NPR died to me the day I turned it on and heard George Bush saying that we really have to stay in Afghanistan to 'support Afghan women'. The next day Condi Rice came on and said the same thing. They also regularly have CIA heads come on and give comment. NPR: National Propaganda Radio. I feel deeply ashamed that I ever gave them money.
I finally turned off NPR forever the day I realized that they couldn't even say Bernie Sanders' name or congratulate him for winning a Dem primary. And they said nothing about the DNC rigging the primaries in 2016. They don't report facts--they just repeat the lies their masters tell them to, and they're not very original, either.
No point in beating yourself up. You embraced the ideal of democracy, and saw a clear distinction between NPR’s critical commentary on government policies, and commercial media’s refusal to ever go there. That’s when NPR was trashed by the right, and championed by the left. And that was also before the CPB and NPR were subject to the SCOTUS ruling that states, according to the Constitution, money = speech. If that ruling hasn’t convinced every last “progressive” that the Constitution is a blueprint for a fascist state, then they ain’t really progressive.
The document was penned by wealthy white men who loathed the idea of sharing what they owned with the unkempt masses. No interpretation of the Constitution has ever challenged the notion that it affords every legal prerogative to individuals at the expense of the society. The endowment of the proverbial corporation with the rights of a person was a ruling long before this highly politicized court. The latitude shown to organized religion is as old as the republic. The Constitution is inimical to democracy, as intended.
Thanks for this. I have a lot to learn. What would you replace the “latitude shown to organized religion” with, since “freedom of religion” has been more loosely applied, and in the constitution it’s tied up with freedom of speech and the press? What about “freedom of mind” instead of these archaic terms which now can be weirdly applied? Which would require some generously-endowed intellect (could be you?) to define of what that means, so avoid for example the misuse of “speech” to include pornography and corporate bribery, and instead apply to the freedom to protest and organize against oppression in ways that are actually effective, and remove money from the equation. (Now that I’ve said the above, it occurs to me the unlikelihood of this may be the constitution’s fault?)
I appreciate your earnest questions and I cannot claim to have the answers. What I offer is my interpretation. I believe the Constitution is purposefully vague on the role religion is permitted to play. The state cannot endorse a religion, but the bias toward individual expression and accumulation of property pretty much protects members of “popular” religions from having a lot of political clout.
The Constitution intentionally proscribes the powers of the state. That leaves a power vacuum to be filled by the heirs to the Constitution’s authors i.e., wealthy individuals and corporations, which as I previously noted, are granted the legal status of individuals. Democracy has no chance of growing strong roots in a system that protects privileged individuals and doesn’t prioritize addressing the public interest. So police beat protesters who have legitimate grievances, and become more violent when property is damaged. The military is dispatched on extralegal missions to acquire control of resources that are delivered into private hands. The state, then, is little more than a front for the money that owns and governs the country. It is fascism in waiting.
NPR died to me the day I turned it on and heard George Bush saying that we really have to stay in Afghanistan to 'support Afghan women'. The next day Condi Rice came on and said the same thing. They also regularly have CIA heads come on and give comment. NPR: National Propaganda Radio. I feel deeply ashamed that I ever gave them money.
I finally turned off NPR forever the day I realized that they couldn't even say Bernie Sanders' name or congratulate him for winning a Dem primary. And they said nothing about the DNC rigging the primaries in 2016. They don't report facts--they just repeat the lies their masters tell them to, and they're not very original, either.
It is so strange that other people can't see through that sort of thing immediately. Though I have gradually learned to expect this.
No point in beating yourself up. You embraced the ideal of democracy, and saw a clear distinction between NPR’s critical commentary on government policies, and commercial media’s refusal to ever go there. That’s when NPR was trashed by the right, and championed by the left. And that was also before the CPB and NPR were subject to the SCOTUS ruling that states, according to the Constitution, money = speech. If that ruling hasn’t convinced every last “progressive” that the Constitution is a blueprint for a fascist state, then they ain’t really progressive.
But there’s always the possibility that “money=speech” is unconstitutional. Interpretation of such a document varies wildly.
The document was penned by wealthy white men who loathed the idea of sharing what they owned with the unkempt masses. No interpretation of the Constitution has ever challenged the notion that it affords every legal prerogative to individuals at the expense of the society. The endowment of the proverbial corporation with the rights of a person was a ruling long before this highly politicized court. The latitude shown to organized religion is as old as the republic. The Constitution is inimical to democracy, as intended.
Thanks for this. I have a lot to learn. What would you replace the “latitude shown to organized religion” with, since “freedom of religion” has been more loosely applied, and in the constitution it’s tied up with freedom of speech and the press? What about “freedom of mind” instead of these archaic terms which now can be weirdly applied? Which would require some generously-endowed intellect (could be you?) to define of what that means, so avoid for example the misuse of “speech” to include pornography and corporate bribery, and instead apply to the freedom to protest and organize against oppression in ways that are actually effective, and remove money from the equation. (Now that I’ve said the above, it occurs to me the unlikelihood of this may be the constitution’s fault?)
I appreciate your earnest questions and I cannot claim to have the answers. What I offer is my interpretation. I believe the Constitution is purposefully vague on the role religion is permitted to play. The state cannot endorse a religion, but the bias toward individual expression and accumulation of property pretty much protects members of “popular” religions from having a lot of political clout.
The Constitution intentionally proscribes the powers of the state. That leaves a power vacuum to be filled by the heirs to the Constitution’s authors i.e., wealthy individuals and corporations, which as I previously noted, are granted the legal status of individuals. Democracy has no chance of growing strong roots in a system that protects privileged individuals and doesn’t prioritize addressing the public interest. So police beat protesters who have legitimate grievances, and become more violent when property is damaged. The military is dispatched on extralegal missions to acquire control of resources that are delivered into private hands. The state, then, is little more than a front for the money that owns and governs the country. It is fascism in waiting.
Thanks again for this clarification! So now we need to expose it…change always starts with a few and takes time.