Cross-ownership Ban

Still on the subject of Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media by Eric Klinenberg

Dating back to 1975 the FCC had a cross-ownership ban in place that stated that one entity could not own cross own broadcast and newspaper companies in the same market. In 2000, the FCC revisited this ban. It was determined that if the ban were lifted the American people would suffer because there would be a lack of view point diversity. (This lack of diversity began to take hold of radio with the Telecommunications Act in 1996). The Tribune Company fought this with (as you may guess) MONEY. It went on a spending spree for lobbyist from 2000 to 2003. They tripled their spending during this time. It worked. in 2003 the ban was lifted to such a degree that one company could own 45% of a NATIONAL audience. (press release from 2003 http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/02/news/companies/fcc_rules/ )

Fortunately, to some degree, this was revisited in 2011 and Federal Courts urged the FCC to old cross-ownership ban. The some degree lies in the fact that even though changes were made the damage had already been done. Companies that seized the opportunity and gobbled up markets were “grandfathered in” and allowed to stay as one entity. (link to article regarding the courts and FCC http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/3rd-circuit-tells-fcc-to-rewrite-media-ownership-rules).

The FCC failed Americans in those (approx) 8 years. There is no turning back from the media conglomerates created during the years the ban was lifted. My question is, how is the being “grandfathered in” allowed to happen? The South had tried this with limiting Black votes with the Grandfather Clause. Is it just me that believes they are one in the same?

notjustmythoughts

1996 Telecommunications Act

Thanks to an old professor of mine I was introduced to a GREAT book, Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media by Eric Klinenberg.

I do suggest you all to check out the book just because I think it is worth the knowledge.

Anyway, one specific thing I’d like to bring up is the 1996 Telecommunications Act which opened up the flood gates to American Radio. Prior to the signing of this Act, there were greater restrictions of how many stations of broadcast (and the level of their frequency) could be owned by one person/corporations. In the releasing of these restrictions companies bought up the air waves thus creating an atmosphere where competition was limited and insights shared.

What this means? Well if one company owns 1000 stations across the U.S in both large and small markets with high frequency reach, these 1000 stations will share one common mindset… the owners’. There will be limited perspecitives on a topic and a great deal of bias with the type of information released by the stations… In a simplier way: our media is being controlled in a manner similar to a straight jacket.

Is anyone else upset by this? The implications are vast.

The Other Wes Moore

It’s been a little longer than I would have liked to write this post, but I had to finish this book in its entirety as well as develop my thoughts. The book: The Other Wes Moore One Name, Two Fates by Wes Moore was an incredible tale. To generalize (which is not giving the book the credit it deserves) would be to simply say that this is a memoir of sorts about two men each named Wes Moore. While that is true it is much deeper than the surface of their lives.

I highly recommend this book to everyone – teachers, students, adults, professors. I believe everyone can gain a little knowledge about themselves and the society around them. As you may have already established, I am passionate in my views regarding the disparities of society surrounding race and economics. In the telling of the lives of each Wes Moore I found so many of the things I felt about society come alive in their life stories. Wes Moore presents the book in chapters with two sections to every chapter – his story and Wes’ story. The side by side portrayal allows the differences in their lives (and possibly their fates) to come alive and the disparities glare at you with unapologetic reality.

One thing that remains with me is a question Wes Moore poses to the imprisoned Wes and Wes’ response. The question is in the introductory section of Part III of the book “Paths Taken and Expectations Fulfilled.” Each part has an introductory section, which is an excerpt from an interview conducted at the prison by Wes. Wes asks, “Do you think we’re all just products of our environments?” The imprisoned Wes answers, “I think so, or maybe products of our expectations.” Wes elaborates on his point saying, “… others’ expectations that you take on as your own.”

I keep thinking about this. Mainly because I am one of those people that believe you are a product of your environment – both the environment inside and outside of your home. But I also think about this because I believe there is validity in the statement. For those that have succeeded, most have done so because they have had people rooting for them – believing in them. They have had mentors or family and friends that believe their success is probable. There are exceptions to this of course – where people want to prove others wrong and show them in spite of the lack of support and belief in them they will succeed. But those exceptions are not what kept this in my mind.

I haven’t always had the easiest life. I was fortunate to have a two family household – so people tell me, but my parents fought constantly. To my mother’s heartbreak in my adulthood I shared a sad truth, I do not have one happy memory with both my parents in it. My happiest moments of my childhood are with my friends, my grandmother, or my parents separately. They eventually separated, when I was 14 and going to high school. My mother lost a husband. I lost a father. I moved in with my grandparents. Even with the instability at home one thing that remained constant was the push from my mother to do well in school. She always told me I could be anything I wanted to be in life and to let nothing stop me from true success. My teachers, in the private school my parents could hardly afford, instilled this same belief – I could be anything. Enough people told me this that I believed and sought out this expectation of me.

The imprisoned Wes Moore was never told those things. His criminal brother Tony did tell him to stay in school, but when you’re in and out of prison and your actions aren’t positive those words hold no meaning. His mother simply asked him not to be like Tony, but never gave him guidance on what he could be. I am not placing blame on his mother… she too was a product of this same reality. The low expectations society places on certain people (the economically repressed and forced urban dwellers) become instead [of positivity] what is ingrained in the budding minds of the youth.

Wes writes, in a section about his life, “‘Justin, you are a good kid, you need to stay away from Wes or you will end up going nowhere like he will.’ Justin simply shook his head and ignored him. It amazed Justin how easily they would write off a twelve-year-old.” This quote details an interaction between Justin (Wes’ best friend) and a teacher. At twelve-years old teachers had a remarkably low expectation of Wes. Fortunately his fate provided strong mentors and people who believed in his success. His mother was always a stronghold in this belief.

And so it makes me wonder, are we the products of our expectations?

Please read the book, you will more than love it. You will be inspired. http://theotherwesmoore.com/

Thank you Wes Moore for sharing your story as well as Wes’.

notjustmythoughts

Income Equality Gaps

Time Magazine Jan 9, 2012 Issue
Income Inequality

Some of the article (from Time Magazine 1/9/12 issue) got cut out, but the gist of the article can be “read” within the pictures. In the last 20 years the gaps in income have increased dramatically. It is no surprise that the highest areas with income gaps are also the areas with the largest metropolitan cities, i.e. California, New York, Florida. In these states the large cities are the contributing factor to the large dispartity. These cities also have a high concentration of gentrification. I have already discussed (in a previous post) that I have conflicting opinions re gentrification, but the more and more I look into the issue I am finding myself on the “against” side of gentrification. On the surface gentrification looks good… but when you look closer you realize that gentrification is responsible (in part, it cannot take sole blame) for increasing the gaps in income equality. Gentrification pushes low and low-middle income families out of an area allowing for high-middle and high income families to move in, thus increasing the gap in income. If you have ever traveled to Manhattan, you can readily see that the metropolis is becoming more and more for the rich. It is very costly to live in the heart of Manhattan with studio apartments in some areas starting at $2,000 a month. A STUDIO.

Maybe these are just my thoughts, but I can’t see how that could be so. While I do believe that shifts in society are inevitable and even necessary for a country to continue to be at the forefront of business, economy, and power EVERYTHING cannot change. Manufacturing, thankfully, is taking a turn and becoming more relevant in our society again. This is likely do to people buying into the “Made from America” trend. But this is good. Outsourcing to other countries has provided other places with advancement and even a more stable economy, but it has damaged our own. Hopefully with the blue collar jobs on the rise the dispartity in the income gaps will decrease slightly.
 
What are your thoughts? What do you believe are some of the contributing factors of the gaps in income? I know there are many more factors than the few I have listed, but to include them all would be to write a book.
Notjustmythoughts

Happy New Year

I hope everyone had a wonderful Holiday Season, whatever your celebrations may include (as long as they are peaceful and don’t infringe on anyone’s rights of course).

I’ve been enjoying my time with family and a week travel in Toronto. It was my first time there and WOW, what a wonderful city. It was one of the most friendly cities I have been to…and clean! New York City could sure use some lessons in that department. But with my vacation I have isolated myself from mass media, propaganda, and other forms of society that gets my blood boiling. I will definitely add some of my thoughts (that are notjustmythoughts) soon.

But the new year has got me thinking, what can we do as a society to change things? I started this blog late in 2011 with the hopes of inciting some kind of change in at least one person. Sadly, you never really know who you inspire, aside from those that comment, but does it inspire them to the point of change?

My plan is to continue this blog thru 2012 (and beyond) with the things  regarding society, culture, media, and anything in general that I feel isn’t in line with equality, human rights and respect, which goes hand-and-hand with rights.

Until next time, which will be sooner than later…

XOXO,
notjustmythoughts

Illegal

Just had my mind blown….

First, let me say that I know meanings of words change over a period of time, but this one… OH HELL NO, this is just ANOTHER racist tactic imbedded in society.

So the word illegal, in the English language, originally refered to inanimate objects and actions… now it [also] refers to a group of humans (illegal immigrants), thus dehumanizing this group of people. When in fact, they are not illegal… their actions, which got them into the country were illegal, but they are not. They are undocumented. How can you be an illegal human… somehow counterfeit or not real? 

How did this one slip right by me?! I vow to never use the words illegal and immigrant in relation to one another.

Let’s start a movement and give back the human quality these immigrants possess.

Please tell me, notjustmythoughts.

Dalits

A Dalit is an “untouchable” in India. As I was reading this article in the NY Times I kept thinking, kind of sounds like the gap between the wealthy and the poor here in America… and then this paragraph:

“Dalits still lag behind the rest of India, but they have experienced gains as the country’s economy has expanded. A recent analysis of government survey data by economists at the University of British Columbia found that the wage gap between other castes and Dalits has decreased to 21 percent, down from 36 percent in 1983, less than the gap between white male and black male workers in the United States. The education gap has been halved.”

I bolded the text to signify what stood out to me.

Read the full article here…http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/world/asia/indias-boom-creates-openings-for-untouchables.html?ref=world

notjustmythoughts.

 

Buying Congress

Is this really the first time someone has thought that people are buying Congress? I’ve been saying this from the very beginning. Congress makes strides for the rich, because ultimately they are the ones who have funded “them” (the representative/senator/president) getting into office. No money = no campaign train, which in turn means not getting your word out there, which in turn means you wouldn’t win. So you win with financing from people, but when wealthy people end up contributing more money combined than money from smaller individual donations you have a skewed perspective on winning tactics. It is no longer about the people of the nation, but rather the people with money that donated and how you can get more of their money and also keep them on “your team” going into the next elections…

What does this means? Well, dig in your pocket and come up with a little under 30K for a donation and you too might have a voice… Of course, my version of irony…

The Bronx median income is about 17K/yr … now doesn’t it kind of make sense as to why the Bronx is often the forgotten borough? And the average medium income is a little more than 26K… 

And even though this article in the NY TIMES (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/deep-pockets-deeply-political/?hp) is an opinion piece, I kind of feel like they make these stories “opinion” to undermind people into thinking it really isn’t so.

Check out the article. It’s worth your time. Notjustmythoughts.

Loopholes and roundabout tactics

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/nyregion/new-york-developers-take-advantage-of-financing-for-visas-program.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Have you read this article in the NY Times? It SCREAMS shadiness if you ask me… This seems like bribery in so many ways. How can you take $500,000 (legally) from a foriegn investor to guarentee them a 2 year visa?? AND THEN on top of that, how can you rezone an area just to say that it is in a needy section of NY when in fact it is not? This is allowed?!?!?!?!?!

Come on people!!!! These aren’t..they can’t be…no notjustmythoughts

Gentrification

Gentrification, what are your thoughts?

I am not entirely sure how I feel about it. I can see the benefits of gentrification. Big business isn’t always bad – bring jobs into an area. New housing isn’t always bad – nicer apartments, more apartments…

But when I think about it deeper, the jobs that big business provides usually only pay slightly more than the minimum wage. An example of this… 116th and Pleasant Avenue in El Barrio (Spanish Harlem). There is a Costco, Old Navy, Target, Bob’s Furniture, and a Petco (and I believe a few more stores). This seems good. They boasted they would bring a few thousand jobs to the community… but you find out later that a lot of those jobs are at $8/hr. If you know Manhattan – this isn’t much at all compared to the cost of living. Also, a lot of the jobs are part time… big businesses’ way of not providing health insurance to its employees… and furthermore… these businesses said “jobs in the community”, but employees are from outside fo the community too… so in reality.. what have you given this community? Traffic… more pollution from the idling traffic and the truck deliveries to the stores…decrease in sales to the mom & pop shops…

And the apartments… The buildings are nice to look at… but when you look at them… for the last 2 years… they seem completed… no construction workers/work is visible…but the windows are all bare… you notice empty apartments… why would this be? Well, one building in particular is within 2 blocks of a drug rehabilitation facility. You see (at all times of the day) addicts walking the streets… they you investigate further and learn that these apartments are actually condos. Where a one bedroom will run you about $300k. This is in a community where it is mostly Hispanic and where the average annual income lies around $17k. These apartments in turn have not benefited anyone. Not the people that already lived in the community and not the gentrified people the new buildings hoped to gain…

and even if these apartments were filled with the gentrified people, what benefit is that really? They probably wouldn’t go to the Mexican grocery store owned and run by a family of LEGAL immigrants or first generation Americans. For sure they wouldn’t buy their groceries from the Associated nearby… once they look at the almost old “fresh” produce they will run (and the quality of produce… let’s leave that for another post). Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s will likely benefit from them.. except there isn’t one in the community…

So what is the benefit of gentrification? My conclusion: more money for real estate investors and building owners…  

Is it always a moneys game?

Are these notjustmythoughts?