Happy Thanksgiving!

What about the 1st Amendment?

Ah, yes, the so called, “Fairness Doctrine.” I don’t understand why this is even up for debate. This shouldn’t be a liberal or conservative issue, Democrat or Republican. The point is, the Fairness Doctrine is a complete violation of our First Amendment rights, no matter how you look at it. (The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. What is the Fairness Doctrine other than a law that Congress is making to control speech! What is the Fairness Doctrine? Oh! Well on that, I’ll explain).

The Fairness Doctrine is a proposal that would regulate media so that each point of view be given equal time. It would mostly apply to radio, and in that sense, talk radio. It would mean a Christian radio station would have to play equal time for the other side. (As if there is one other side.) It would mean talk radio would have to balance people like Rush Limbaugh with his opposite. It would leave tort lawyers and the courts to decide “equal” and “other side.” Most radio stations simply would stop broadcasting anything remotely controversial, just to avoid the hassle.

But Ben, the Fairness Doctrine would mean equality for all sides of an issue. Isn’t that a good thing? Not when government regulates it. I’m all for the free market deciding what should be played and what shouldn’t. If liberals want to purchase some bandwidth and broadcast their own talk radio (which they’ve done, by the way), no one’s stopping them.

But Ben, isn’t talk radio a monopoly of conservative thought? Isn’t up to the government to break monopolies? While I do support the government breaking up monopoly of BUSINESS to a degree, the government should have no right to interfere with the transfer of ideas and thought, regardless of how one sided it may appear. Look, I don’t deny that radio leans conservative. Radio leans conservative to the degree that network TV news leans liberal. In that regard there is no monopoly. Conservatives listen to the radio, liberals watch TV. And we haven’t even touched all the other forms of media, magazines, newspapers, and the mother of them all, the internet. There simply is not a monopoly of thought in this country.

Regardless of what side you are on, I hope I’ve persuaded you with this article. Free speech needs to be protected, no matter who it is that is speaking. Those in congress who are pushing the Fairness Doctrine are in direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Day After the Election

Those of us who have been through a few election cycles know that nothing really ever changes. The candidates make feel-good promises that could never really be implemented without some sort of consequence, and yet we buy into it, follow the hype, buddy up to our candidate and hammer in those yard signs. It seems both sides make the move to the center, contrary to how they historically have voted. This year the Democrats have especially done so, but to be fair and objective (like there is such a thing, anywhere), this toon lampoons both sides.

Tax cuts, strong defense, limited spending, pro small business, wait a minute, those are Republican talking points! Use the federal government to stop corporate greed? Now my side is sounding like Democrats! Anecdotally, I occasionally hear individuals talking about how they will support a certain Democrat candidate because they promise to reach across the aisle and be bipartisan. When it was brought to their attention that said candidate was one of the most liberal in the House or Senate and has yet to reach across the aisle, according to readily available congressional records, those people merely replied with, “but now they say they will this time.”

A liberal will always be a liberal and a conservative will always be a conservative and a campaign promise is not worth a whole lot. It amazes me how some people vote based on what a candidate says rather than what a candidate has done.

Tolerance

Vote 'Yes' on Amendment 47

Hard Working Americans

Text 1 for McCain

Grocery Bags

The dirty secret is that grocery chains want you to purchase their reusable bags. Why? Because it saves them money on paying for bags themselves. Sure, some may be environmentally conscious, but overall, money speaks the loudest. If it weren't so, then why is it so hard to get grocers to bag your products in paper bags? Paper bags are far more environmentally friendly than plastic, but most chains don't carry them, and the ones that do groan every time I ask for paper. It is because plastic is still cheaper than paper. (I exclude natural grocery stores, but they make back the profit on their prices for food items)

There are no winners

Barack O'Vision

A stinky fish and a pig with lipstick? These were Obama’s recent utterances at a rally in Virginia. Conservatives have cried foul, declaring his remarks were targeted directly at Palin and McCain. Obama denies the charges, claiming he was referencing their policy. The whole thing is hilarious to observe. I take Obama’s defense with maybe a bit more than a grain of salt, considering his earlier comments on gun and Bible clinging middle Americans.

The point is, this is politics as usual and verbal sparring is nothing new. What grates me is how Obama continues to say he is “above” politics and “above” the tactics of partisanship, while he is in the middle of playing their game! I don’t care if you engage in name calling tactics, whether it is in reference to the person or their policies, but don’t sit and pretend you are above it all! McCain may be involved with negative campaigning (which has proven most effective among the general electorate) but at least he owns up to it. There’s no change in Obama’s campaign.

As always, we’ll put up with this for two more months and then the election. Anybody who thinks we will ever remove the attacks out of politics is grossly naïve.