Tuesday, May 17, 2011


Control the message and the messengers. That would be the perfect Orwellian, or should I say Marxist/Communist, fix for all of the stupid people out there. (That means you and me, folks.)

So who owns the news? Time was when there was at least an attempt at ethics in news reporting. The journalist had a code to live by, just as a doctor had the Hippocratic Oath. Sadly, the journalist's code has morphed into some sort of "social justice" mandate. The journalist was, originally, supposed to report, not skew or create the news. But of course, that wouldn't make Fabian Socialists happy.

And while I am at it, who owns access to the news?

Cities and towns all over the country have created government utilities including water, sewer, waste management, and energy. This basically creates a monopoly on those services. Lo and behold, what are they wanting to control now? Broadband access to the internet. Sure, what a great idea. Let's have government in the business of controlling access to news and research. Heaven forbid we should have a free marketplace where people can go to any source for news.

Two "news" articles grabbed my attention in the past week on the subject of journalism. One is involving the North Carolina senate who passed a bill limiting municipalities from operating their own fiber networks. NC Debate On Broadband

Thank you, North Carolina senate for at least attempting to nip this poisonous idea in the bud. I am doubting that our Democrat Governor will sign onto this bill, in spite of our representatives' good attempts at reining in government control of our lives.

Opposition camps to the bill say:
"People in at least two North Carolina communities—Albemarle and Chapel Hill–apparently agree with the opponents, as both communities passed resolutions disapproving of the newly approved bill as well as another piece of anti-municipal broadband legislation that the state is considering."

"The resolutions also argue that the legislation will limit smart grid deployments, prevent collaboration among local governments through regional public safety networks, hinder the deployment of traffic management systems, bar municipalities from working with school districts and community colleges on shared networks, and interfere with basic government operations, thereby undermining the local economies."

To which I say, HOLD ON THERE MARXISTS!!! (above article cites "people" when it really means community councils...not anything to do with referendums or ballots.) Ask the people if they want government controlled "smart grids." Ask the people if they want more government interference in our economies. How's that been working out for us lately?? As for the rest of it, nothing is preventing the cooperation between traffic management and school districts now. I'm sure one of the existing broadband companies can supply that capability right now, or is already. So who the heck are you kidding!??!

When once we allow any local government to control access to communications, this will set the precedent for "regional governments," or the States or the Feds to step right in and take control of who delivers internet access and what will be allowed through that access. Municipal governments are trying the "bottom up" method of using government to over-ride our liberty via the free markets. Mind you, the Feds are already busy trying to do this using the "top down" method through the FCC. Either way, it is a bad omen for freedom of the press. Government does not have the right to use your tax money to create either a monopoly of communications, the press, or create a competing entity with the free market press. Government only has the Constitutional obligation to protect freedom of the press and the free expressions of the people. Otherwise, the government (at whatever level) is supposed to stay the heck out of it, Constitutionally speaking.

Lastly, the other news story is a bit of the "other side of the coin." Our favorite monetary bully, Mr. Soros, is using the marketplace to buy up news media in order to promote his very sick ideas of what the world should be. Further, journalists in those outlets have joined Soros' boards of his socialist/globalist organizations. Funny thing that Soros would use the free market to shut down the free market, but that is his MO, so not too surprising. He is a master of oxymoronic behavior. Yes, he has the right to buy news media outlets. My question is: "When does someone have the right to commit fraud upon the public through the public airways?" Using his media outlets as indoctrination forums is hardly reporting the news, just so you know. But I could say the same of Al Jazeera. And NPR/PBS. Is it fraud? Or is it not? Has journalism lost its code? You betcha! The blessing is we have at least a few competing news media outlets who are telling the truth about Soros to the public. But, not if Soros and those who want control of news and access have their way.

With the mainstream media spewing socialist/globalist nonsense all day long, the only alternative most of us have had is to go looking for truth from both sides of issues on the internet. Without the free market flow of information, we might as well go back to the pounding of drums, or smoke signals, or maybe Paul Revere's famous ride to find out what is going on around us. If governments and Soros have their way, we will be back to the dark ages in short order. What do I mean by that? I mean information will be so skewed by the socialist/globalist ideology of big-government power-brokers that the general public will be dumbed down to the point of extinction. Soros would drive the last nail in that coffin, gleefully.

But that is the goal, isn't it? Welcome to the new Idiocracy!

1 comment:

  1. The only people left in large media outlets are pundits, sadly enough. The only place to get real news nowadays is in the blogosphere. Though they may be biased, at least you'll get many different viewpoints.