Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Does Money Talk in the Marketplace of Ideas?

Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo once said that “metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it.” Cardozo’s warning would seem to have been heeded by a group of A-list first amendment scholars who met on March 27 at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice to consider the Court’s recent campaign-funding decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Calling the give and take of points of view in the course of democratic deliberation a “marketplace of ideas” can mean one of two things: (1) political speech occurs in a marketplace like any other and its production and marketing is finally no different from the production and marketing, say, of Coca Cola; or (2) the arena in which political speech is produced and consumed can be thought of as a marketplace, as long as we take care to make the appropriate adjustments in the light of the difference between Coca Cola cans — which can be regarded as fungible units, every one like every other one — and ideas, which cannot and should not be so regarded.

Does Money Talk in the Marketplace of Ideas?

Like Bob Dylan says: "Money doesn't talk, it swears!..."
Hot Damn!!

The candidate most likely to win, due to a variety of winning qualities already possessed by that person = voter appeal, almost always receives the most campaign contributions. Why? Because no one wants to waste a contribution on a perceived loser. This holds true for All contributors, big or small. Therefore, more money entering a contest only makes for more expensive campaigns, and a convenient excuse for losers, but does not alter the results.

The way to test this is to run the same two candidates against each other in consecutive elections, but change the amounts spent. This in fact does happen in thousands of congressional elections. It turns out from studies that the amount a candidate spends hardly matters. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half, and only lose 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate can double his spending and only shift that same 1%.

Yes, literally 'billions' are spent each year in federal elections each year. Is that a lot of money to spend for our democratic representatives? Relative to what, you should ask? It is about the same amount that Americans spend for chewing gum each year too. Chew on their relative importance before you call it 'a lot.'
NS (Native Son)

29 miners killed in West Virginia
1100 safety violations at that mine in the past two years.


Had we but faith in the marketplace we would be as gods.

ST: 29 miners are dead in West Virginia
1100 safety violations at that mine in the past two years.

NS: Two elements: a dangerous tiger, and a cage made of grass.
To you, 1100 violations says: 'wrong doers violate the rules.' Thus, blame wrong doers.

Well, duh! Welcome to, 'the same as it ever was.' There wouldn't be any rules if it were not a given that violations will inevitably happen. "Wrong doing" acts (mala in se) is a natural element of our species. You cannot arrest the entire species, nor alter its nature. Therefore, your target of blame is poorly chosen, making a fix impossible.

To me, 1100 violations Screams: 'where is the enforcement?' Thus, blame corrupt authority.

It was all perfectly legal.
Because of the 30 percent rule
Do you want me to Google the facts for you?
No thanks
you win again
Congratulations


I quote facts and you say I point blame
"Oh my white brother"


Don't waste your time on a fool like me.
Even though I appreciate your reply
Everytime someone replies to one of my posts B.F. Skinner rewards me with a banana flavored pellet.

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

ST: It was all perfectly legal.
Because of the 30 percent rule

NS: I understand. When I say "authority & enforcement" I mean 'real rules with real teeth, really enforced.' What good is a "violation" if it means nothing? THAT is what 'I' blame.

ST: Do you want me to Google the facts for you?

NS: Thanks, but I've kept up with the story.
Did you not get my larger point re: tigers and grass cages'? The 'grass cage' is all about nominal violations and 30% rules.

ST: you win again

NS: I was hoping for a discussion between opposing takes on an important issue. "Winning and losing," as you've brought it up, it must be your game. I'm happy to declare you the 'winner' in this, and all future discussions, if only you would stop attributing your concerns to me. If it is not your concern either, then let's not mention it again, lest we give insult, okay?

ST: I quote facts and you say I point blame

NS: I point blame. You merely locate facts. Understood.

ST: Don't waste your time on a fool like me.

NS: Considerate of you to warn me off. But, I do my own appraisals, and do not take you for a "fool" at all. Nor, do I consider my time spent posting as a "waste." If you wish me not to respond to your posts, just ask.

ST: quoting Proverbs: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

Ecclesiastes: "All is vanity."
Is not "vanity" foolishness and folly? If so, it then follows that, "all is vain foolishenss," and my 'answer' is no less foolish than another fool's folly. And, if all is folly, how can that possibly be determined as a "fact," when all possible criteria is itself just more folly?

Enjoy your banana pellet.

I looked up "fungible" because I didn't know what it meant. I read the definition in 3 different online dictionaries and I still don't know what it means.

The title for this thread is just me being silly Doreen. I don't think it made any sense.

but here is a good link to definitions for the word

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... d=0CAYQkAE

I don't remember ever hearing the word Fungible then all of a sudden I read it in three different articles within a week.
See my post on my artlog called
Fungible My word of the day


Always a pleasure non sum
lets play again sometime.
sincerely
jt

K, I'll bite, but I don't know how much of this thing I get (how big is this train coming, and can I stand the crowd) But, here's my first thoughts...

can mean one of two things: (1) political speech occurs in a marketplace like any other and its production and marketing is finally no different from the production and marketing, say, of Coca Cola; or (2) the arena in which political speech is produced and consumed can be thought of as a marketplace, as long as we take care to make the appropriate adjustments in the light of the difference between Coca Cola cans — which can be regarded as fungible units, every one like every other one — and ideas, which cannot and should not be so regarded.

This first seems a better choice to me, the second would tick me off, cause that means someone gets to oversee and decide if what's said is along the lines of what 'they' want...which to me I know it happens this way, but it still stinks to read how it could happen that way. I mean; ideas, why shouldn't they be regarded, and along those lines, be allowed if coming from those interested in the thing to begin with?.

I'll say it this way, I've been gabbing on all sorts of forums over the years, most are controlled and annoyingly so.

In some instances I could understand why the need for control...such as if children frequent the board, but moderators do get power hungry and had over stepped, I believe at times. Especially under intense situations, and that sours my wanting to stick around.

Other forums grow arrogant, and the leader can be a monster but people follow regardless. Some forums attempt to be fair, but the moment a panic sets in, they think they should do something and usually it's a downfall.

I prefer to be on forums where I can be trusted to say as I will and same applies to each, if things get very miserable and too big of an issue arises, people find some method in the madness to work it out better than if some other interfered. Those impacted and involved should be the healers in the end, not some 'leader know it all' who knew nothing and escalated the adventure.

Ideally...if a leader is a must, than they should be willing to be and stay fully involved or else they'll just be an added problem.

Long winded, my apologies,
but Doreen has the best place in town.

Thanks for the reply Dame.

Fungible is a fun word for me.
I like the sound of it.

I was just goofing around with the word
But maybe metaphors are fungible.
Beats me.


Doreen's studio is the the only game in town for me.

"Who's to bless, and who's to blame"
i like that song a lot.

I likes that tune, too.

One of those songs I would play over and over.

If a cheated man's a loser and a cheater never wins
And if beggars can't be choosers till they're weak and wealthy men
And the old keep gettin' older and the young must do the same
And it's never gettin' better who's to bless and who's to blame?

All the cards're on the table you done laid your money down
Don't complain about your chances boy it's the only game in town
And the meaning doesn't matter nor the way you play the game
To the winner or the loser who's to bless and who's to blame?

--- Instrumental ---

Keep your hands above the table and your backs against the wall
Toss your chips in with your chances boy let 'em lay the way they fall
'Cause the moral doesn't matter broken rules are all the same
To the broken or the breaker who's to bless and who's to blame?

(Who's to bless and who's to blame?...)

The 29 miners have not much to do with this thread. Damn, I hate it when I hijack my own thread.

fun that u eat.....i know what it means.....good on a saturday morn....

fun that u eat.....i know what it means.....good on a saturday morn....

That's it exactly!


fun fun fungible
we'll have fun fun fun when daddy takes the T-Bird away