CommenTerry

Why the Fairness Doctrine Is Unfair

Many congressional liberals are in favor of reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine and are eager to pass legislation that would do just that. President Bush has vowed to veto such a bill, but Barack Obama, if elected president, would likely sign it into law.

It was the law of the land from 1949 until the mid-1980’s, when it was dismantled by the Reagan administration. This gave birth to the boom in talk radio stations that began in the early 1990’s. Since most talk radio stations and programs tend to swing to the conservative side, liberals are now yearning for the “good old days” of the Fairness Doctrine.

What this law did (and will do again if resurrected) was give the FCC a mandate to enforce equal time for all points of view on all over-the-air radio and TV stations, using the rationale that the public airwaves belong to all. That sounds good on the surface, doesn’t it? However, upon closer inspection, one can see that it is nothing more than suppression of free speech – a blatant assault on the First Amendment. In addition, it is an attack on capitalism and the marketplace of ideas.

To see what might result from bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, all we have to do is examine the reason why there were so few talk radio stations prior its demise. Commercial radio stations, like all other capitalistic entities, are in business to make money. Since the U.S. is basically a conservative country, conservative talk radio is generally an easier sell to listeners and sponsors than is liberal talk radio. Bottom line, radio station owners know that they can make money from conservative talk radio but cannot from liberal talk radio.

However, the Fairness Doctrine created a dilemma for these station owners, since it forced them to match every hour of broadcasting conservative viewpoints with an hour of liberal viewpoints. Most of them made a conscious decision to not carry any talk shows at all because they figured that losses from liberal shows would more than offset any profits from conservative shows. It just didn’t make economic sense to most of them. Instead, most of them decided to stick with programs that were politically “neutral.”

In reality, though, what we actually got – exclusively, for the most part –  was the perspective of the mainstream media, which trends toward a liberal view of world, although under the guise of neutrality. Instead of allowing the marketplace to decide what got aired, the government inadvertently forced a liberal bias down our throats for many years. Do we really want a return to that?

A Knowledge Test to Vote

I am thoroughly convinced that no one should be allowed to vote unless he or she can answer at least six of the ten questions below. People wishing to become naturalized citizens are required to know much more than these most basic pieces of information about the U.S. government in order to pass their tests.

I don’t want my vote canceled out by someone who is almost completely ignorant of how our government works – either because of a severe lack of intelligence or just plain apathy. In addition, these “low information” voters tend to be extremely credulous and likely to believe even the most absurd of charges leveled by one candidate against the other. This encourages candidates to continue using these low-road tactics.

Now, here are the questions:

1. Who is the current President of the United States?

2. How many U.S. Senators represent each state?

3. Name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. What city is the capital of the United States?

5. Who was the first President of the United States?

6. How many U.S. states are there at the present time?

7. How often does the U.S. conduct a presidential election?

8. U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated by whom?

   a. The President
   b. Members of the House of Representatives
   c. Other Supreme Court justices

 9. Which of the following is not a body of the U.S. Congress?

   a. The Senate
   b. The House of Lords
   c. The House of Representatives

10. Name one current member of the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.

Are People Turning Into Wolves?

I’ve noticed a trend during the last several years that is starting to scare me. More and more, people are forsaking independent thought in favor of running with like-minded people like a pack of wolves. They operate like lockstep sycophants, working in tandem and rubberstamping the dogmas of their leaders. They have adopted a kind of union mentality or group-think to accomplish a given set of partisan goals. They are allowing themselves to become robotic --  like Stepford Wives -- reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to events that occur on a daily basis.

I’m not sure what to blame for this frightening phenomenon. Is it talk radio? TV Talk shows? Advocacy groups? The Internet? Personal insecurity? It’s anyone’s guess -- possibly a combination of all of the above and more. But whatever the cause, we see the results of this trend all around us.

Books have gotten to the top of the New York Times Best Seller List almost completely on the strength of some talk show host’s recommendation. They have also achieved this position because they appealed to the ideology of some extreme political fringe, whose members, acting on dictates from the top, all purchased copies. 

Very often, thousands of complaints will be registered with the FCC about a given TV show, with the one particular advocacy group’s members, many of whom having never seen the episode in question, accounting for more than 90% of those complaints.

Many Web sites that supposedly invite editorials from all points of view are ultimately dominated by those from one end of the political spectrum or the other, with those adhering to that view in cahoots with one another to ensure that dissenting voices are drowned out.

Political polls that are not conducted scientifically cannot be trusted because followers of one or more of the candidates will often organize and vote over and over to skew the results, which will then not reflect the true leanings of voters. Case-in-point: Ron Paul’s ardent supporters during the Republican primaries. They took Louisiana’s supposed Election Day maxim of “vote early and vote often” quite seriously. This same kind of thing apparently happens during the voting for contestants on those TV talent shows, with supporters of one or more of them organizing to artificially inflate the totals for their favorite.

Even the major political parties are starting to frown on independent thought and are now even shunning those who would dare to practice it. One must follow the party line to come up in their ranks. For example, Sargent Shriver, back in 1972, was the last pro-life candidate to appear on the national ticket of the Democratic Party. And I can’t even remember the last pro-choice candidate to appear on a national GOP ticket.

To be a Democrat in good standing these days, one must be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, against the war in Iraq, a radical environmentalist, against offshore oil drilling, for tax rates that soak the rich, anti-business, anti-gun, for universal healthcare, for expansion of social-welfare programs, and an advocate of bigger government. To be a good Republican, one must be almost the total opposite. It’s no wonder there’s so much gridlock not just in Washington, but everywhere we turn.

GOP Must Purge the Kooky and the Credulous

In spite of John McCain’s and the Republican National Committee’s best efforts, Election Day will likely result in their party losing the White House and sinking deeper into a minority status in Congress. I believe political extremism will ultimately be cited as one of the major culprits. Therefore, it’s high time the GOP made a return to common sense conservatism in order to have any chance of making a comeback in 2010 and beyond. Of course, this means it must purge from its ranks all the kooky and credulous people who have become attached to it over the years.

The neoconservative hijacking of the party has allowed these people in the front door and kicked real conservatives to curb. Let’s hope this trend soon begins to reverse itself. Of course, this kind of house cleaning won’t be pretty but it must be done before the GOP can return to the kind of conservatism of Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and George Will that first drew me to the Republican Party. It will allow the GOP to rescue its brand before it’s too late.

Venom-spewing blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter will need to be given their walking papers. Those who believe the Republican Party will somehow usher in the Kingdom of God on earth will also have to go. This also goes for the right-wing bloggers who regularly post those reader articles with breathless, multi-sentence titles on RealClearPolitics.com.  In addition, it should show the door to anyone who has habitually made alarmist and outrageous claims, used scare tactics, exaggerated the truth, or flat out lied in the name of the party.

Then we have those credulous people – pitiful really – who honestly believe absurd notions like Barack Obama is a Muslim, he’s a terrorist, he’s dangerous, or that he’s going to paint the White House black and change the national anthem if he’s elected president. It’s hard for me to imagine how someone could be so gullible. The Republican Party should aspire to a membership whose average IQ is above 80. These people are pulling it down and need to promptly hit the road.

Sympathy for a Politician

Politicians are people Americans love to hate. Much of their negative public perception is well-deserved. However, I do feel sorry for them in a way because, sometimes, they just can’t win.

When they change their mind, they are called flip-floppers. But if they refuse to do so, they are called closed-minded, rigid, and dogmatic, and are perceived as unwilling to compromise or reach across the political aisle.

If they run attack ads, they are called bullies and mudslingers and are said to be going negative. But if they stay positive all the time, they are seen as wimpy, unwilling to fight back, or perhaps unable to defend their positions.

If they openly talk about their religious beliefs, they are said to be mixing religion with politics and forcing their religion down the throat of the voting public. But if they keep silent about religion, they are viewed as too secular and out of touch with a nation whose majority claims to be religious.

If they voice their support for certain wars, they are called warmongers. But if they oppose those wars, people say they would make weak leaders and accuse them of not supporting our troops.

If they attract large crowds, they are compared to empty-headed celebrities and accused of thinking they are God-like. But if they don’t, they are criticized for lacking charisma and not being able to excite their base. 

If they are specific about what they want to do when they are elected, they are called policy wonks. But if they are not, they are accused of being evasive or “lacking a plan.”

If their campaign is about change, they are said to be too risky of a choice. But if it is not, they are criticized for being just more of the same.

If they travel abroad, they are accused of spending too much too time out of the country and not taking care of domestic affairs. But if they don’t, they are criticized for their “lack of curiosity” about the outside world.

If they believe in free trade, they are accused of running up the trade deficit and sending American jobs offshore. But if they don’t, they are called isolationists.

If they are willing to sit down and negotiate with our enemies, they are called capitulators and are said to be caving in. But if they are not, they are accused of taking too hard a line in the world.

If they are pro-choice on the abortion issue, they are accused of acquiescing to the murder of innocent children. But if they take a pro-life stance, they are criticized for wanting to limit a woman’s right to choose.

If they want to raise taxes, they are called socialists and are criticized for adding to the burden of the American taxpayer. But if they want to lower them, they are accused of being friends of the rich and are said to be in the pockets of corporate America.
 
And so on and so on.

Of course, in retrospect, I guess we shouldn’t feel too much sympathy for politicians. They chose that line of work -- no one forced it on them. They knew the constant criticism came with the territory and are apparently willing to pay that price. More power to them.

Classic Rants and Raves #56

Corollary to Murphy's Law: Anything that you don't proactively prevent from going wrong, will.      

---

At the 1980 Republican National Convention, on the night before Ronald Reagan selected George H.W. Bush as his running mate, I heard a TV news reporter make the following statement: "We don't know whom Reagan will selected, but we do know whom he will not select: Bush."

---

No one ever needs to tell me to get lost. I do that on a regular basis already!

---

An gentleman is late 70's was running for his eighth consecutive term as mayor in a small Midwest town. His opponent tried to use the mayor's age against him with the following criticism: "The old gray mayor just ain't what he used to be." 

---

A Major League Baseball manager is usually fired shortly after getting a vote of confidence from the team owner(s).

---

When a politician says "I'm not giving up" on election night, that's usually a signal that his/her concession speech will follow shortly thereafter.

---

Those who are unwilling to cut back on their gasoline consumption should point the finger squarely at themselves any time they feel the urge to complain about gouging.

Classic Rants and Raves #55

When is 20th Century Fox going to change its name?       

---

I once ordered some pills that were supposed to make me see twice as good - they gave me double vision!

---

If something is valuable enough, some people will find a way to steal or counterfeit it.

---

If you find that your grocery bill seems a bit higher than normal, you probably forgot something (yes, I know that's counterintuitive). If your grocery bill is seems lower than normal, you probably got everything you went after (again, counterintuitive).   

---

How long does someone have to be dead before people stop referring to them as "the late ....."

---

Well, it looks like the bad guys have won the mustard war. I can no longer find the 32 ounce jars of mustard at my local grocery store. Now, my only choices are squeeze bottles and 8-12 ounce jars, neither of which are very economical.

---

Announcer on a radio ad for a law firm: "If you used this product and then suffered a fatal heart attack, call 1-800 ....."

---

I've heard it said that cover-ups never work. Baloney! It just seems that way because the only ones we ever hear about are those that don't.

Self-Precluding Prophecies

We’ve all heard of self-fulfilling prophecies, but there is also such a thing as a self-precluding prophecy. Sometimes, when someone makes a prediction, the very fact that this prediction is made is a guarantee that it will be wrong. In other words, a prediction that something will take place often ensures that it won’t.  It’s a kind of catch-22.

Let’s say, for example, that some security “experts” are predicting that terrorists are going to strike Washington, DC on Labor Day. What you think would happen as a result? There would be such a security buildup around Washington that day that the potential terrorists would be forced to either pick another target and/or another day to strike.

To use another example, let’s suppose that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came out with a prediction that annual U.S. cases of HIV/AIDS were going to double by 2015. Such a prediction could very well strike enough fear into people to cause them to wake up and make lifestyle changes and that would prevent such a thing from even coming close to becoming a reality. 

Or what if a business associate who thought he had me figured out made some predictions (that I ultimately found out about) to his friends about how I was going to react to a certain upcoming situation? With my ego being what it is and not wanting to appear predictable, I would make sure that I reacted in a way that might be a little out of character for me, just to keep to him from being right.

Finally, imagine that the National Weather Service was predicting a great loss of life due to a category five hurricane that was bearing down on the east coast. This prediction might cause those who live in the coastal areas along the eastern seaboard to evacuate their homes immediately, resulting in a minimum amount of casualties.

It’s Not Just Death and Taxes

We’ve always heard that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. However, that is by far an incomplete list, as they are not the only things that can’t be avoided. Below I have listed 12 other things that are equally inevitable during our journey on planet earth.

1) Disappointment.

2) Rejection.

3) Mistakes.

4) Sadness.

5) Failure.

6) Frustration/Exasperation.

7) Illness/Pain/Discomfort.

8) Loss.

9) Humiliation.

10) Being falsely or unfairly accused.

11) Being taken advantage of or used.

12) Being cheated.

You have probably noticed that none of the guaranteed things in life that I have listed here are positive or good. Stuff such as health, success, happiness, companionship, etc. are absent from the list. Indeed, no one can be certain of any of those things. However, there is one great thing that I could have included: God is firmly in control of everything that comes your way. It doesn’t get any better that!

Why People Hate You for Achieving Success

When or if you achieve some level of success in life, some people are going to hate you for it. You can bet your mortgage money on that one. Obviously, success draws its share of admiration, but it’s guaranteed to rouse some hate as well. So why do some people hate you when are successful? I think there four basic reasons.

The first and most obvious reason is that they are jealous. Some people can’t stand anyone else’s prosperity. They are naturally resentful of it. They always wish it was them instead of you. Funny thing, though, they never wish for any of your hardships, losses, disappointments, pain, illnesses, or anything of the like. And they conveniently ignore all the hard work that paved the way for your success. They just focus on the fact that you acquired something good that they didn’t – and they don’t like it.

The second reason is that your success often makes them look bad. It might increase the standards for which they will be judged in the future. They are satisfied with the status quo and you are ruining things for them. You are rocking the boat. You are upsetting the applecart.  Because of you, they might be forced out their comfort zone. They may actually be challenged to improve themselves. Their life of ease my soon be shaken up. That’s not what they want.

The third reason is that they might not think you are deserving of success, for whatever reason. They may feel that success came too easy for you and that, because of your natural ability, you didn’t have to work as hard as they would have to, in order to gain comparable achievements.  They may think you are not credentialed enough for the success you have achieved. For example, some people will automatically dismiss your accomplishments because you don’t have what they feel is the right amount of education or experience. They may think you are not good enough, pedigreed enough, or from the right kind of family or background. They have a mental image of what a successful person should be or look like – and you’re not it. 

The fourth and final reason is familiarity. They say it breeds contempt, and this is especially true for someone who has achieved a certain level of success. The Bible says (and I’m paraphrasing now) that successful people can find respect anywhere except within their own family or hometown. There they often find nothing but resentment. For example, people might say something like, “Isn’t this the same old Jim I grew up with, went to school with, and partied with – who does he think he is now?” For some reason, they have an image of you (pre-success) burned into their psyche and they just can’t remove it. They apparently see your success as a form of betrayal – a betrayal of the person you used to be. Go figure!