From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Oct 29 2001 - 11:14:19 MST
"Alex F. Bokov" wrote:
>
> ...should actually read:
>
> change. You have one vote. Time-Warner/AOL has millions of
> dollars. Which type of entity will most likely influence the
> legislation in its favor?
Depends on the market value of a vote. When news coverage starts being
more rightly regarded as campaign contributions (considering how biased
most news coverage is), I'll start thinking more about campaign reform.
As it is, Time-Warner/AOL owns CNN, TBS, and the rest of the Turner
broadcasting empire. So, they not only get to outspend me, they get to
tell me from an alleged 'objective' press platform that the groups I
support like the NRA are 'special interests' while their editorial
decisions are not. They also get to donate many millions to causes which
oppose my Constitutional civil liberties, yet claim that my group is
nothing but a paid hack for the gun manufacturing industry.
The fact is that there are far more of us than there are of them. The
NRA, which generates a smaller percentage of its revinues from industry
than any other major advocacy group in DC, (including the AARP) yet is
regarded by lawmakers and the lobbying industry as the most effective
CITIZENS advocacy group (and most effective group in general). A lack of
endorsement by the NRA is regarded as a potential death knell to
campaigns in most of the country, specifically because it has over 3
million paying members and represents a constituency of gun owners that
is a supermajority of the voting public (whether they think it
represents them or not). NRA anti-candidate campaigns kill more
candidacies than any other group.
Yet the media, owned by big corporations, continues to portray the NRA
as a 'fringe' group of 'extremists' and 'industry' special interests.
Why is it then that most groups who espouse an anti-coporate agenda are
also opposed to the NRA? It is important to understand this sort of
dynamic, because a similar problem exists with extropy. Most of our
positions are opposed by both the corporate/government world and by
those groups that oppose them, despite the fact that extropic ideas
resonate on an individual basis to varying degrees with most people.
The NRA is effective because it has "God" on its side politically: The
Constitution says the NRA is right, in terms that are easy to understand
for most people. The term "The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" is extremely easy for the average dope to
comprehend. They don't need a lawyer or law maker or judge to tell them
what that means. There isn't more than two two syllable words in there,
and no terms that are not ordinary speech.
For extropy, I think the best thing we can do on the political front is
to find similar language and grab onto it. Claim it as our own, that
only we can truly defend the people's interests in it, etc. This
establishes our cause as having a tradition worth defending, one that
every person has an interest in.
I think that this is inevitable. Politics doesn't work at all well on
the "I am an army of one" philosophy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:43 MST