I had the great displeasure of seeing a re-run tonight of Senator Maziarz's interview with Kathy Paradowski.
WHY? WHY? WHY SUCH AUDACIOUS ARROGANCE? Well, now we know why.
This is such a violation of everything from good taste to ethics and everything in between it is inexorably appalling. I was deeply, deeply offended. After LCTV tells Tom Christy that the Government Channel was about the interview of elected officials, they run this blatantly audacious violation of their stated rules. This is nothing but the conscious intent to add insult to injury rubbing in the face of the public what the tyrannical political situation is in Niagara County. This is moral nihilism passing as business as usual. The Government Channel apparently now with impunity can be used for business advertisement and a platform to denigrate Democratic political leadership in North Tonawanda.
Senator Maziarz did not miss the opportunity-- undoubtedly part of the purpose of the show -- to disparage and denigrate Mayor Soos's political leadership. Ethically this was a bald and egregious misuse of the station. What about Mayor Soos's side of the story? Soos deserves equal time to trash Paradowski in return. Maziarz owes Soos an apology and he owes Niagara County an apology for such embarrassingly infantile behavior. This is political leadership???
If what was said about Maziarz having a big hand in getting rid of Christy was not true, then this would never have happened. He would have been more sensitive. Obviously we now know it was true. Such unabashed self-promotion in flagrant violation of the the rules of LCTV is letting Niagara County know who's boss and who can get away apparently with anything.
Apparently LCTV will now be used to promote the Republican political and business agenda.
If that is not sufficient rape of the intelligence of the community, with fraudulent smiles Maziarz and Paradowski wish North Tonawanda well in their concert series.
This is all descending far beneath contempt. Im my estimation Senator Maziarz has lost any right to moral and political leadership in Niagara County.
I myself am unaligned politically and I write with an interest in what I see as true, fair and in the interest of Niagara County as a potentially unifiable community and polity.
I may not be well experienced in local politics. I may even be naive, ignorant or even stupid. But I am not a fool. I know when I'm being told I don't count. Unless of course I get on board the band wagon.
17 comments:
"I myself am unaligned politically and I write with an interest in what I see as true, fair and in the interest of Niagara County as a potentially unifiable community and polity "
LOL - that's a zinger - LOL
"your not a fool" - just long winded.
Not to change the subject - what going on with your effort to remove the parkway.
I guess this previous post is just one step short of Nazi Germany and the in your face "Juden" painted on store windows.
I, for one, am not suprised at the audacity of these contemptuous politicians and their zealot followers.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We have a Godwin's Law winner in just two posts. You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
So, anonymous #2, what is it that's being painted on the windows in your world?
Pirate,
How the hell did you ever find that! But it sounds valid. …. What I’ve been finding is that as I participate in online threads I become more megalomaniacal and more angry, more self-righteous and indignant. But I think I’ve been called on that in the NiagaraTimes blog by Mr. Pink and rightly so. Hopefully I’ll get my wits about me and return to more sober, reflective thought and commentary. …. The “I cite” blog that I have a link to is run by Jodi Dean, a seemingly very astute and thoughtful political theory professor over in central NY state. If you Google her you will find some stuff she’s written on blog theory. She is a top notch theoretician and it takes some effort to stay with her. But it’s well worth the effort. Of course on her own blog she talks often about theoreticians and philosophers that must be read before you can grasp what she’s talking about. Nevertheless she’s still really worth checking out.
Larry,
The woman that Mazirz is taliking with is also a heavy GOP donator. She is the one who not only runs the Molson Canal Conert Series , but also the Shredd and Ragan carshow at the Summit Mall.
Thats the same show that the county health dept. shut down due to toxic fumes from the BURN OUT PIT. Funny how less than two weeks later the show was back to normal. But i`m sure that there wasn`t a favor asked or anything. The counties health dept. makes mistakes all the time right. Yea right. A wise man once said " follow the money".
Larry --
I follow another local blogger on a semi-regular basis, Buffalo Pundit, who seems to regularly attract the Hitler/Nazi references. It was on his site that I first saw reference to Godwin's Law.
I am constantly amazed at the vitriol that seemingly drips from so many posts on web pages, especially when it comes to politics. Things get written that would likely never be said at a cocktail party or over coffee.
Is it the "can you top this" idea of one-upsmanship? Is it that so many (including me) use the cloak of anonymity? I often wonder if people really believe what they are writing.
(Side note: There is something about the internet that tends to bring the black-helicopter-seeing, tin-foil-hat-wearing, they've-bugged-my-phone crowd out of the wood work. For all their fear about government spying, you'd think the last place they'd want to be seen is on a computer.)
Many have recognized that there may be political advantage on these pages, so "attack mode" becomes the norm. I've seen it elsewhere -- the Tonawanda News has an anonymous call-in line that gets printed each day. During election season, it becomes unreadable as it is clear to any thinking person that the political organizations are taking advantage of it.
I take very little of it seriously. Veiled hints of wrong-doing, double-dealing, back-stabbing and so forth usually turn out to be completely untrue, or far less than meets the eye.
The black and white of the fringes is far less interesting to me than the gray in the middle.
Well said PC. What kills me is the fact that most of the time its the anonymous listings that cause such a stir. I post by my real name for just that reason. I don`t beleive in not backing up what I have to say. It may not always be agreeable with some people. But atleast everyone knows where I am coming from.
Quite frankly I am less than inflamed with anger over this apparent abomination by the good people of the Lockprt channel.
As far as I can see we have democrat/liberal professors primarily inundating ou local colleges with emotional responses to reality, every major newsoutlet is primarily democrat and is easily deciphered just by their party donation reciepts, and of course the ubiquitous left wing blogs.
I am outraged by an apparent infringement of the rules which can be construed as a front for a republican? Not really. I am neither a democrat nor a republican but given the irrefutable proof that every major outlet of information is merely itself a fron for liberals I could once again care less.
Hell, we need more economically ignorant liberals, emotional environmentalists to carve policy of which the unintended consequence is starvation of poor third countries so they can feel good about themselves, and maybe even more public funding of failed "artists" I mean why not? It will only lead to rationing and the government deciding what art is officially. Does anyone see what I'm talking about here?
Vote Libertarian!
Dear Anon. Libertarian,
I am surprised that as a Libertarian you are not concerned with maximizing the forums of free speech. Your rationalization that the apparently “Liberal” dominated media makes it ok to manipulate administrative law to control the public air waves is at minimum quite suspect. In other words, for you two wrongs seem to make a right?
I am not democrat nor a “liberal,” a word whose conceptual value is now lost since it is used to defame rather than describe. For me “Liberalism” means among other things the belief that the free play and maximization of the conflict of private interests will somehow miraculously necessarily serve the common good and represent the general will. Strange idea. “Liberalism” moreover means a position on individualism which prevents the meaningful articulation of actually existing collective identities. Such Liberalism includes democrats, republicans and libertarians.
The art question is too much to deal with here. The government certainly doesn’t mind investing in the military industrial complex and turning our economy/country in a perpetual war machine and empire builder. Maybe investment in art would turn our people into creative thinkers and doers as opposed to killers and haters.
Government surely will try to define art. But the nice thing about art is that it can always turn such efforts against the very force that attempts it. But your point is well taken with respect to education in general. Government funding certainly has led to the perversion of educational content and practices.
Way to go Castellani whomever you are. You hit it right on the head. Goergey boy used the station to hit Soos and give his big donator promoter a bully pulpit to attack Soos. The public is stupid as they don't see through this little man who is power hungry and vindictive. What is worse is the fawning newspapers who bow to his wishes, especially the Niagara Reporter who kisses his butt and trumpets his achievements along with his misdeeds, couched as political shrewdness instead of plain deceit, and then relishes with attacking the Dems in anyway possible. Of course, i don't blame the Reporter as George and the Republican party funnels alot of advertising money through the paper to keep it afloat as their political mouthpiece. Why don't they run a story about the top Republican attorney in Lockport and the top Republican donator from Lockport funneling money to keep a whore house operating and now they want it back. HYPOCRISY!!
Wrong Larry. I am not in the slightest advocating the illiberalism of the freedom of speech I am advocating the direct opposite. But I find it strangely preverse that people become quite upset with speech being stifled in which they agree.
There is a drastic difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism in which Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Edmund Burke, Benjamin Frankin adhered to. It is quite frankly social and economic autonomy. Today's liberalism is essentially socialist propaganda.
I say we need far more freedom of speech. But I clearly advocate not only those whom I agree with but also those who differ with my economic or philosophical perspective as well.
There are two sides of freedom you know. Not just the freedom to succeed but also the autonomy to fail as well. There are benefits to failure as well.
Larry read basic economics by Thomas Sowell. Your perspective on "liberalism" will change overnight. I will look forward to seeing your posts change in their economic and philosophical perspective as proof.
The question of government funded art proves very clearly the problem with modern liberalism.
An example would be allocation of funds to those of whom claim to be "artists".
Economics= the study of unlimited wants(people claiming to be artists) and limited resources(money).
If you publically sponser art with tax funds you will end up with an unlimited number of people claiming to be artists. The well of financial resources will dry up as a result or people will obviously want to withdraw the program for their pocketbooks being emptied.
The inevitable result will be rationing just like in government run healthcare. The rationing will consist of a government panel to decide what is art and what is not. We know that the result will most likely be the cultural mores of today triumphing such as political correctness. Do we really want the inept government deciding what is art and what is not?
This is the problem with current liberalism. It just isn't either smart or economically rational. The same problem exists with people such as Noam Chomsky as their policies and "freedoms" become more a government mandate with the possibility of jail time than real freedom.
People unless they have been completely desensitized to their actual needs and wants will inevitably demand these programs to end. Simple economics that's all.
Anon: Your fear of everyone claiming to be an artist seems considerably exaggerated to me. I am still in favor of the government funding art. But I’m more interested in the funding of art education.
If everyone did claim to be an artist and apply for funding that would be wonderful. Of course then the government agency for the arts would just have the problem of distributing limited funds accordingly. Judgments would have to be made as to who qualified and who didn’t. It’s not a big deal. No crisis will ensue, I’ sure. The government would not be deciding what art is. They would be deciding what merited funding. So they would be making judgments regarding what is the best but not what actually is art. There’s a difference.
Joel Kovel, author of White Racism, History and Spirit, etc. once said that in the contemporary world, “Not only do most people not know what they want; most don’t even know what they need.” Art is a way people can begin to get in touch with what they need and distinguish it from what they want. Moreover art is also an explanation of desire and drive, not to mention fantasy. These are dimensions of being that need considerable exploration in our world as far as I’m concerned.
It seems to me that your liberalism is an economism. Also it seems your “real freedom” is the “free market” gone wild. It’s the chaos of private interests pursuing growth for the sake of growth and let “nature” take care of the rest, or maybe the “invisible hand."
Anon:
In my last comment I meant to say the "exploration" of drive and desire, not "explanation." Sorry.
No, your underestimating the unintended consequences of the deciding of what art is funded. How far before legislation is passed regarding the qualitative nature of the art? This has in fact happened often in countries in which these projects are in existence today. Jesus in a jar of piss is acceptable, while a cartoon of Muhammed is not. Sound familiar?
You really think that it is in fact wonderful to force hard working tax payers into subsidizing people whom are filing as tax payers with no mechanism to decipher which are worthy and are not? The government's only mechanism is coercian by force or possible loss of liberty by way of jail.
Publicly funded art and it's effect is actually not quite different to countries in which there are state run religious parties in which levels of religiousity descend to previously unheard of levels.
It's actually similar to those who favor establishing a "living wage" in which peopl abolish the minimum wage and set up an absurdly high rate of pay. The result? Minorities and poor whites, and working class of both face rising unemployment rates due to businesses not being to continue employment levels and actually laying off several employees and forcing the remaining to work to the tune usually of three jobs! Another wonderful "liberal" idea.
At this point I would rather work several jobs to place my children in the most optimal position to learn by way of private school than be completely undermined by the agenda currently in favor by the government school system today.
No offense Larry but I would rather trust the people to decipher what exactly they want and need. This seems like such a cacophony of white noise disguised as poetic rhapsodizing by way of political discussion.
The future is definitely not a centralized formation of society but more a decentralized dis-formation similar to a tree in that it is the perfect chaos.
As I see it, both democrats and republicans are essentially and fatalistically wounded by their own arrogance. Dems want your wallet, schooling choices, and business decisions, and the Pubs want your bedroom and wedding. Wat choice is that? Why the constant control? Libertarians are socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and anti war all day long.
I do not care if someone would like to marry a chair while having sex with a tree while hanging himself. That may sound cold but while I have the greatest respect and attempt to love all of humanity I want them to define what happiness is and not to the detriment of someone else nor do I want to harm adults or force them into situations in which they disagree.
I want to control you as little as I want you to control me.
Gun ownership rights are another wonderful example. In the hated deep south (where you just know in your bones how terrible and primative they are) there are gun ownership laws in which all but mandates citizens to own arms. What so you think the crime rate is? "An armed society is a polite society..." Imagine that strict gun laws actually encourage criminality...unintended consequences rise once again!
What I am attempting to articulate is that freedom while it cannot be delineated and detached from the culture or society in which it evolves can in and of itself be the basis of society and not just an outgrowth of it. As a matter of fact it would be the most splendid generator of creativity and culture.
Just today I was talking to a man who came to this country from India to lead his family and the cultural interchange has led to a blooming effect in his immediate environment at the Dunkin Donuts he owns and has worked to cultivate Indian culture in the town I live in. The same could be said for several of my fellow employees from Nigeria, Mexico, and China. They came because of the free market.
Free markets usually contemplate building walls to keep immigrants out while socialist nations build walls to confiscate those living within.
You mentioned racism, do you know that fascism is really just another tentacle of socialism? Primarily a different strain of philosophical socialism but socialism the same. Racism is essentially of the same strain, a collectivist mentality.
Post a Comment