When I first heard the "Fairness Doctrine" was being resurrected by liberals, I thought, they must be mad, in more ways than one.   Then I thought, it's just the far left fringe lib.s who are talking about this.   But every day, more seem to sign onto the notion that the so-called fairness doctrine is the best way to rid themselves of Rush Limbaugh, and possibly others.   The more I think about this ridiculous approach, the more I realize it is not going to turn out the way liberals of all stripes hope it might.

Let's go over the basics of the "fairness doctrine" for the sake of refreshing our memories.   The doctrine would require broadcast licensees (those who broadcast over the regulated public airwaves) to present issues of public importance in an honest, equal and balanced manner (like the way Fox News claims its broadcasts are "fair and balanced").   It also operates or can be made to operate to provide equal air-time for a person or group being attacked on a show, including political candidates.

Recently many Democrats have come out for the reimposition of the "fairness doctrine" including Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and Dianne Feinstein.   Feintstein, when recently asked about it, said there was "much more careful and correct reporting to people" when it was enforced.

I'm not sure what Feintstein means since the vast majority of reporting is about the same now as it was then, decidely liberal-biased.   The only things of substance which have changed in recent years are the growth of conservative talk radio and the abject commercial failure of a liberal attempt to compete with it.   Liberals are on record talking about their dislike of the growth of conservative talk radio.   They've also been well documented lamenting the failure of the liberal alternative.   And it is within that context that the revival of this old FCC regulation (no, it was never a law) has arisen.   Make no mistake, the fairness doctrine is about closing down something which grew organically and thrived based upon commercial success.   Conservative talk radio is the result of freedom.

So the lib.s want to codify an antiquated, overturned FCC regulation in order to remove conservative talk radio from the political arena.   They might be able to get Limbaugh off the radio waves or force stations that carry him to also air the little listened to liberal radio voices.   But there are alternatives today which were not around when the doctrine was applied.   And with the print media dying a slow, painful death, the number of non-public-airwaves alternatives available to liberals are shrinking fast.

We've become far too galvanized to simply roll over and accept the liberal-biased broadcast media.   ABC, NBC, and CBS will increasingly become the target of well-funded conservative driven lawsuits.   Let's face facts, CBS's attempted character assassination of then presidential candidate George Bush would not fly in today's climate.  -; And there was insufficient documentary support for their position to defend its broadcast as "factual."   The network would be forced to air essentially Republican propaganda of equal duration to balance out its act.

This blog piece points out why conservatives ought not fear the "fairness doctrine" per se since it should act to prevent the large news outlets from republishing Democrat talking points verbatim.   Perhaps they can republish them but there will be many, many court cases demanding equal time for opposing viewpoints.   These cases may not win every time they're tried but in many instances they will because the views being presented now are not complete by any reasonable measure.

While the media has claimed that there is an overhwelming "scientific consensus" in support of man-caused climate change due to fosil fuel usage, there is not a sufficient body of research and evidence to support the position as factual.   All broadcasts could be forced to air the other side of the equation which is a very substantial number of "skeptics."   You may delude yourself into believing that this is not so but the media has lumped together those scientists who believe there is an ongoing heating of the Earth occurring with those who specifically blame it on mankind.   If you bifurcate this "consensus" into proper camps, the presentation of anthropogenic greenhouse warming as factual falls apart.   Since mostly conservatives talk about the skeptic side while no mainstream media outlet does, rational court review of broadcast journalism on the subject would yield a result which was entirely beneficial to skeptics.

Similarly, mainstream media outlets would be forced to state factual information with respect to such issues as the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools.   There is no way currently available to prove the entirety of the position which has been put forth by the media.   In fact, most journalists have such a poor grasp of what is actually included in the theory of evolution and make such huge mistakes about what has been proven, that most reports currently carried in the media cannot be seen as anything but biased and faulty.   The fairness doctrine would create such a bottleneck of court cases regarding all broadcasters that it would effectively halt many broadcasts from proceeding.   Ultimately, some sort of regulatory fix would be required.   A court system just for the one issue would be the only way in which this nation could proceed.   And that would be ridiculous.

The point here is, perhaps there is something good about this "fairness doctrine" revival for conservatives.   It ought to offend anyone's sense of freedom of speech but if it is forced down our throats by Democrats, we ought to at least take advantage of it.   In every difficulty, there is opportunity.

Labels: media bias

Japan's Kobayashi, routine winner of the Nathan's hot dog eating contest, has an inury caused by his "athletic" training.   He was diagnosed with arthritis of the jaw and has halted his training for this year's competition.   Kobayashi, I love saying Kobayashi, can reportedly only open his mouth to make a gap the size of a fingertip since being diagnosed.

If there is anything the anti-obesity crowd out to frown upon, it is the growing popularity of the sport of eating.   And that "sport's" popularity has but one poster child, the ultra thin Kobayashi.   Now those anti-obesity folks can point to a serious long-term injury and perhaps put a halt to this madness.   Heck, if they can ban aluminum bats in baseball in order to try to stop an infinitesmal mortality rate, they ought to be able to get government to stop competitive eating in order to combat a similar number of jaw arthritis cases.

Labels: behavior modification

The latest news that John McCain apoligized to Mitt Romney, because one of McCain's campaign workers made a negative comment about Romney's faith in the Mormon religion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail

This is another example of McCain not having control over his campaign. A President is a leader, and a leader needs to have control. He does need to delegate work to his staff, but his staff needs to respect his authority. McCain's staff doesn't appear to do so, and that's because McCain hasn't established his authority.

Bottom line is that McCain is nice guy, a senstive guy, a fighter, but not a leader.

Labels: John McCain

One thing about fame, all the nay-sayers come out and attack you.

Yahoo has put together a collection of short sound byte videos from various 60 Minutes episodes about Lou Dobbs' rise to fame...

http://www.yahoo.com/s/610701

The pre-dominant theme in these sound bytes is attacking Lou Dobbs' credibility as a "journalist". As if, 60 Minutes is trying to bury this guy. As if, 60 Minutes is real journalism.

Lou Dobbs' show competes with 60 Minutes, just as Lou Dobbs' show competes against Bill O'Reilly. He's open game, as far as 60 Minutes is concerned.

At this stage of the game, I don't consider Dobbs, O'Reilly, or even 60 Minutes to be "journalism". By this time, it's more like "intellectual entertainment". These shows do focus on the current issues, but they can't change our thinking anymore. We've become so set in our ways as conservatives, liberals, libertarians, et al, that these shows serve mainly to stroke our ideologies.

Liberals watch 60 Minutes because that show upholds their ideology. People watch O'Reilly for the same reasons, as they watch Dobbs. Has Limbaugh ever changed a liberal into a conservative?

This blog you're reading doesn't report on the news. Rather, we just give our analysis of the events. That's what Dobbs does, and that's what 60 Minutes does. Maybe you can think of them as video blogs that appear on television.

Labels: 60 Minutes, Lou Dobbs

The AP reported today that Senate Democrats are making an attempt to raise the minimum fuel economy standards in automobile by a massive 30% increase...

Senators agreed Thursday on a proposal to increase automobile fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years.

The current standard is 27.5 miles per gallon. The 35 MPG standard would take effect on 2019, and then increase to 45 MPG by 2030. You can read the text of the bill online here.

In my humble opinion, I think this move has more to do with killing the biofuel industry. Ethanol, the primary fuel manufactured by the "Big Corn" companies, is not as efficent as gasoline. It takes more ethanol to produce the same amount of horsepower as gasoline. The same is true with E85.

Thus, boosting the minimum fuel economy standards makes ethanol less of a solution towards fossil fuel dependency.

Now, I'm not an expert in reading legislation, but the text of the bill that I linked to above doesn't appear to limit these fuel efficiency standards to just gasoline. Senate Democrats didn't make any distinction on fuel types. Perhaps another expert can correct me if I am wrong.

I continue with my original assertion that legislation towards raising minimum fuel efficiency standards has more to do with eliminating the automobile from the American landscape.

I think that's the real impetus with environmentalists. The whole "global warming" issue is actually a facade created by them to stop an American phenomenon known as "urban sprawl".

Urban sprawl is destroying America's natural landscapes and habitats by plowing wilderness under and replacing it with homes, shopping centers, and freeways. That's what environmentalists are trying to stop. The automobile, of course, is what makes urban sprawl possible.

For decades environmentalists have been unsuccessful in getting Americans to sympathize with the erosion of pristine natural beauty. In the 1970s and 1980s, they warned that automobile emissions would cause cancer, asthma, and emphysema. But it failed to curb automobile sales. Today, they've crafted the global warming scare, which uses "Apocalyptic-like" warnings to scare us into dumping our automobiles.

The corn-based ethanol industry seeks to address the global warming issue by introducing a fuel that emits fewer greenhouse gases, and a fuel that is renewable. This of course, assures that America's love affair with automobiles will remain as strong as ever, and is totally opposite of what environmentalists are after.

Hence, comes this legislation to boost the minimum fuel efficiency standards by a whopping amount, that will actually kill ethanol as a workable solution.

Labels: Biofuels, Ethanol, global warming

Davebert says, "you can't save the Earth unless you are willing to make other people sacrifice!"   Actually I didn't say that, Dogbert, the Green Consultant did.

Labels: environmentalism

Ron and Kay Rivoli wrote a song and music video about the state of English language in the United States. It's pretty good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJfS1v-fU0

I would love to hear this song playing on radio stations.

I doubt it will happen.

Labels: English-Only

French news service, AFP, published an interesting piece today about the country of Dubai planning to build a Disney-like theme park within its borders to attract more tourism dollars...

Initially planned to cover an area of two billion square feet (185 square kilometres), Dubailand, billed as the "world's most ambitious tourism, leisure and entertainment project," is expected to be a sprawling three billion square feet. This would make it larger than the entire city of Orlando, Florida -- home to Walt Disney World, Universal Resort, Sea World and a variety of other attractions and hotels.

Read the full article here...
http://news.yahoo.com/..../070619042822

The article goes on to point out all the other tourist attractions in Dubai.

I knew that Dubai was a place where rich folks went to, but I didn't understand how much attention Dubai has concentrated on earning tourist dollars. It makes sense, however. Dubai's oil industry is dwindling down as it pumps out the last of its natural reserves. It needs something to continue.

Imagine if other nations around the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and Caspian Sea looked towards building themselves into a tourist mecca. They'd have to build an environment friendly towards westerners and "infidels".

Of course, the tourism industry isn't the only way to build an economy. North Korea is squeaking out an existence by supplying terrorists with tools. Afghanistan finds itself reviving its opium industry. But then again, these countries are ruled by war and hate. If you want to become rich, you have to be focused on building business.

I just wonder if other countries out there are looking at Dubai, and seeing their future there.

Labels: Dubai, middle east

Democrats are completely incapable of learning economics.   No matter how frequently those carefully planned tax cuts spur the economy and cause overall treasury collections to spike, they just don't learn the concept.   That's why today, as the Washington Post reports, Democrats are looking into a surtax of 4.3% on the nation's richest households to defray the cost of doing away with the Alternative Minimum Tax.   Why not just get rid of the darn AMT structure?   The results will probably be a huge spike in overall revenue.   But Dem.s just can't handle that notion.   It runs counter to their expectations.   It's kind of like some caveman afraid to leave his cave because he thinks the lightning is alive and chasing after him.   When will Dem.s get sophisticated enough to understand empirical over theoretical results?   Is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result MONUMENTALLY STUPID, or merely insane.

Labels: Tax Reform

The AP reports, Democrat presidential hopefuls clashed over Iraq and healthcare last night.   The report also included what the candidates will do their first 100 hours in office.   While I understand that this is just politics, some of the answers raised questions for me.   Here are their answers as reported by AP and my thoughts on them:

Edwards: "travel the world" and "re-establish America's moral authority."

I thought "travel the world" was something you did once you hit retirement, that is, if you've got the money.   Do we really want our new president vacationing during his first 100 hours?   Isn't America's "moral authority" how we got into trouble in the first place?   Aren't Muslim extremists interested in establishing their "moral authority?"   Isn't that why they plan, practice and execute murders around the globe?

Clinton: bring home U.S. troops from Iraq.

Obama: bring home U.S. troops and push for national health care.

Is Obama more ambitious than Hillary because he wants to do two things while she only has a single priority?   If bringing home the troops is both of these candidates' highest priority, why aren't they working a little harder towards that end now?   Rhetoric has to take a back seat to meaningful action at some point.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: upgrade U.S. schools and push a $40,000-a-year minimum wage for teachers.

That's what I was thinking too.   What the country NEEDS is a minimum wage for teachers.   That will solve all the nation's problems, won't it?   Since it is below the starting salary in my state, I wonder if maybe that would save us some money.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: end the war in Iraq and defuse tensions with Iran and North Korea.

If we defuse tensions with Iran and North Korea a year and a half from now, it'll be from a bright, glowing position of inferiority.   The only way to "end the war in Iraq" (meaning end the US participation in the war in Iraq) is to pull up stakes and leave the people to their own devices.   That doesn't actually end the war.   It just ends our participation in it ... on a temporary basis.   North Korea, by 2009, will have better missiles, better nukes, and lots less food.   Their people will have starved for an additional year and a half.   They'll be more desperate than ever.   What they'll do in the interim is anyone's guess.   What would you do if you possessed a really big gun but no food for a year and a half?

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: help "reshape the world for peace" and end all nuclear weapons.

How exactly does one "reshape the world for peace?"   Surrender Israel, give Muslim extremists what they want?   Does one attempt to reshape the world actively or passively?   What precisely does Mr. Kucinich plan to do to reshape the world?   Can he tell us or are we supposed to just believe he knows what he is doing?   What has he done in the past to prove he is omniscient?

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel: Remind Congressional leaders they can end the war in Iraq now.

Not to be overly sarcastic but the first 100 hours is a year and a half away.   And the best this man can come up with for a year and a half from now is "remind" a group of politicians about what they're going to be reminded of for the next year and a half?   Is he going to remind them in January of 2009 about what they could have done in June of 2007?   What's the point of that?

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: "Restore constitutional rights in this country."

Great!   I want my rights restored.   Which rights exactly?   The right to bare arms?   Personally, I'd like to see this right restored; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Labels: 2008 presidential election

The Food and Drug Administration advised Americans to stay away from toothpaste made in China, according to the Associated Press, because of antifreeze poisoning...

The agency is not aware of any poisoning from toothpaste in the United States, but it did find the antifreeze ingredient in a shipment at the U.S. border and at two retail stores: a Dollar Plus store in Miami and a Todo A Peso store in Puerto Rico.

Here's a link to the full article...
http://news.yahoo.com/..../chinese_toothpaste

First it was poisoned dog food from China, now it's poisoned toothpaste from China.

Is China working too feverishly to meet demand that it has compromised consumer safety? Obviously, that answer is "yes".

So now, the United States is testing and monitoring products made in China, and warning American consumers not to buy stuff that fails the grade. That's bad news for China.

As it stands now, I won't be feeding my dogs any food from Purina, Nutro, or any of the other 50-some-odd brands of dog food, because they all come from the same manufacturer who gets ingredients from the same place: China. I guess I'm gonna watch my toothpaste too.

China can still pump out the products, and we can test the stuff of safety and efficacy. The United States seems to have built up a reputation of enforcing the highest standards in the world for product safety. The media does a pretty good job of publicizing this kind of stuff.

It's possible that China's future success as the world's producer of finished goods may hinge on America's laboratory testers.

Labels: China