What Is the Use Of Having Power If You Don't Abuse It?

In order to confuse those who from time to time come across something that I write, I have decided to deal in one article with some of the "transgressions" of the recent Bush administration, some of the "transgressions" of those from Wall Street, and let me not omit some of the "transgressions" of our consolidated media. Confused? Probably, but when you finish this your confusion could be even greater.

An oppressor is someone who imposes unjust burdens on others; someone who harasses others with unjust laws or unreasonable severity.

There are "those among us who are the oppressed."

There are "those among us who are the oppressors."

From time to time "the oppressed" overthrow "the oppressors" and they themselves become "the new oppressors."

Could anything be simpler than that?

The contemporary "oppressed" can be described as those of us who were made to suffer from a George Bush Presidency in general and his propensity for deregulation in particular.

He and his oppressor minions certainly did a lot of bad stuff during his eight years in office.

He oppressed many Americans in so many ways, and as a big time oppressor he led the fight in government to reduce or eliminate those rules and oversights that could have protected us from those wonderful "Wall Street Financial Oppressors." The "oppressed" (the electorate) swept the Republicans from office and while I do not support everything that Obama has done, he and his people have returned our country to a nation that I am proud of.

My experiential belief is that given the opportunity to "game the system," most people in positions of authority and trust will do just that, and reap enormous rewards by becoming, in a manner of speaking, oppressors.

There are those creative individuals like the oppressor Bernard Madoff who have been allowed by the system to pursue criminal activities and steal enormous sums from an unsuspecting clientele. Many Madoff clients assumed that the Feds would protect them from people like Madoff. How foolish they were. Sadly, regulators had been made aware of Madoffs' potentially fraudulent activities and could have stopped it and him, yet they did nothing at all to protect anyone.

As a personal aside, about four years ago I informed the Anti Trust Division of our Justice Department of a violation involving the large media companies and was informed by telephone that there was indeed a clear violation but they were not prepared to do anything about it. Ain't that just great!

Americans "contributed" a paltry few trillion dollars to "rescue" a few most "deserving" Wall Street companies. Is it unreasonable to ask, where did the money go, or perhaps, who stole it? Were laws violated? If there were, who violated them? If there were not who was responsible for that omission in law? And now the key question, "Are there now regulations in effect that will keep us from doing all of this all over again?" This activity only burdened each and every American with an additional debt of slightly less then $10,000!

Are there no available rooms in Federal Prisons to accommodate those of Wall Street who did these horrid things to our country? Where is Kenneth Starr when he is needed? The oppressors need to be frightened for their past, present, and future transgressions. What could be better then an array of Kenneth Starr's deposing everyone who was involved in the Wall Street scams?

In that I do have a tendency to function on the emotional level of a ten year old, why did "they" have the time and money to relentlessly pursue President Clinton concerning his sexual activities, while "they" remained mute when it came to the financial transgressions of those society trusted with its assets?

And now after all of this sophistry, I come to my point in an abstruse manner.

If three trillion dollars are improperly removed from "the system" for the benefit of private individuals whose activities could have been criminal, while law enforcement and Congress did little or nothing about it, is there anyone to blame and/or send to jail because of it?

Now get ready for a very long sentence!

If money is improperly taken, and law enforcement and Congress do little or nothing about it, and our media companies like The Walt Disney Company, News Corp., CBS/Viacom, Time/Warner, and General Electric do not properly report about it at length, and by not doing so, they did not serve in "the public interest, convenience, and necessity," which they are obligated to do, should the FCC be empowered to do something to remedy the situation? I blame all of the FCC's since Nixon, but head and shoulders above everyone is sadly William Jefferson Clinton for his horrid "Communications Act Rewrite."

As a result, is it not true that little if anything will happen to punish the perpetrators, and by so doing keep it from happening again?

I wrote the following a few years ago.

With the advent of Television, stations and networks could and did provide news and documentary content, and the "Feds" in particular would know that their activities were being watched and reported on to the public.

This situation has been distorted by the 1996 re-write of the communications act which allowed and encouraged consolidated Television production and content distribution through a variety of systems: Broadcast, Cable, and Satellite.

Notwithstanding the power that they have, these companies want to own and control even more, and the Bush FCC would be willing to give it to them and claim that this "give away" supports their goal of "competition, diversity, and localism."

What had been at least a reasonable number of voices with a future full of hope for even more voices, has become a "for profit machinery" gobbling up our media diversity.

Our system no longer works as well as it did in the past, and it is broken.

We still have the three branches of government, but the Compliant and Consolidated Television media rarely exposes to the public, the transgressions of the Executive and Legislative branches. Sadly, there is virtually No Editorial Comment, or equal time devoted to presenting opposing views to the television audience. The broadcasters no longer provide investigative documentaries, or challenge the government in any way.

Unfortunately, these consolidated organizations have become the de-facto fourth branch of government, used by the government to ensure its incumbency.

Had someone awakened from a 30 year sleep and watched television news and asked: "How is Television controlled now and more importantly who owns it?" They would be shocked to learn that it is controlled by part of the executive branch (the FCC) and owned by industrial giants such as The General Electric Company, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, and lest we forget, the Walt Disney Company. They could ask: "How do opposing views reach the public, or do they in fact reach the public?" The answer, drum roll please, they don't.

If news content is delivered by four networks, and cable news is primarily delivered by many of the same companies that deliver broadcast news, do you think that system is fair?

Americans desperately need true press freedom and we should not have allowed the media to consolidate.

How can these media giants be in conflict with the same government that they need in order to continue getting bigger and more profitable?

How would our electronic media be if we allowed the ownership of only one television station, or one radio station, or one cable network, or one cable system, or one satellite system?

Networks are fine; however, they must not be allowed to own the delivery system and the content that is carried.

Own all of the print you wish. This would serve to benefit the public interest, why shouldn't we have it?

We should form a fourth branch of Government, an independent "Media Department" (in place of the FCC) to keep a diverse system alive and vibrant, and not under the control of the Executive or the Congressional branches.

Of course this can't happen, but it is nice to think about. Media should serve the public interest, and be as diverse as possible.

It should not be designed to serve the interests of News Corp., or any other company.

And by the way, the near term solution is not the internet.

Media is different!

The really big guys want to "oppress" and they will do everything in their power to do so!

Not an easy thing to change.

Norman, on behalf of "the oppressed" includes himself in that group.