getting information out to people to help them take appropriate steps and also to avoid unnecessary panic. Did it make sense to ground all the air traffic? Yes, at that point we had no idea if all the possible hijacked planes had been discovered or if their might be a second wave of attacks. I think the key is to eliminate the vector of the threat, so while a bill giving the president the authority to ground all air traffic might be attacked with the same concerns as S.773, I would hope that you can see in some sort of cyberattack the compromised networks or computers could represent a threat as dangerous as the planes in the air on 9/11. I hadn't watched the Glenn Beck Katie Couric interview so I found it online and watched it. I will say I find Glenn Beck more understandable minus the more theatrical aspects of his Fox program. I still think at some level Mr. Beck is motivated by his ratings (as are all others in his profession). I think the ACORN video provided him a scoop and while he might chide the MSM for not picking it up faster, I think he was enjoying his highest ratings at the time. I looked up the CAGW and found they had accepted donations from Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil. I would agree that the older TEA party groups are probably more true to their core causes whereas I think now the more mainstream Republicans see the TEA parties as (to borrow a phrase) fired up and ready to go, and they want to tap into that energy. I think in 2012 it will be interesting to see if we have a TEA Party candidate or at least one that is true to core TEA Party principles and not a hanger-on. In terms of the Patriot Act, DMCA, I think all of them should be reviewed. I think any measures like that are extremely dependent on what threats we face at the time. In all cases it is a balancing act between personal freedom and national security, as well as the effectiveness of the individual measures.

Jay_C "Not quite sure what you mean by building a system like a deck of cards, I read this as house of cards, if that is incorrect let me know. The system is already out there in terms of the Internet I don’t think we will see any huge changes to the Internet infrastructure to facilitate the president seizing control." >You are correct, house of cards, so I'll re-ask, why not build a fortress instead? It seems illogical to hope that a despot of sorts may not come into power in the future. I'm not sure if these ad-hoc powers we just hand to presidents are even constituional? The Patriot act is another one I wish would be repealed in some fashion. "Most people seem fine with the president’s control over the Federal Government’s systems or networks" >Evicence? "I would hope that you can see in some sort of cyberattack the compromised networks or computers could represent a threat as dangerous as the planes in the air on 9/11" >When the President is ready to take the wars he has going more seriously (read going full out for victory, or bring our troops home...soon... then we'll talk about "other powers", he's not doing a very good job with the powers he already has. "I hadn’t watched the Glenn Beck Katie Couric interview so I found it online and watched it. I will say I find Glenn Beck more understandable minus the more theatrical aspects of his Fox program. I still think at some level Mr. Beck is motivated by his ratings (as are all others in his profession)." >Any other motivation? you said "some level" "I think the ACORN video provided him a scoop and while he might chide the MSM for not picking it up faster", >as he should,do you agree? .. "I think he was enjoying his highest ratings at the time." >he still is I looked up the CAGW and found they had accepted donations from Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil. >OK? lots of progressives organization on the left do the same, not sure what your point is here.. What do you think of their message and programs? "I would agree that the older TEA party groups are probably more true to their core causes whereas" >I agree I think now the more mainstream Republicans see the TEA parties as (to borrow a phrase) fired up and ready to go, and they want to tap into that energy. >I agree I think in 2012 it will be interesting to see if we have a TEA Party candidate or at least one that is true to core TEA Party principles and not a hanger-on." some points you haven't directly commented on (or I misread): >you did answer my question here..."Were you in favor of looking into warrantless wiretapping, the DMCA, the federal spending pre-Obama? " >But I didn't see a response for this: If so, where are you now with similar complaints under Obama (the ones I have mentioned above) if not, what DO you think should have been, or should be looked into now?

Anonymous “Not quite sure what you mean by building a system like a deck of cards, I read this as house of cards, if that is incorrect let me know. The system is already out there in terms of the Internet I don’t think we will see any huge changes to the Internet infrastructure to facilitate the president seizing control.” >You are correct, house of cards, so I’ll re-ask, why not build a fortress instead? It seems illogical to hope that a despot of sorts may not come into power in the future. I’m not sure if these ad-hoc powers we just hand to presidents are even constituional? The Patriot act is another one I wish would be repealed in some fashion. >> Not sure what you mean by a fortress, are you suggestion changes to the actualy hardware and networks of the Internet or legislative changes? I don't see the likelihood of a despot taking over the US. I guess in the event of something like the scenario in the TV series Jerhico this could happen. Typically the nature of our political system is to ensure relatively mainstream candidates. “Most people seem fine with the president’s control over the Federal Government’s systems or networks” >Evicence? >>I have not heard of anyone objecting prior to this bill, and I assume the president has had some measure of, or complete control over the Federal Government's systems and networks since they have existed. “I would hope that you can see in some sort of cyberattack the compromised networks or computers could represent a threat as dangerous as the planes in the air on 9/11″ >When the President is ready to take the wars he has going more seriously (read going full out for victory, or bring our troops home…soon… then we’ll talk about “other powers”, he’s not doing a very good job with the powers he already has. >>I have been struck by the push for an instant decision on Afghanistan, and at the same time the claim that Obama is trying to move too fast on healthcare. Those men and women going to or in Afghanistan deserve the best decision, not just the fastest. I'll reserve judgment on this on until that decision is made. “I hadn’t watched the Glenn Beck Katie Couric interview so I found it online and watched it. I will say I find Glenn Beck more understandable minus the more theatrical aspects of his Fox program. I still think at some level Mr. Beck is motivated by his ratings (as are all others in his profession).” >Any other motivation? you said “some level” >> I would probably have to watch a lot more of Glenn Beck to really comment. I would say that he seemed sincere and passionate in his interview. I am kind of turned off by the entertainment-ish side of his show, but I understand that it is part of what makes his program his. I also think on all sides there has been a lot of playing short clips of things to generate sound bites. “I think the ACORN video provided him a scoop and while he might chide the MSM for not picking it up faster”, >as he should,do you agree? .. I think he can, not sure that I would go as far as to say should. I think we still might find Fox jumped a little fast on the San Bernadino, National City, Los Angeles and Philadelphia ACORN offices. “I think he was enjoying his highest ratings at the time.” >he still is I believe I read that his highest ratings of all time was the show he broke the news on the second ACORN tape. If I can find the link I will post it. I looked up the CAGW and found they had accepted donations from Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil. >OK? lots of progressives organization on the left do the same, not sure what your point is here.. What do you think of their message and programs? “I would agree that the older TEA party groups are probably more true to their core causes whereas” >I agree I think now the more mainstream Republicans see the TEA parties as (to borrow a phrase) fired up and ready to go, and they want to tap into that energy. >I agree I think in 2012 it will be interesting to see if we have a TEA Party candidate or at least one that is true to core TEA Party principles and not a hanger-on.” some points you haven’t directly commented on (or I misread): >you did answer my question here…”Were you in favor of looking into warrantless wiretapping, the DMCA, the federal spending pre-Obama? ” >But I didn’t see a response for this: If so, where are you now with similar complaints under Obama (the ones I have mentioned above) if not, what DO you think should have been, or should be looked into now? Right now I would like to see Obama focused on... Afghanistan Economy Healthcare Reform Iraq I think a review of the Patriot Act is warranted as well, but I think it takes a back seat to the more immediate issues above.

Jay_C >> Not sure what you mean by a fortress, are you suggestion changes to the actualy hardware and networks of the Internet or legislative changes? I don’t see the likelihood of a despot taking over the US. I guess in the event of something like the scenario in the TV series Jerhico this could happen. Typically the nature of our political system is to ensure relatively mainstream candidates. >>> If you mean the show "Jericho", then not really (maybe you mean another show) “…I understand this can sound conspiratorial, but I do not apologize for not trusting the government to exercise caution and sound judgment. Even if their intentions are good now, who is to say what they will be in 10, 20, or a hundred years? What limitations can there possibly be on State power if it is allowed to exact a blood sample from every newborn baby without the consent of the parents?” Glenn Beck, "Common Sense", Pg, 83 … Do you agree with his statement? I and most other reasonable people I know do I agree with this. The same is with the Power we are giving the president, and the suggestions being made by these outside the mainstream Czars…To me, it is about control, and the ability to use that control over us if they so choose, in an “emergency” You may think it’s fine, I don’t like the trend in the direction we are going… less and less civil liberties, for the “greater good”. That is my point.

Interested There is no reasonable nor emergent possibility that can be put forward for any President to have control over who can or can not be shut off on the Internet.

Anonymous Hi Jay_C I did mean Jericho, sorry for the typo, here is the description http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805663/ My point in mentioning Jericho is that it seemed a more plausible scenario than a single despot simply taking over the government. In case you are not familiar with the basic plot here is the link straight to that http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805663/plotsummary It seems more likely that this sort of takeover of control could happen after some other natural or man made disaster has broken down communications and/or society. I have not read "Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine." so I am a little hesitant to comment on one quote that I may interpret incorrectly out of context. That said I would say that a blind trust of government is unwise, but we do have a democratic system in place that lets us hold government responsible for its actions and to punish transgressions by either voting people from office, impeaching them, or passing legislation to restrict their actions. I think Tom Paine would be impressed that this system set out so long ago continues to keep our government in check. Not sure of the reasoning Glenn Beck is referring to regarding the blood sample. I think the question I would have is what is the reason for the test, who approved it, what were the results to be used for, and how were we maintaining a patient's right to privacy. Now a hypothetical reason, let's say that we had a genetic test for cancer that was 80% accurate, and we had a cure for cancer that was also 80% effective if given in the first year of life. Would such a scenario warrant a law requiring blood tests? Possibly, but I think that decision would have to be made by our state or federal legislature and upheld by our judiciary if challenged. At the moment we have somewhat parallel cases with vaccinations, some states having religious exemptions, others not, and also the recent protests against New York's requirement that healthcare workers be vaccinated for H1N1 or lose their jobs. I am not sure why he feels that a blood test like this would mean that no other limitation on state power would be possible, again maybe that is explained before or after this quote? Again something genetic testing has all sorts of room for abuse, a couple of Hollywood examples... Minority Report http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/plotsummary Gattica http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/plotsummary I see where you are coming from Jay_C, but I feel the larger system of our government (that is including the citizens)has been self correcting, which to me is part of the beauty of a democracy. We pass all sorts of laws that infringe on our personal rights, smoking, drinking, seatbelt, helmet, maybe soon texting while driving, as a few, and where we have found it necessary we repeal or modify these laws. Now an area I have problems with is the more extreme calls for revolution, rebellion, or violence, like... Erick Erickson: "At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?" Jim Quinn: "You have got to say no to this, and if they push this through, you need to riot in the streets. You need to riot in the streets." He further said, "Our country was built on revolution and it's about time we took it back. These people are dangerous," and "It's about time to put an end to this leftist control of this country, and if a revolution is what it takes, damn it , then that's what it's going to take, because liberty will not be denied." While I respect the First Amendment, and I surmise there is a somewhat rhetorical or ratings driven nature to these quotes, these views or ones like them from either side do not further our democracy, a call to action fine, a call to violence, no. Somewhere out there is a person who will pick up a rope, or a gun (or maybe a gas can) and take these kinds of words to heart, most likely not even against the persons they feel really responsible, but just convenient. This is what we have to avoid.

Anonymous Hi Interested, Welcome, I was thinking this little corner of the comment world was not being read by anyone but Jay_C and I. First off if you look at the actual bill, which is still in committee, I think you will see that interpreting it to mean the entire Internet is an exaggeration or distortion. S.773 – Cybersecurity Act of 2009 regarding authority of the president. “(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;” Definition of a critical infrastructure information system or network... “(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.” Do I think it is perfect as currently written? No, I think things could be more clearly defined in terms of what systems/networks are considered critical. But do note the word "compromised", meaning that they system or network has already been broken into. I believe the reasonable interpretation of this section would refer to systems such as the power grid, phone system, transportation systems, major financial systems, and similar non-governmental systems/networks that once compromised would pose a threat to us or our country.

Jay_C "Now an area I have problems with is the more extreme calls for revolution, rebellion, or violence" We can agree on that as well.

Michael Merritt Jay_C:

Cass Sundstien, that wants have increased regulation of the interenet and a new bill that would give Obama the authority to shut down the internet during an “emergency”… But that is another subject.. But yet it is another person that President surrounds himself with that has ideas way outside the manstream.

I have sensed before that you seem to be consistent on these types of issues. However, when the shoe was on the other foot, many Republicans seemed to suddenly forget that they were the self-proclaimed defenders of liberty. And yes, the Democrats were complicit.

I’ am not saying this president would do that, but I would want to know how I would be effected..

This has been my position as well, and that is the problem with the Cybersecurity Act and (at the very least some past versions of) the Patriot Act. My fear is not what will happen now, but what might happen in the future, and all of it done quite legally.

It seems illogical to hope that a despot of sorts may not come into power in the future. I’m not sure if these ad-hoc powers we just hand to presidents are even constituional? The Patriot act is another one I wish would be repealed in some fashion.

I dub thee "Sir Consistency." Let us hope more conservatives catch on. Anon:

I would hope that you can see in some sort of cyberattack the compromised networks or computers could represent a threat as dangerous as the planes in the air on 9/11.

While we're at it, lets write a bill to transfer control of or give the power to shutdown radio and television networks to the federal government in case of emergency. I mean, these things are also largely controlled by computers these days (in my experience, increasingly, anyway). It'd only be an extension of the cybersecurity bill. What could possibly go wrong?

I see where you are coming from Jay_C, but I feel the larger system of our government (that is including the citizens)has been self correcting, which to me is part of the beauty of a democracy.

I agree with you, and am hopeful that a despot never takes root, but if we don't proactively safeguard our liberties, if we're apathetic and not paying attention, that makes it easier for things to slip by. These things, which are now passed with what seems the best intentions, will be seized upon by a theoretical future despot to use for their sinister intentions. I know it may sound paranoid, but it is not. The time to act is now, and the politicians that actual cherish liberty these days need to lead in this effort.

Anonymous Hi Michael We already have a system that gives control of radio and television to the Federal government in case of emergency... "The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is a national warning system in the U.S. put into place in 1997, superseding the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) and the CONELRAD System and is jointly coordinated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Weather Service (NWS). The official EAS is designed to enable the President of the United States to speak to the United States within 10 minutes (this official federal EAS has never been activated). The EAS regulations and standards are governed by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC. Each State and several territories have their own EAS plan.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System Other than some minor incidents it doesn't seem to have been put to to any nefarious purposes. I find myself more in fear of government incompetence than sinister intent, that is just a personal feeling though. To be honest I am more afraid of Big Media.

Michael Merritt EAS doesn't give the federal government direct control of the networks. It's a way to let people know of an emergency. I believe the method of delivery is via the message you usually see at 2am in the morning. EAS is probably hopelessly outdated, anyway. Given how well wired the world is, and given the 24-hour nature of most networks these days (even the broadcast ones to an extent) information can be gotten to newsrooms very quickly. If any time would have called for EAS, it would have been 9/11, but it wasn't needed then. So it will probably never be activated. Back to the bill, what specific scenario could you see that would justify the government access to limit or shutdown private networks? Oh, and all of this talk may be irrelevant. I've had a look at the current version of the bill (a week or so ago), and I think the shut down provision is no longer in there.

Anonymous I don't see where the test of the bill has changed yet, do you have a link? http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111OmcDkS:e54375: I don't think the bill says anything about government access to limit or shutdown private networks themselves. "...order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;" It basically says the ability to block access to/from the Internet from those networks, rather than to access or shutdown those systems/networks. In terms of scenarios, I think we have some clear infrastructure related networks in transportation (trains, aircraft, shipping), electrical power generation, financial networks like SWIFT, etc, if any of these was compromised or just being degraded by say a Denial of Service attack I could see where it would be necessary to isolate either the attacking network or the victim network. I doubt this would impact personal computer users, unless say the attack was found to be coming from your ISP and the initial response was to block that whole range of IP addresses.

Anonymous This is from 2003 but still gives you some idea of the threat. Critical Infrastructure: Control Systems and the Terrorist Threat http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31534.pdf