Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Talk radio cannot be ignored on climate action.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:18 PM
Original message
Talk radio cannot be ignored on climate action.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 01:23 PM by certainot
Environmental groups thinking of protesting anywhere to support action on climate change should consider picketing the Limbaugh and Hannity superstations.  There may be no better place to get Obama's back and show support for global warming action during the Copenhagen climate summit.

Limbaugh and Hannity both have been giving “climate-gate” full attention, complete with guest denial 'experts', claiming it is proof that global warming is a hoax.  Environmentalists, Americans, will be making a huge mistake to expect “Climate-gate” to play out in the MSM on TV and blogs between flat earther denialists and rational informed environmentalists.

In the broad context of climate deterioration and the necessity for humans to act quickly the swiftboating of all climate science because of some hacked emails cherry-picked and taken out of context would be absurd if not tragic.

The GOP talk radio machine loves something like this where they can say the ‘liberal’ trad media is ignoring the ‘facts’ and they can go on and on unnoticed by the left. Since Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine 20 years ago GOP talk radio has been doing the heavy lifting on determining what is and what isn't acceptable in the US. Now it is negating recent gains (like electing a president who believes) toward passing meaningful climate action.

Limbaugh spent three days last week (that I know of) frothing about being right the last 15 years and that these leaked emails prove that global warming is a hoax. I will bet he will continue that on Monday if he's not on holiday. Hannity has joined in. Regardless of how irrational they are that means it will be just about impossible to get any GOP support on climate deterioration action. Politicians and meteorologists who were thinking it might finally be safe to say the words “global warming” will now be barraged with denialist screaming dittoheads. Hoax! Senator Inhoffe is right! And the blue dogs in red states where talk radio rules will have the same screaming dittoheads in their face on global warming as they’re getting on health care reform.

The rest of the right wing loudmouths will likely fall in line as usual, reading the same talking points and 'interviewing' the same experts from the GOP and the corporate think tanks. I wish they were right but it is irrelevant that the denialists are being proven tragically wrong- they have 1000 radio stations, an audience of tens of millions, and are protected by call screeners to make sure they never get real criticism.

The same 1000 radio stations that make a supermajority necessary for every major issue will do the same again on global warming.  Fox will add visual effects.

Many progressives will see delay on climate change as another Obama failure even though Obama has already asked us to get his back regarding talk radio.

When he named Limbaugh head of the GOP he did what Clinton, Gore, and Kerry should have done. The GOP media machine fell apart for weeks because all the GOP’s media operatives and politicians had RUSH tattooed on their foreheads. The rest of the media couldn’t rechew the same prechewed talking points without acknowleging who did most of the chewing in the first place. But progressives dropped the ball and attacked Limbaugh personally for a while, ignoring the real problem.

In his health care speech Obama named talk radio and cable TV as the main culprits spreading the lies, in the that order. Did everyone miss that?

Recently he said Fox TV was behaving like talk radio. I think he’s saying it starts with talk radio.

Their purpose is obstruction and compromise and progressives cannot leave the talk radio soapbox unanswered while it enables the flat earthers in the congress and senate to continue obstructing what should be a no brainer effecting all life on Earth. Blogging about a few of their most racist or ridiculous comments isn't going to do it.

Climate deterioration won't wait for radio demonopolization or satellite radios or iPods in every car. Calling and emailing Limbaugh's studios is useless but every state has at least one Limbaugh megastation to picket.

Try listening to a little bit of Limbaugh's next show to get a feeling for what will be spit out at GOP politicians and energy state blue dogs if they are thinking about putting science over ignorance.

And if you want do something about it get a local sponsor's phone number and ask the manager or owner if they agree with the global warming denial and hatemongering. It's fun and easy and most of the time those sponsors are very agreeable. Most are just trying to get on the loudest station in the state and never have had complaints before. Most don't listen to Limbaugh or Hannity and think of them as just political entertainers. Many are involved in larger ad buys and are unaware of when their ads are being played. And it should be unacceptable for state funded institutions of higher education to be advertising on those stations, but they do. I even heard an ad for the US food stamp program on Limbaugh, the guy who has done more to defund programs like that than anyone else in the country.

Once again progressives may get punked by Limbaugh and not even know it. No matter how irrational or silly the graduates of the Limbaugh and Hannity science school may sound the energy industry that is using them like fools and dupes is determined to obstruct and will slow things down even more if the propaganda tool that does most of their heavy lifting is ignored.

GOP and red state Dems thinking of doing the right thing amid hoards of screaming dittohead deniers need support. How can the left collectively think it's getting Obama's or Dem reps' backs if they ignore the loudest soapbox on the planet, with giant megaphones in every state, while all day long it threatens them and lies about the causes they want to push?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. How can we "picket" radio stations?
People listen to them, not visit them.

Please explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasi2006 Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bombard them with phone calls and e-mails.
Go to Palin rallies and hand out literature. That's where the ditto-heads flock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. it's not about trying to educate them
i don't know if that can be done

the problem is that since talk radio has been ignored the 10% that it represents thinks it deserves 50% of the representation because no one challenges the message where it starts. they have a right to their message but by completely dominating the radio airwaves they have been given 50% of the seats at the media table (or more) and the politicians are either enabled or intimidated by it to the degree that we are in the mess we're in today.

by the time it's on TV and print it's too late.

as long as limbaugh and hannity can blast the country with those lobbyist and think tank talking points all day long and only once in a while they get called liars makes bipartisanship and real democracy impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. paths of right action
such demonstrations are nearly pointless compared to just finding the factual information and repeating it on the net, and banding together meaningfully to promote REAL action.

Sending THIS off to everyone in your mailbox will have a hundred times more impact.

--------------


1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.
7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.
9. The pros of oil are that ;
a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.
10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.
11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.
13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.
15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.
17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where
geothermal power would be too expensive.
18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.
22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.


23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.
------------

Over and over again, no, solar increase is a real contributing factor which contributes to less than a billionth of the problem.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/index.noshade.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/4_stages_denial.php
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/C25/
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/bipartisan-global-warming_b_134812.html
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/ExxonSecretsAnalysis.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/19/global-warming-denial-has-its-benefits/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/08/cartoon-guide-to-global-warming-denial/
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/fight-global-warming-denial-george-will.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/a-troubling-trend-in-glob_b_158288.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs&feature=related

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. great stuff but it won't keep
limbaugh and sons and then fox after them from intimidating politicians and distorting all the stuff you tell them.

they've got one liners and they can blast them all over the country all day long to a crowd the size of the one that voted for obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. yes, well, truth has self organizing abilities 2
i can't compete with liars at the level of podiums, but i can beat them if people will take the information i provide and make it viral by resending it to others.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. many are in visible places
right wing talk radio is mostly UNCONTESTED. their main loudmouths use call screeners to filter out almost all criticism. in most parts of the country the monopoly of political talk on radio is complete. one local loudmouth reading chamber of commerce talking points can undo the work of thousands of citizens volunteering a few hours and dollars here and there and do that on a national level too.

local media will notice if they are significant. politicians and media who have been pushed around by right wing radio will notice. the ben nelson's and blanche lincolns that use the constituencies that talk radio produces for the lobbyists may be forced to choose between obama and limbaugh instead of hiding behind those convenient constituencies.

when we picket state capitols the local limbaugh station then gets the rest of the week to distort the message of the protest to a crowd of tens of thousands, calling them traitors, fools, etc. that's free speech. that's what happened with iraq protests. the heavy lifting repetition of the iraq war lies and the intimidation of media and critics was done from those radio stations. they need to get the recognition for doing that.

free speech doesn't mean much in a democracy if it isn't used. in the case of the talk radio monopoly they have they loudest soapbox in the country for their free speech and they have been shouting over everyone else while basically being ignored.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. PS
recently i protested with 400 or so other people re climate deterioration and marched to the state capitol.

maybe someone goofed but there was no media coverage.

meanwhile the state limbaugh megastation, reaching a dozen or more states at night, is doing global warming denial 24/7/365.

who moves the politicians more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. we can beat them online
what you say is true, but we can out organize them if we get smart by going on line and being effective and acting smartly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. that has to happen anyway, using the tools we have to participate in democracy but
but to ignore those 1000 radio stations and their coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition is a huge mistake that makes all other progressive efforts harder. much harder if it comes down to a few senate votes here and there. by ignoring talk radio or ceding the air waves to the right progressive groups are playing politics without a front line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. so we confront talk radio... online
I agree its a daunting task, but the truth is that if we just educated the faithful it could go over. The real problem is that even those who support real change don't know what the solutions to the problems are. There is no stopping an idea whos time has come, and all it takes its a critical mass of a very small number of people actually to make something go over into popular consciousness.

The failure of such outlets is that they repeat the same garbage year after year, day after day, with no changes, and no evolution.

To beat them we only have to understand that we cannot win this battle fighting with our sticks and stones against their spears. But we can retreat to where we can fight their spears with our high walls and our much better bows and arrows, and we can win that war easily, rather than try to fight the orks on flat ground.

We can go over their heads and above their ability to evolve. If we quit dashing around in a panic and start acting rightly, we can
tear rush limbo down very easily and then distribute those tear downs all over the net. We can use the pulpit of our mutual cooperation, and that can be more powerful than their pulpit if we are wise and harnass the innate differences between us and them wisely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. i agree but radio has been invisible to the left but
to respond to talk radio by picking a few lies and refuting them on other mediums won't do the trick, IMO. they dominate an entire medium, until that balance is fixed it's all up hill. and it's a lot of effort that has could be spent elsewhere. and that's a big part of their purpose.

the talk radio monopoly represents a fundamental flaw in American democracy. there are many parts of the country, with a disproportionate number of senators, where there are no free alternatives for politics while working or driving.

the solution is more free speech as you say, but to really counter it it has to be in the same medium. but since it is a monopoly that excludes real challenge and competition on the airwaves it will require progressive groups to picket the stations and shame the local sponsors- make them declare their allegiance to the limbaughs and their hate and lies. few will. then we can have some balance. right now the talk radio monopoly makes bipartisanship and real democracy impossible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. the possible and the impossible
it would be great to counter it on the same medium, but that is a long way off. I don't know why we need to counter it on the same medium, we can just make it go away without going on their medium.

The first problem that I see with this is that stupid, evil, insane, propaganda sized soundbites carry well to that medium. Intelligent, informed, ethical, nuanced, sane memes are longer, more complicated, and thus are much harder to bring to bear in that medium.

Again, the actual truth is that we can do this from the internet, we can utterly destroy far right evil nonsense talk radio from the internet.

Telling me your opinion on it doesn't get us any closer to doing that, it just tells me your reason for not making the effort.

No, I don't have a million dollars to start a broadcasting station. But if 1000 persons were to agree to rebroadcast everywhere on the net the three things I would then write per day, the life span of evil nonsense of rush limbo and hannity and the other bsers would diminish to zero in a very short period of time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. progressive radio is the way to counter it, the internet as long as it is relatively free and
democratic is the gravy and the real progress. it is a serious waste to have to use that effort to counter talk radio.

but until progressive radio can catch up the right has a huge advantage in media control and determining what is and what isn't acceptable in the US.

the internet is not the instrument to counter that- ignoring the advantage they have in huge areas of the country, with a disproportionate number of senators, where they are the only voice for politics while driving and working is a huge mistake for the left as a whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. Related Post ...


Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7117303


Big Oil must be pumping more $$$ into the RW Media Hatemongers' pockets to keep the anti-Global Warming TP's current.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC