Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

FCC Commissioner Stumps For Media Diversity 159

Posted by kdawson
from the dialing-back-the-consolidation dept.
maynard writes, "Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stumped against greater media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners. In an attempt to reverse totally the prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly in favor of independent media owners. Read on for what he had to say.
Michael Copps: "The FCC is in the midst of a hugely important proceeding right now to decide what the future of our media, our TV, our radio, our newspapers, our cable, even our internet, are going to look like for a long, long time to come.

A little history, just to set the stage for our discussion. Three years ago, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell and over the objections of my good friend Commissioner Adelstein and myself, the FCC severely cut back — really "eviscerated" is a better word — the rules that were meant to check big media's seemingly endless appetite for more consolidation. It passed new rules, which have allowed a single media giant to own in a single market up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the cable channels, even the internet portal, and the local newspaper, which in most cities in the United States of America is already a monopoly. And the agency did all of that behind closed doors and without seeking meaningful input from the American people. Can you imagine that? Authorizing a sea change in how news and entertainment are produced and presented over the people's airwaves, without even involving the people who own those airwaves and who depend so heavily upon them. It was a near disaster for America.

Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land. They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission. Congress rose up, too, and then a federal court sent those rules back to the FCC saying they were badly flawed and they needed to be reworked. That was good, and anybody that doesn't believe that citizen action can have an effect should just revisit what happened there. We checked those rules. You checked those rules from going into effect. It was concerned citizens at work, and it was a citizen consumer victory.

But, here's a reality check now. We're right back at square one, and it's all up for grabs again. And if we're going to have a better result this time around, doing something positive for media democracy, it's going to be because of more citizen action and more input from folks like you. So, this time we need to make it an open public process, instead of hiding in our office in Washington like the majority did in 2003. This time, let all the commissioners come to New York City — I wish they were all here tonight — and let all the commissioners get out across America and find out what's happening in the real world, beyond that Beltway that they bemoan so much but seem to love staying behind so much.

So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves. There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you, and they belong to me. And, my friends, now is the time to assert our ownership rights."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Commissioner Stumps For Media Diversity

Comments Filter:
  • by P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) <math.induction@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:53AM (#16575474) Homepage Journal

    From TFS:

    So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves.

    A quaint sentiment, indeed, that the private citizen is still sovereign; I'm afraid, however, that the Bolshevization [marxists.org] of North America is well underway, and that more violent notions will be required to reverse it.

    The Bolshevization of North America consists above all in:

    1. the centralization of media, agitation and propaganda;
    2. ubiquitous surveillance;
    3. the nanny state.

    Eminent domain [cbsnews.com], if anything, should prove how highly our gubernatores esteem “ownership.*”

    _____________
    * Quod autem vide: DRM and fair use.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gbulmash (688770) *

      Eminent domain, if anything, should prove how highly our gubernatores esteem "ownership."

      But after the New London, Connecticut case where the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities really could take private property and hand it over to condo developers, there was a huge backlash. Eminent domain laws are mainly at the state level, and that's where citizens took action. A number of states now have laws on the books explicitly forbidding those kinds of eminent domain seizures.

      - Greg

    • by Instine (963303) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @08:02AM (#16576176)
      OK the US is clearly in a turning point at the moment. You only have to look at the number of posts to topics like media, politics, or as just seen, leaving America, to see how conflicted and concentrated feeling is at the moment regarding these issues. Can I just point out as an observer, that it may not be simplistic, reductionist logic that wins out here. There is no magic formula for freedom of press.

      For decades now the UK has had state own/governed (or at least centrally funded) channels dominating the airwaves. We've also enjoyed independent outlets, so its not like N Korea. But news in particular is the BBC's domain. And for all that time, we have been the envy of America with regards to freedom of press (or at least the Americans who have witnessed both). You want the glossy crap, its there to, but you want more even handed, insightful, in depth news the UK's has beaten the US for a long time. But why?... It doesn't seem right.

      It's not that I don't see your point that centralisation is a danger, and can lead to more total loss of objectivity. That is clear and obvious. Yet why is it that the contrary is born out in practise for us? I would say it is something that you do have control over. Your culture. Is it snobbish to think less of someone, you know could care more about world affairs, but who can't be bothered? Or is it your duty as a responsible citizen? Fox News would not get watched here. I know, because they tried something approaching it on channel 5. It stank. No one watches it still (even though its improving slightly). I would be ashamed to do so. If I saw a friend watching it, I'd say don't watch that shit. Its all sensationalist crap. Why watch the news if its not news. Watch kids TV or something. And I'd mean it. My tone would be seen as condescending snobbery to many Americans. It would not to most Brits. THIS is the reason you have "consolidated press". Here we have many Newspapers owned by one corporation, that are politically conflicting even. Why? because people expect varied opinions. This is bolstered by my experience of German news, and attitude to news. Which is an exaggerated version of the UK culture. And they have better news for it.

      I do fear that this is fading some. And that the US way of toeing big business/party lines with soundbites and banalities, interspersed with adverts for the very same power mongers, is approaching. But there is still a big enough distinction for us to see the phenomena for what it is. Sadly know one wants to think they are living a lie. Or to pull your bloody socks up! Which is kind of what you are being told by people like me. But there you have it. DON'T watch crap, centralised, sanitised news. e.g. If you're being told everyday how many of your soldiers are being BRUTALLY MURDERED. And vague indications, if that, of civilian "casualties" that there have UNAVOIDABLY been, then your news is not news. Its propaganda. And you really are better off switching of the box and staring at the wall, or better still talking to a real person about what might really be happening in the world. AND EXPECT the same of your friends. EXPECT the same FOR your friends. They deserve better, as do you. I assume.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by d3ac0n (715594)
        Not to pick nits,

        but you obviously haven't read this article: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582, 00.html [ynetnews.com]

        Or this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]

        The BBC ADMITS that is not only NOT objective, but that they are VERY far to the left. Of course, I guess if one is already a socialist this would appear to be "objective" but to the rest of us that are more towards the center and right-of center this is hardly "Objec
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Instine (963303)
          there is no such thing as objectivity I guess. But It is clear to me that sensationisim is something that hinders it further. The the BBC is not nearly as guilty of this as FOX, or I hate to knit pick, but the Daily mail. The daily mail is ridiculed here for being xenophobic and right right wing to the point of, again, not being news, but rather propoganda.

          The beauty of the BBC is that I can see it is left leaning. And as you rightly point out that it admits to this. Thats the point. FOX's tag line is a
          • by caseydk (203763)
            "FOX's tag line is a lie. Plain and simple. It says that it is unbiased. It can't be, is is very far from being so."

            Actually, I've never seen "unbiased" in their tag line. The tag line I've always seen/heard is "Fair and Balanced".

            Therefore, if they have someone on from one side, they have someone on from the other and give them about the same time to speak. Obviously when you have two guys butting heads over a point, it sometimes turns into a shouting match and no one is heard, but that's the fault of th
            • by d3ac0n (715594)
              You are correct caseydk, they do indeed have opposing points of view on thier network. Not only guests, but commentators that are unabashedly liberal are part of thier line up. I would say that, on balance, they are more conservative than liberal, and those on the network that are conservative make no bones about being so.

              You see, this is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals in the media (The American media particularly, but the worldwide media as well.) Conservatives (in the Anglo-American
              • "Of course, most Liberals would prefer that FoxNews just go away, as they don't like having thier worldview challenged."

                I do not know if "most liberals" is true. In fact, I doubt it. However, there certainly has been an organized effort by some to pressure the government to yank Fox stations' licenses for airing political content that the organizers do not agree with.
            • "Obviously when you have two guys butting heads over a point, it sometimes turns into a shouting match and no one is heard, but that's the fault of the moderator, not the channel."

              That's only an excuse, maybe, if it is the moderator's first day and it is live TV. Beyond that, just about everything in the way the moderators run their shows is with Fox News' approval and direction. You can bet that any shout-out on "Hannity and Colmes" is 100% the fault of the channel. If they didn't like these, they'd eas
          • by krell (896769)
            "The daily mail is ridiculed here for being xenophobic and right right wing to the point of, again, not being news, but rather propoganda."

            What then definese "news". Is that a term you use for the propaganda you happen to like?
      • by kthejoker (931838) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @09:40AM (#16577852)
        There's a fundamental difference between our countries.

        Britain is dominated by state power. America is dominated by corporate power.

        State power is at least somewhat grounded in the people, so varied opinions have their value, because the chief parties can acquire actual power through persuasion and viewpoints.

        Corporate power is entirely guided by money. Acquiring more money means no varied opinions - it means one central opinion.

        Because of this fundamentally different end goals (and thus the different means needed to acquire them) American news is simply incomparable to British news. They aren't even the same creature.

        The flip side to this is that America as a whole is the more economically successful of our two countries. That's cold comfort for most Americans, but that's the guiding spirit of pretty much all of America.

        • by Instine (963303)
          Nice reply. I agree whole heartedly. I'd mod up if I had pointsat the mo.

          However, we're here to debate, so instead of just backslapping - would you see it worthwhile trying to alter this? IF you'd prefer a less capatalistic power moulding your lives over there (for this and/or other reasons) do you see it as a lost cause? Or as I see it, well within culture's grasp, to, at the very least guide the hand of your master?
          • by kthejoker (931838) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @10:56AM (#16579212)
            Well, there are, of course, a lot of different ways to approach this.

            From the individual's standpoint, as pervasive as conglomerate media can be, it's fairly easy to just tune out and do your own thing. In fact, this path is so easy that it is, unsurprisingly, the most popular option. And it's easy because it's empowering - it often reveals the emperor has no clothes.

            From the collective's standpoint, conglomerate media still kowtows to the almighty dollar, and it can be exploited as necessary. The major advantage to this is (verging on irony) is that many of the quote unquote liberal views of the day - the green economy and environmental sustainability, better education and better schools, and more federal support for programs like stem cell research and Medicare - are actually more econonomically viable than their alternatives. So when Google can push out a solar-powered campus and say, "This is good for the environment *and* the bottom line," then the money-focused mainstream media starts touting this as part of the central tenet: greed is good. If you can tie on socially desirable benefits to greed, so much the better.

            So there really is no guiding the dollar, because it is entirely based on an economy of scale that can't really be guided by anything short of toppling 2 towers in New York City on a Tuesday. So the issue isn't that you have to convince the the other side that you're right - there's no Parliamentary function at hand in America's future (our levels of Congressional approval are more implicit signs of mistrust rather than the effects of recent scandals) - but you must in fact *be* right. And if you are right, the bottom line will bear you out.

            This also explains a lot of America's success - the market intuitively and instinctively moves towards the best ideas for making money. This allows us to be more risk-takers, and our overall economic success is pretty much a function of the risks taken by all Americans throughout history. It's why Americans seem so cocky - there's a whole lineage of success behind us. And the price for that is, simply put, corporate hegemony - but when you're part of the corporation, you're less likely to complain.

            I think one of the real challenges for both our countries over the next century is to figure out how to "do business" with Asia, South America, and the developing nations of the world. This is probably where are two disparate approaches will differentiate themselves most clearly - and I don't doubt for a second that America will come out on top. At what price? ...
      • Another one really is that the countries have flipped junk media formats. In the UK it's tabloids; in the US it's TV. 4 of the top 5 newspapers in the UK are rubbish tabloids. In the US they're all legitimate newpapers, with 4 of the top 5 (USA Today being the exception) decent publications.

        You can carry the cultural surperiority thing as far as you'd like, but don't forget 3.5 million Brit's pick up a copy of Sun everyday, which is probably worse than Fox News. Germany's in the same bag; the most popul
        • by Instine (963303)
          I agree with virtually everything you say here, but not your tone/sentiment. Like I say i think this is a cultural thing, so its not easy to fix. Things are 'barely a shade better' here, but they are a shade better, and I started by saying there was no magic wand. Your not offering much help by "there's idiots everywhere". That really is plain snobbery, with little/no benifit.

          But its true that the tabloids are awful here, and they feed the brains of millions daily. And yes Germany has its problems there
          • Your first post very much read as "These are cultural problems with the US that those of us over in the enlightened world don't have. See! You have Fox News and we have the BBC." For counterpoint I wanted to point out that you have Sun and "we" have The Wallstreet Journal.

            Are things better in Europe? Perhaps marginally, but it's only a different strain of the same disease.

            The problem is living with nominal democracy and a steady supply of entertainment is enough for most people. There's a historical pr
            • by krell (896769)
              " Things got ugly enough to entergize the 60s and 70s subculture and press the country towards democratic renewel."

              With this counter-culture's explicit admiration for the extremely brutal totalitarian dictatorship in North Vietnam, "pro-democracy" is not a label you could put on them. Real positive change did occur due to related forces during this time. See Martin Luther King Jr.
    • 500-100 big money whiteasses running the country and sending everyone, including your sorry ass to die in some foreign land in order to create profits for them.

      What i am most annoyed with is the likes of you who come and make accusations of communism at every single move that is made to further the interest of ordinary people, like me, like you, against modern day aristocracy. The people, as in "the people". remember what it was ? if it wasnt for that, you would still be praying for permission from your
    • The Bolshevization of North America consists above all in:

            1. the centralization of media, agitation and propaganda;
            2. ubiquitous surveillance;
            3. the nanny state.


      Nice troll, but you've forgotten that;

      1. ... is due to increased monopolosation by private companies. This is classical "Kapitalism" in action.
      2. ... is a phenomenon in no way unique to, or in itself indicative of, Bolshevism. Plenty of tyrannanies of all parts of the spectrum have empolyed such methods.
      3. ... is laughable. The USA doesn't even have a modern public health service, and your education system is in disarray. Security is being increasingly privatised and even essential public services like water and electricity have been sold off to private monopolies.

      Blaming your countries problems on the long since dead communist bogeyman is less than derisable. No sir, your problems are entirely as a result of unrestricted market forces acting upon your society. Enjoy!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by atani (514575)

      ... and that more violent notions will be required to reverse it.

      That sounds like a cop-out to me. "We can't change it without violent resistance" is not a sentiment that you should be too eager to adopt, IMHO, and most people who claim to espouse that sentiment only use it to avoid doing anything about the problems they perceive. Perhaps you're not one of those who ends up doing nothing because of that belief, but you'd be a exception if so.

      The courts are not completely bought and paid for and thi

    • So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves.

      That's nice and all, but if "we" all own the airwaves, why don't "we" have any say as to who can broadcast on them, why don't "we" have any say as to who can bid on the airwaves, and where is my check for the leases for these airwaves handed out to companies like Verizon that pay billions that I never see a dime of?

      Don't fool yourself, you and I don't own squat.

  • by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famousNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:55AM (#16575486) Homepage Journal
    Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land.

    If they'd rise up more often, they could call it exercise.

    There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you...

    Well, if they belong to me, I'd like my airwave now. I'll use it to broadcast Janet Jackson's nipple 24/7. Just as we've been desensitized to violence through the massive amounts of it on TV, it is my dream that, via continuous exposure to Janet Jackson's nipple, we'll soon become desensitized to breasts and let them bounce freely across our screens all day long (not just late at night on Cinemax).

    - Greg
    • That was...*sniff*...so beautiful. Preach on, brother, preach on!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Si (9816)
      I went to the FCC conference and all I got was this lousy airwave.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178)
      I'm sorry. but I couldn't disagree more!

      Woe the day we get desensitized to naked boobies.
    • I pitty you, poor brainwashed american, if it is really your better definition of nude beauty.

      JJ nipple even was at most a funny attempt of a declining star to draw some attention on a meaningless PR stunt instead of her artistic work (and I would say it was a success, because I know what she did, but cannot remember anything the sang). The overreaction tells is by itself more intersting, and therefore, I indeed like your idea of promoting beauty instead of violence, but your choice would be as if we chosed
      • JJ nipple even was at most a funny attempt of a declining star to draw some attention on a meaningless PR stunt instead of her artistic work

        Take a look at the picture sometime. Her breast was being lifted strangely by what was left of her top, leading to a serious pancake effect. If that was intentional, don't you think they would've done something mroe flattering?
  • by krell (896769) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:58AM (#16575502) Journal
    I'm opposed to laws limiting ownership (I don't want anyone silenced, even if they are portrayed as having "bad" views that deserve censorship, such as the Sinclair Group).

    However, I definitely want more of a diversity of voices. Low power FM radio station [panaxis.com] licenses should be made much easier to get for community radio.
  • by 192939495969798999 (58312) <infoNO@SPAMdevinmoore.com> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:01AM (#16575536) Homepage Journal
    That's great, the very next FCC chairman acts to reverse the very thing that Powell fought so hard for... I only hope that it's in time to boot Clear Channel out of a couple of markets. It's insane, where I live you hear the same 12 songs on every channel all day. Of course, I suppose maybe Powell knew that and held stock in Sirius satellite radio! I'm gone there forever, but maybe for my future kids it's not too late.
    • by mgblst (80109)
      So the issue is, does this one man have too much power - should he be making these decisions on his own (which is what seems to be happening)?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:03AM (#16575540)
    Michael Copps is not the Chairman of the FCC. He is "minority" Democrat member.
  • Total Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For years the FCC has stood in the way of any form of diversity, from anti-local ownership of licenced outlets to LPFM (low power FM). The smart money says they'll go back to their old ways after the election.

    BTW, I honestly don't see the democrats as being much better on the same subject.

    • by maynard (3337)
      It's total bullshit because I got the story completely wrong. Michael Copps is not the FCC chair, he is a minority democratic member of the commission. Which places his words in a completely different context.

      I totally fucked this up.
  • Not the chairman (Score:3, Informative)

    by oldave (160729) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:19AM (#16575688)
    I'm not sure where the description of Michael Copps as the Federal Communications Commission Chair came from, but it's, well, inaccurate.

    Kevin Martin is the chairman at the FCC.

    The remainder of the commission consists of:

    Michael J. Copps
    Commissioner

    Jonathan S. Adelstein
    Commissioner

    Deborah Taylor Tate
    Commissioner

    Robert M. McDowell
    Commissioner
  • THIS STORY IS WRONG (Score:5, Informative)

    by maynard (3337) <`j.maynard.gelinas' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:23AM (#16575726) Journal
    I submitted this article. I made a mistake and confused Michael Copps [fcc.gov], FCC commissioner, for the Chairman Kevin Martin [fcc.gov]. Thus, the entire premise of the submission that the FCC is shifting policy away from what had been set in place by former Chairman Michael Powell is WRONG.

    I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.
    • by Tim C (15259)
      I should have fact checked it better before submission

      There are those of us who would suggest that kdawson should have fact checked it better after submission...

      Still, respect for owning up to your mistake.
    • by maynard (3337)
      Here is replacement text for the intro:

      Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation [democracynow.org] and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, Michael Copps, minority Democratic commissioner, stumped against greater local media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation [wikipedia.org] at the expense of local owners.
    • by Simonetta (207550) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @08:14AM (#16576350)
      I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize...

          no, you need not bother apologizing. No one believed you in the first place.

          It is inconceivable that a Republican appointee to the head of the FCC would come out against further consolidation of media ownership. Your story set off all the bullshit detectors of every politcally savvy Slashdaughter. There was simply no way that it could be true, and it wasn't.

          I was wondering to myself if it were actually April 1 already. It's an equinox and I pay more attention to the season and the daylength than I do to the months. I was afraid that I had gotten six months out of sync somehow.
      • by jafac (1449)
        It is inconceivable that a Republican appointee to the head of the FCC would come out against further consolidation of media ownership.

        Really - when I read that title, I thought I had woken up in bizzarro-world or something.
    • >> Jinkies, I was instantly worried that the Bush Crime Syndicate had made a mistake and allowed a pro-Citizen bureaucrat into a position of power.

      I should have realized we'd never get that lucky.
  • What a crock! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BCW2 (168187) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:26AM (#16575754) Journal
    If the members of the FCC board cared about diversity they would quit allowing mergers!

    It really is that simple.
    • by gfxguy (98788)
      In truth, the FCC should be about licensing airwaves so that competitors can't step on each others bandwidth... this is the part about the "public" owning the airwaves. Beyond that, they should stay the F out of it.

      If you want to prevent monopolies, there's other government bureaucracies in that business.

      I long for the day when everything is on cable or satellite and these people completley lose power.
      • by krell (896769)
        "In truth, the FCC should be about licensing airwaves so that competitors can't step on each others bandwidth... this is the part about the "public" owning the airwaves. Beyond that, they should stay the F out of it."

        I also think they should make it easy to get licenses, without denying them for silly discriminatory reasons such as someone thinks you are a "media conglomerate" or your skin color is that of a group that represents a "traditional racist power structure.

        "I long for the day when everythin
  • by BeeBeard (999187) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:54AM (#16576050)
    I'm still trying to figure out why this got posted. It is a link to half of a transcript and some audio downloads from a television show so far-from-coy about its politics that it comes across as the Left's version of The O'Reilly Factor. If you read the exchange between Copps, Goodman, and Gonzalez, I promise you will come away bewildered and disappointed. And even as someone who is a card-carrying liberal, I find this kind of propaganda hard to justify.

    Read the transcript. Read it. Gonzalez himself is the biggest offender. He literally blames whitey for the phenomenon of media consolidation, undoubtedly finding a use for his own Latino ancestry as a carte blanche license through which he may criticize The Man for all of The Man's failings. If you're easily frightened by the cliched Orwellian future that people like Gonzalez try to paint, then here's some fearmongering for you right now:

    We are in real danger of waking up one day with a de facto apartheid system, one where a small group of giant firms, run almost exclusively by white investors and managers, control the production and distribution of news and information to a largely non-white population.


    "That's right! Our world is run by rich white men!!" It's an understanding of the problem that goes no deeper than what you'd find at a freshmen political science class.

    The entire interview is a clumsy mashup of two unrelated ideas: White ownership (framed as the confusingly converse concept of "minority representation") and corporate consolidation. The former is a symptom of the way in which America was settled, and has no place in a rational discussion about the latter (which Gonzalez gladly forgoes in favor of white-baiting).

    Corporate consolidation of media outlets, on the other hand, is also a tragedy. But what it means is that the media industry is no different from any other. You can wax philosophical about how the airwaves are free, man--they belong to you and me, man, but in the end there is still a situation where companies who have money buy out those who have less. Don't blame whitey, blame capitalism. To complain bitterly about how the people doing the buying out are white misses the point. It badly and embarrassingly misses the point.

    I know this is Slashdot, so by all means, please feel free to copy and paste select portions of what I've written and take them out of context, because I'm sure that works better than actually discussing the issues.
  • after all ?

    So its not like big money white asses and oil rich bastards running everyting - there are still "people" as in "we people" around ?

    Well thats a relief ...
  • It's A Trap!

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop

Working...