As a Black man I realize that I am supposed to dutifully agree with "Democratic Party Preacher" Al Sharpton in his battle against right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh in his observations of Limbaugh use of racial invective in his commentary.
As an occasional listener of Limbaugh I am made to laugh because he is merely taunting his PROGRESSIVE/DEMOCRATIC adversaries knowing that the portion of those who happen to be Black are going to respond in a predictable manner.
Thus I rationalize and justify my refusal to "get in where I fit in" by my notation that in the case of Al Sharpton and a significant portion of the Black Political Establishment - they have compromised their own "Black integrity" - where they should 'Leave Democratic and Progressive fights' for the Democrats and Progressives to fight and instead have picked up a weapon and fired shots, having failed to take off their "black cross" in the process.
More to the point - the very same individuals who are offended can be heard waging attacks against the Black people that the "racist" Rush Limbaugh favors and thus doesn't call them names. Ask Al Sharpton and Roland Martin what they think of Black economist Dr Walter Williams who is the occasional guest host for Limbaugh. Or fellow economist Dr Thomas Sowell who's works appear on the conservative "Town Hall" web site. Or James "Snerdly" Golding who is Limbaugh's official "Black Critic" (or whatever he is called).
With such an inspection we note that, as far as the Black Establishment is concerned, "Blackness is an ideological/political orthodoxy" and not just a skin color. As such those who claim to be advocating the "best interests of the Black community" feel no particular obligation to TRANSPARENTLY inspect their favored methodologies that intend to advance these interests to insure the efficacy of such. Instead they see their works as a grand "ideological unity" enforcement action.
When I make the case of "Progressive-Fundamentalism" some people believe that this is an oxymoron. A "progressive" stands against "fundamentalism" and "conservatism". This is not the case.
A fundamentalist seeks to retain his dogma, protecting it against all competitive notions that might supplant it. "Progressivism" is a dogma. It has a set of methodologies that are used to achieve a particular end. Indeed one can seek to systematically protect the dogma of "progressivism" and thus be a "Progressive-Fundamentalist" as shown by their enforcement actions and attacks.
Thus it comes as no surprise to me that the "Right-Wing" party in Hungary that is in control in the legislature has imposed a sweeping new set of legislation that regulate the speech in the professional media in the country. One should not frame this as an issue of "right or left". This is ONLY an issue of GOVERNMENT POWER.
Those who have the POWER of government at their disposal choose to use it to control and if necessary oppress their enemies. They use the cover of "justice" and/or the desire to curtail "hate speech".
The same Al Sharpton that gives testament to how the CCC-motivated White racists saw the Civil Rights speeches from the "Back in the day" period where he receives his moral authority as "Hate Speech" fails to see that they too used the institutions of GOVERNMENT to curtail the speeches that sounded disturbing to them.
I suggest that Mr Sharpton listen to radio station WAOK, the very station that carries his radio show from 1pm till 4. If he were to listen to some of the other shows (or XM The Power's weekend line up) he would hear a lot of "Rush Limbaugh in black face" language which the FCC might also be interested in.
BUDAPEST—A Hungarian media crackdown and an open policy clash between the government and its central bank have raised alarms just as the country prepares to take over the rotating European Union presidency.
The storm brewed up after Hungary's parliament Tuesday passed a controversial media law that will expand the government's power to monitor and penalize private media. The law allows a new media regulator appointed by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's ruling center-right party to fine journalists if coverage is deemed politically "unbalanced."
The committee will be able to inspect media and force journalists to reveal sources in matters deemed to fall under national security.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on Wednesday said the legislation violates OSCE standards for press freedoms and endangers editorial independence.
The law regulates all media content—broadcast, print and online—based on identical principles. It also gives unusually broad powers to the recently established media authority and media council, which are led exclusively by members supported by the governing party, said Dunja Mijatovic, the OSCE representative for press freedom.
"Such concentration of power in regulatory authorities is unprecedented in European democracies, and it harms media freedom," Ms. Mijatovic said.
Meanwhile, financial markets are worrying about the growing rift between Hungary's ruling Fidesz party and the country's central bank, which has been demanding the government use more fiscal restraint and has been increasing interest rates despite government objections.
The tensions risk resurrecting memories of Hungary's financial crisis in 2008, when its near-meltdown roiled other emerging markets. Mr. Orbán snubbed an offer of aid from the International Monetary Fund earlier this year, claiming that the country could regain fiscal stability on its own.
Capital Economics analyst Neil Shearing said Hungarian interest rates might now have peaked. "But tensions between the government and the National Bank are high and rising," he said. "Accordingly, Hungarian assets will continue to carry a hefty risk premium well into 2011."
After winning a landslide election victory in April with a populist message, Mr. Orbán has worked to jump-start economic growth by cutting personal income taxes, lowering taxes on smaller enterprises, and boosting some social welfare payments.
The governor of Hungary's central bank, András Simor, said the policies are risky and warned that eroding investor confidence is one of the biggest potential threats to the economy. Fidesz party lawmakers demanded that Mr. Simor resign and introduced a bill to change how the central bank's interest rate-setting committee is chosen.
Political Europe is more concerned about the new press law, and the image problem it could present for the 27-nation European Union.
Germany's government called on Hungary to take into account the OSCE's criticism. A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Christoph Steegmans, told reporters in Berlin that Germany expects Hungary to remain committed to the European Union's constitutional values.
"Holding the coming EU presidency, Hungary of course has a special responsibility for the image of the EU in the world," Mr. Steegmans said.
Germany's main opposition party, the Social Democrats, said Hungary's media law violates EU law and democratic principles.
Heiko Maas, head of the Social Democrats' working group on democracy and freedom, called on the EU to immediately start an investigation into the Hungarian legislation and not exclude the possibility of sanctions.
Jürgen Trittin, the parliamentary leader of Germany's opposition Green Party, said Hungary needs to revoke the media law if it wants to take over the EU presidency on Jan. 1 as planned.
An European Commission spokesman said the EU executive will follow the situation very closely and take action if European media law or legal principles were found to be infringed.