Posted on 09/06/2009 12:04:35 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
I propose he volunteer to be the FIRST in line for this trick.
Godspeed, Glenn.
What are the prospects for conservative talk radio to transition to satellite? Say over a few years?
I don’t think the FCC localism rules apply to satellite radio. I could be wrong but I am not sure the federal government has any involvement in leasing satellite bandwidth like they have with radio spectrum.
I am not aware of how XM and Sirius work but I think they do not have advertising, opting instead for subscribers.
But it seems to me the advertisers behind talk radio could purchase blocks of satellite time and run ads around talk radio shows.
The only real change would be people would have to buy satellite radio receivers. But it seems that should not be too burdensome.
The MSM selection bias turned away conservative hosts and drove them to AM radio. Now maybe conservative radio can find a better and more lasting home on satellite.
“Sunstein is an advocate of something called libertarian paternalism, which means give people the choice to make their own decisions, but instead of just laying out the facts, control the number of choices, then use knowledge of behavioral sciences (like psychology) to guide them to do what you want.”
The Obama Administration’s idea of free choice: “You you are free to either donate your right kidney or your left kidney our kidney bank.”
Samantha Power- Cass Sunstein
From the Irish Independent:
The man who brought them together was Barack Obama
******
Cass Sunstein
“If we understand “rights” to be legal protection against harm, then many animals already do have rights, and the idea of animal rights is not at all controversial.”
“the anticruelty provisions of state law contain extraordinarily large exceptions. They do not ban hunting, and generally they do not regulate hunting in a way
that is designed to protect animals against suffering.”
“they (laws) do not apply to the production and use of animals as food.19 The latter exemption is the most important. About ten billion animals are killed for food annually in the United States”
“The least controversial response would be to narrow the “enforcement gap,” by allowing private suits to be
brought in cases of cruelty and neglect.”
“representatives of animals should be able
to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced.”
“for example, a farm is treating horses cruelly and in violation of legal requirements, a suit could be brought, on behalf of those animals, to bring about compliance with the law.”
“But I think that we should go further. We should focus attention not only on the “enforcement gap,” but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In
short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering.”
“We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation. (Should animals be hunted and killed simply because people enjoy hunting and killing them? The issue might be different if hunting and killing could be justified as having important functions, such as control of populations or protection of human beings against animal violence.)”
“But here things become far more controversial. Why is this? Partly it is because of sheer ignorance, on the part of most people, about what actually happens to animals in (for example) farming and scientific experimentation. I am confident that much greater regulation would be actively sought if current practices were widely known.”
“Of course the largest issue involves eating meat. I
believe that that meat-eating would be acceptable if decent treatment is given to the animals used for food. Killing animals, whether or not troublesome, is far less troublesome than suffering. But if, as a practical matter, animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering, then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal to eat meat will reduce that suffering. Of course a legal ban on meat-eating would be extremely radical, and like prohibition, it would undoubtedly create black markets and have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects. But the principle seems clear: People should be much less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.”
“a central goal of the modern animal rights movement — eliminating the idea that animals are property — can be taken in a modest way, as an effort to remove
a legal status that inevitably promotes suffering. But the goal can be taken far more ambitiously, as an effort to say that animals should have rights of self-determination, or a
certain kind of autonomy. Hence some people urge that certain animals, at least, are “persons,” not property, and that they should have many of the legal rights that human beings have”
“If we are getting rid of rats, we do so in a way that reduces, rather than maximizes, their distress. On this view, if ants and mosquitoes have no claim to human concern—if they can be killed at our whim—it is because they suffer little or not at all. Here we have some empirical questions about the capacities of creatures of various sorts. And we should certainly be willing to engage in a degree of balancing.”
HE THINKS MOSQUITOES AND ANTS ARE ANIMALS!!!
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/157.crs_.animals.pdf
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his desired "fee" 100% of the stations income?
Glenn Beck for VP (but will he take the pay cut?).
June 23, 2004
Iraq and FDR
Cass Sunstein
a largely forgotten episode in American history: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s call for a Second Bill of Rights in 1944. When America’s national security was last threatened, its wheelchair-bound president attempted a large-scale redefintion of the country’s commitments. He contended that we had come to accept an economic Bill of Rights that would include:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
FDR unified these rights under the general rubric of “security,” which, he argued, was the overriding goal of the post-war era.
Though pretty much forgotten at home, FDR’s Second Bill has had a huge international influence. It helped to form the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and from that point the contents of numerous constitutions throughout the globe — including, now, the interim Constitution of Iraq.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/06/iraq-and-fdr.html
Next!
It was something outrageous. This is the kind of person whose
statements will not wear well. He is as big a screwball as Jones. Expect the Race Mongers to jump to his defense. When in doubt blame it on Race.
I have tried accessing Cass Sunstein here and everything I have tried is scrubbed.
Such as ‘Animal Law’
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/animallaw/faculty_research.shtml
and here
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/sunstein-media.html
All Right. Cass Sunstein has to go! Send him packing!
WoW, that was hard to read through to the end. The guy is a certifiable fruitcake...worried about pests, rodents and animals suing humans.
Cass Sunstein
He suggests that “Government mandates that require people to link to different views” on the Internet
Choice in tv stations (like Fox News) like minded people creating echo chambers - proposes public spaces on Internet
He wants to force people to read things he thinks you should read instead of what you actually want to read in the name of diversity
‘Lots of people are using the Internet to narrow their horizons’
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8936
The Republic
Cass’s new book, “Republic.com 2.0” (10:32)
Television’s role in a democracy (06:52)
What’s so bad about Internet cliquishness? (12:23)
Lefty activism vs. left-right deliberation (07:20)
How to be a libertarian paternalist (07:50)
Cass explains what superdelegates do (05:59)
Cass Susstein
Sunstein is a good next target. Best to avoid jarret for now and avoid racism charge. But, if we go after Sunstein-and he stays - what would that say to the black community? Why did 0bama let a brother step down, but he stepped up for a white guy? Lots of mischief we can make.
Acquiring target. Inputting ranging data. Ordinance selection underway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.