spocko

Last active
7 hours, 45 minutes ago
  • spocko commented on the diary post How Worshiping The Market Can Bring Ebola to the US by spocko.

    2014-07-30 17:51:48View | Delete

    Ebola, Condi Rice, Vampires and Modern day Myths that are killing us.

  • spocko commented on the diary post How Worshiping The Market Can Bring Ebola to the US by spocko.

    2014-07-30 17:12:04View | Delete

    This is what will happen when the needs of the 1% outweigh the needs of the 99%.

  • spocko commented on the diary post How Worshiping The Market Can Bring Ebola To the US by spocko.

    2014-07-30 15:27:13View | Delete

    I’ve been very good this week. I haven’t played with any monkeys or baboons. I haven’t eaten any bush meat, that I know of.

    What about you?

  • spocko wrote a new diary post: How Worshiping The Market Can Bring Ebola to the US

    2014-07-30 15:24:52View | Delete

    ThumbnailAnyone watching The Strain ? It combines some real science with zombie/vampire stuff mixed in. What stuck me about the show was how realistic some parts were (like the first CDC team sweep of the plane) combined with a ridiculous number of people carrying the idiot ball . But the part that seems craziest is actually more realistic than people realize. In [...]

  • spocko commented on the blog post Late, Late Night FDL: When Will I Be Loved

    2014-07-29 23:57:02View | Delete

    Yes they did. My concern is that when the government regulators are bought out the institutions are weaken.
    If the highest bidder can get what they want, at the expense of others, then when we see these abuses, we need to
    Exposé them and push back.
    Condi Rice did what she did to “make things seem normal” and it wasnotp t necessary . All it did was get people sick

  • spocko commented on the blog post Late, Late Night FDL: When Will I Be Loved

    2014-07-29 23:16:43View | Delete

    Here is my latest
    Who Would Let Ebola Into The US? TV show The Strain vs. Reality – via @spockosbrain http://bit.ly/WMBKo7

  • I’m always interested in who pays for what and where the money comes from. when it comes from the Union it is suspect, Corp money is a-okay.
    (I was at a Freedom Works event where they said that Citizen United put companies on even footing with the Unions who could now spend unlimited money too.)

    it is also why many corporations, even in this era of Citizens United still want to hide who they fund.

    For example, did you know that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (to name just two) are not getting millions of dollars direct from groups like the Heritage Foundation?

    This is because of a very successful program I started back in 2005 to convince advertisers to not associate their brand with crazy right wing ideas.

    This is why Glenn Beck was pushed off Fox. Lack of revenue, and an impatience of the institutional investors for ROI

    We used the most egregious things that they said and shows the advertisers their comments. They started leaving. But since some of those ideas are still useful to them (no taxes! Regulations bad!) they needed to reconfigure their funding of the RW media.

    Journalism is subsidized by corporations but only certain kinds, some are easier to swallow than others.

    The pressure that we put on Beck, Rush and others comes from an understanding of what is acceptable to corporations.
    We might be able to convince 3,100 advertisers to leave Rush Limbaugh is a horrible sexist person. But if he talks about spouting an anti-corporation message they won’t need the sexism excuse.

  • Great. Must credit Spocko. :-) Actually I got it from my buddy Dave, I don’t know where he got it.

    Always happy to provide a useful analogy!

  • It takes a long time for some people to get this. Fish don’t discover water. I want to say, the reason you can’t see the Corporate bias is you’re soaking in it!

    And it’s not just a corporate bias, it’s a ‘management is right’ bias. It’s a ‘maximizing shareholder value is the most important thing bias.” It’s an unimpeded capitalism with only magic market restrictions, bias.

    Most recently I thought about the Comcast proposed merger and the one about Murdoch buying Time Warner.
    What I didn’t see in any of the stories about this in the media was, ‘Way not break them up?” If they did bring it up they talked about all the reasons it could never happen because government was owned by them lobbyists.

    People have so bought into the world of Big is best that they forget a time when companies were broken up not just by the governments but by entities that sold off parts. That is a swing that could happen again.

    And all of this discussion still revolves around what is best for business, not the citizens.

  • And that is a big part of the problem. I like to ask people, ‘How many PR people does the Heritage Foundation employ to push their people to TV, radio and print?”
    The answer is 12.

    Now how many full time PR people are employed to push the retired Peace CEOs and scholars and staff from the big 8 peace firms? You know the equivalent of retired generals and think tankers.

    I do the joke about big 8 peace firms on purpose. How make money on war? Who makes money on peace? Whose ads do you see on Sunday Talk shows?

  • Just read the article you linked to. I don’t want to conflate Air America with Al Franken. He was one host at the time of that call. Also Joan mentioned others that were against it but no longer on the air.

    Her call to Sam and Janeane pointed out that they were for a withdrawl but she wasn’t listening. Randi Rhodes ‘went ballistic, yelling that, now that “we” were there, “we” could not simply leave. She then shouted that I was a “creep,” and off the air I went.” Of course Randi being former active duty military might have have more to do with supporting the actual military at that specific time than the idea of the war.

    I’m saying this because I feel that Janeane was one of the few people who actually got to go on the Media against the war. She was absolutely right and was picked because people thought having a lowly actress on to represent the anti-war movement would help discredit it.

    Did anyone see her at the 10 year events talking about why she was right or did we hear from Kristol, and his PNAC buddies?

  • We are basically seeing a corporate liberal clone of what the right-wing has done, dating back to the Powell Memo of 1971.

    Interesting. Especially when you use the word “corporate” The people who put up the money for the infrastructure for the think tanks, media and “independent experts” were the Chamber of Commerce people. They were reacting against Ralph Nader, consumer movement and dirty hippies. And dirty hippie university professors. So they created both created their own “Universities, experts and media. They also set up groups to attack Nader, hippies and their views.”

    One of the reasons that “the Left so far behind the learning curve here on these important issues” is that the corporate money goes to the people who aren’t going to tear down the corporations. Plus many universities are beholden to corporate donors.

  • I see you missed my earlier question, no problem the non-threaded format is a problem at time. Here it is again:
    A real journalism entity could go after topics that are not supported by a corporate positive business model.

    I’d like to ask you about experts and booking experts. What did you learn about the process? Who doesn’t get picked and why? Who gets used and why.

    For example recently there was talk about Murdoch buying Time Warner. Who were the MSNBC guests? Were any experts on to discuss breaking up media? Or after the ML flight getting shot down. Who was selected to be experts on those topics?

    Were any experts on from the Big 8 Peace firms to point out that everyone’s suggestions of international crisis involved funding military and arms dealers? Like the retired experts from the Pentagon working for weapons makers.

  • Majority Report with Janeane Garafolo and Sam Seder were very much against the Iraq war, very vocally so.

  • Michael, “MSNBC really prides itself on conveying this sense of objectivity. But of course, objectivity is a beltway myth.”
    Agreed.

    Some progressive people might think that MSNBC is on “our side” and that they can get a story on MSNBC because of that. As a friend pointed out to me it is actually harder to get MSNBC to cover a story because of their sense of “objectivity” So that means they will bend over backwards at time to show “the other side” at the same time not exactly pushing a progressive view.

    Fox pushes stories for its side and actively solicits them.

    So my question is, knowing what you know about MSNBC, if you wanted to push a story that is progressive but is not pro-corporate how would you do it?

    I’m thinking of the trans-pacific partnership story specifically. Good for multi-national corporations, bad for most Americans. It is also something that Obama is pushing.

  • I agree with BrandonJ. I also think that in the MSM they like to see MSNBC as the mirror opposite of FOX so they can say, “Both sides do it.”

    A real journalism entity could go after topics that are not supported by a corporate positive business model.

    I’d like to ask you about experts and booking experts. What did you learn about the process? Who doesn’t get picked and why? Who gets used and why.

    For example recently there was talk about Murdoch buying Time Warner. Who were the MSNBC guests? Were any experts on to discuss breaking up media? Or after the ML flight getting shot down. Who was selected to be experts on those topics?

    Were any experts on from the Big 8 Peace firms to point out that everyone’s suggestions of international crisis involved funding military and arms dealers? Like the retired experts from the Pentagon working for weapons makers.

  • spocko commented on the blog post The Dangers of Wealth Inequality

    2014-07-27 13:33:24View | Delete

    Thank you.

  • spocko commented on the blog post The Dangers of Wealth Inequality

    2014-07-27 12:59:01View | Delete

    Right before the AFT conference in LA I spoke to a few people who work for them. I asked if anyone was actively attacking the lies and BS that the charter schools were putting out. I had/have a plan that I think could be very effective.

    At the conference they introduced “Democrats for Public Education” with Donna Brasille as part of the group.

    I’m glad there is someone doing this, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in how aggressive they will be.

    Do you want to hear my idea?

  • spocko commented on the blog post The Dangers of Wealth Inequality

    2014-07-27 12:52:55View | Delete

    Another thing about the wealthy doing what they want is the, ‘Well if you don’t like it, don’t take it.” attitude. Yet they end up taking all sorts of public resources for their model. Everything from inexpensive leases on buildings to money for special “educational software” that has to be re-licensed used every year.

    And if they don’t have to go through those pesky school boards all the better. They report to the board of directors.

    I was at Jeb Bush’s education conference where they had a panel session on getting around school boards. Another on how to defeat tenure.

  • spocko commented on the blog post The Dangers of Wealth Inequality

    2014-07-27 12:44:58View | Delete

    I can imagine a lot of parent who feel that organization and discipline is good for children. And I can see that a lot of kids might even like the structure.

    Especially if you feel that what is currently happening is too out of control. Or if you feel the schools that don’t do this are dangerous.

    The thing about some of these schools is the ability to cherry pick students as well as kick them out when they don’t conform. I know from experience that this is a very powerful tactic. I went to private Catholic school. If you didn’t behave they kicked you out and you had to go to public school where they ‘had to take you”

    At our school the parent gave the teachers permission to spank the children.
    so lining isn’t something many parent would run away from, but would seek, especially if they didn’t feel their own parenting was effective enough over a “wild child.”

  • Load More