Fairness Doctrine Revisited

Boots and Sabers author and West Bend News columnist, Owen Robinson, would have you believe that the Fairness Doctrine is an evil plot by liberals to cancel the free speech rights of conservatives. Robinson would be wrong for a number of reasons. Mostly because he doesn't let facts get in the way. Let's take a closer look at the pertinent parts of his Feb. 13 editorial in the West Bend News.

Robinson says this about the history of the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was an unconstitutional provision whereby the federal government used its power over the licensing of specific frequencies to dictate that the station owners provide "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. President Reagan rescinded the doctrine.

About the only thing correct about that paragraph is there was a president named Reagan and there was in existence something titled the Fairness Doctrine. First of all, there was nothing unconstitutional about the Fairness Doctrine., In fact, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality by a vote of 8-0 in response to charges that the doctrine violated the First Amedment (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Can't get much more constitutional than an 8-0 vote by the Supreme Court.

It wasn't until the advent of the Reagan Administration that the FCC, now staffed by Reaganites and headed by former Reagan campaign staff member Mark Fowler suceeded in overturning the doctrine. The reasons for this move -- conservatives who claimed the press was savaging Reagan (I don't recall the press letting up with Carter or Clinton, but then I guess liberals are not so thin-skinned). Want to get around constitutional protections, pack the FCC.

Secondly, the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with “equal time” as Robinson purports. The Fairness Doctrine required that controversial matters be discussed and opposing views be aired. Hardly a free speech barrier as Robinson states. Additionally, stations were given choices as to how to present these views, however equal time was not required for these views.

There was an Equal Time rule which applied only to political candidates and provided that the opposition be provided an equivalent chance to respond. Wow. Such clamping down on free speech.

In fact, if anything – considering that conservative thought and the Republican party were in minority status for 40+ years, you'd think they'd love the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rule. Of course they had other things in mind. Note that Rush Limbaugh's national radio show began August 1, 1988, shortly after the FCC ruling on the doctrine.

The rest of Robinson's piece is mostly nonsense. To back up his attack on liberals and their supposed universal support of the Fairness Doctrine, he offers us an example of government regulation of newspapers on government roads. Huh? The problem with this silly analogy is there is no limit to the number of newspapers that can be printed, nor roads that can be traveled. Unlike broadcast frequencies which are a limited resource.

But it's all really a moot point. Personally, I think that attempting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is misguided. Twenty-first century communcation does not lend itself to government oversight, no matter how benevolent the intent may be. Regard the efforts of Communist China to rein in its increasingly electronic-savvy populace and you see the issue. If it is next to impossible to regulate in China, imagine the difficulty here.

That is why we should all join with Robinson and his cohorts to ensure the Fairness Doctrine is never reinstated. Back in the 20th century when conservative ideas were relegated to the background, not by delivery mechanism, but by the ideas themselves, conservatism floundered. Now, after a short hiatus in which Americans were hoodwinked by the lying liars on hate radio, the Republican party and its ideas have declined back into minority status. Why? It's because the more they spoke (and because of the rise of the Internet) people understood conservatism, weighted down by its prejudices, its bigotry and its lack of inertia does not represent what is best for this country.

So, let the conservatives spew their many strata of hate. It's best they be allowed to rant on hate radio. Nobody's gonna get fooled again anyway

Is This a Threat?

In the comments section at Boots and Sabers, Peter DiGaudio of Texas Hold 'em Fame, is more than a little upset by the outcome of the elction.

You can go to hell as far as I am concerned. He is not my president. And you can take this country and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Screw you. You are not my fellow countryman as far as I am concerned. I want nothing to do with your damn country.

I don’t hope for his success. In fact, I seriously hope this country gets attacked by terrorists over and over again and every possible bad thing that can happen does happen ... to people like you.

If I had the money, I’d put a bounty on his melon. Seriously.

I guess, sadly, we've come to expect this sort of lunatic behavior from Peter. And, this is the third comment I've seen from a conservative threatening the life of President-Elect Barack Obama. Seriously, should we contact the Secret Service.

And while I don't advocate deletion of comments, I would have expected Owen Robinson to at least have said something about Peter's outburst. Owen's wife did!

UPDATE: Owen added a comment replying to Peter's outburst, after I had written this post. I apologize, Owen. You did the right thing.

I hope that your statements are the product of emotion on a tough night and that you will retract them. Regardless, they are completely inappropriate. I agree that America chose the wrong guy, but he is our duly elected president (almost) and the office and our nation deserve respect. We can vigorously oppose his policies while not wishing the man or the office ill will.

Faux Outrage of the Week

Considering that I don't have the time to spend on this blog as I used to or would like, naming this piece Faux Outrage of the Week might seem presumptuous ... it likely won't come out weekly though if I did have the time I can guarantee that material for this award would be ample from our mirthless friends on the extreme right side of the cheddarsphere.

Anyway, this inaugural award covers the lather Owen Robinson at Boots & Sabers worked himself into over a post by Michael Mathias. Proving that a sense of humor is not something you are born with, Robinson self-righteously took offense at Mathias' posting of the following picture.


Below the picture, Mathias added the following.

I’d say this photo is proof positive that Gableman is going to be captive to the state's most extreme special interests should he be elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I laughed. So did James Wigderson (pictured on the far left), proving that not all righties are hopeless lost causes. It was a funny caption to the picture, certainly not one to be taken seriously. Except perhaps by those afflicted with a serious case of pretentiousness like Robinson (far right in picture) and Fred -- Mr. Outrage -- Dooley (second to left). FYI: That's Judge Gableman standing between Dooley and Robinson. No word yet on whether he was offended, though I'm surprised he managed to survive the blasts of hot air coming from the defiled duo.

Anyway, I was directed to Robinson's blog and read his retort. I was amused by this.

Furthermore, what is Mathias’ definition of “extreme special interests?” The three bloggers appearing in that picture are just that - bloggers. The only extreme special interest that I represent is myself and my family. Am I not allowed to speak to candidates and tell them my opinions about things? If I do so, does that make the candidate beholden to me? If Mathias speaks with a candidate will that candidate then be beholden to him? Of course not. It’s a ridiculous claim.

Yes, it would be a ridiculous claim, if that claim had ever been made. And even if it had, it would not be nearly as ridiculous as the huffing and puffing that Robinson resorts to. Are you serious, Owen? This coming from the man who previously and melodramatically lamented that he has not been able to shed his blood for his country (er, join up). This from the man who famously claimed foul play by Democrats during Copiergate, only to discover later that he had been played like an out-of-tune instrument. Chill out.

Then there is Fred. The arbiter of all that is good and holy, Saint Fred comes down on Mathias with a splat, kind of like dough hitting the baker's kneading table. Unaware that he has been rolled, Fred proves that the ability to fathom sarcasm is directly related to the abilty to jerk a knee. In other words, if you're a partisan right-wing jerk like Fred, sarcasm will always be an assault on your beliefs. Witness his response in the comment thread.

Michael, you are an idiot.

A picture of anyone talking to anyone does not prove anything.

Chances are if you aranged a party and 45 active people showed up Judge Gabelman would be more than happy to talk to you.

He might even have his picture taken with you.

Huh? Aside from the rude name-calling (yeah, Fred never does that) that series of sentences could only have been written by someone who takes himself way too seriously. Keep in mind, too, that in previous communications, Fred has written he can't understand why lefties find it necessary to attack "normal" and "ordinary tax payers" like himself. The inference being that somehow the rest of us don't quite add up.

Lastly, space is reserved for our favorite Clown Prince, the ever profound mangler of syntax and the rules of grammar, Chris, formerly of Spotted Mouse 2. Revel in his wit and proclivity!

Ah the typical and ever so predictable asshat Mike “Oh I was only joking” excuse

He does this all the time he takes shots at people and when called out right away does not have the guts to stand behind what he said.

Instead he tired to play it off as a “joke”

the best way to handle this asshat it to either give him the finger(worked for me) or just ignore him in the end he really is not worth any of our time

Most entertaining from that passage is the revelation that Chris has given himself the finger at least once in the past. We can't help but wonder where Chris' finger wound up and did it taste rosy?

Anyway, to Owen, Fred and the redoubtable Chris ... the first F-Bomb of 2008.

What He Really Meant ...

Stalwart Republican and humble guy, Owen Robinson, has published his "Pledge for the Taxpayers." He sent the pledge to Assembly Republicans in an effort to publicize their position on tax increases, etc. Other Side, in a breaking news story (if the incredibly self important Saint Fred Dooley of RealDebate can do it, why can't we) has been provided with the first, unedited copy of Robinson's pledge (spelling and grammatical errors left intact). If it is true that the first thoughts written are often the truest, this version of the pledge tells quite a different story.


Dear Fellow Rebiblicans,

As nyou are all painful, the budget season is on us. To date the Republicans on the Joint Finace committee is a goal of mine have been unsuccessful in the massive spenfing and rax increases that my Govenor Doyle want to foist on ME.

I the taxpayers have a single hope ... ME. It is with each of you that the responsibility fior proitecting my assets rests. At convention last week, Speaker Huebsch said, "we will stand in the way of Jim Doyle and his tax increases, you can count on that." Well, I am counting on that. Indeed, i am inisistubng on it. It is all about me!!

Therefore, I am asking everyone to pledge that you woll not vote for a budget that includes any increase of my taxes or any fee increases that aren't directly related to delivering more services to me. If this leads to no budget being passed anytime soon, and all services are shut down and helpless old ladies in their homes are denied 911 service when they clap on clap off and potholes are not filled (except on the street directly in front of my home), t5hen so be it ... I'm a heartless fart. The Republican party should be p[roud of being obstructionist to be the party that obstructs my tax and fee increses - especilly because I am so overwhelmed by tax increases that I could't get my threee SUVs washed last week pay for that nice by the cost of their government.

I intend to publish the names of each of you who wil not pledge to hold down my taxes. The grassroots of the Republican Party, including, duh, myself, and the vast majority of like-minded sheep taxpayers will stand in unity with arms outstretched with those of you who stand up for me.

please reply to this e-mail (ht the Reply button, dummy) if I can count on you to be my advocate in the State Capitol.

I am humbler than most,

Owen Robinson

How Can Anyone Be Okay With This?

In the words of a local conservative blogger (I'll keep his name out of this, no reason to pile on) who supports Bush policies every chance he gets ... "I'm okay with this." I wonder if he is really okay with THIS.

h/t This Modern World

At the Morgue.

We were asked to send the next of kin to whom the remains of my nephew, killed on Monday in a horrific explosion downtown, can be handed over. The young men of the family, as was customary, rose to go.

“NO!” cried his mother. “Isn’t my son enough?? Must we lose more of our youth?? You know there are unknowns who wait at the Morgue to either kill or kidnap the men who dare reach its doors. I will go.”

So we went, his mum, his other aunt and I.

I was praying all the way there.

I never thought a day would come when it was the women of the family, who would be safer on the roads. All the men are potential terrorists it seems, and are therefore to be cut down on sight. This is the logic of today, is it not? To kill evil before it even has a chance to take root.

When we got there, we were given his remains. And remains they were. From the waist down was all they could give us. “We identified him by the cell phone in his pants’ pocket. If you want the rest, you will just have to look for yourselves. We don’t know what he looks like.”

Now begins a horror that surpasses anything I could have possibly envisioned .We were led away, and before long a foul stench clogged my nose and I retched. With no more warning we came to a clearing that was probably an inside garden at one time; all round it were patios and rooms with large-pane windows to catch the evening breeze Baghdad is renowned for. But now it had become a slaughterhouse, only instead of cattle, all around were human bodies. On this side; complete bodies; on that side halves; and EVERYWHERE body parts.

We were asked what we were looking for, “ upper half” replied my companion, for I was rendered speechless. “Over there”. We looked for our boy’s broken body between tens of other boys’ remains’; with our bare hands sifting them and turning them.

We found him millennia later, took both parts home, and began the mourning ceremony.

Can Hollywood match our reality?? I doubt it.


"Inside Iraq" chronicles daily life in a war zone through the words of Iraqi journalists in McClatchy's Baghdad Bureau as they risk so much each day to survive. These are unedited first hand accounts of their experiences. Their complete names have been withheld for security reasons.

Conservative Values (er, lies)

Only in Texas, and the homes, presumably, of many conservative voters in Wisconsin (like dad29, Owen Robinson and Tom Reynolds). Weird science.

Doing the Job of the MSM ... Hah!

There is a great article by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory about the utter lack of credibility possessed by the right-wing blogosphere. He writes:

Packs of right-wing bloggers spent the last several weeks trying to destroy the credibility of Associated Press's war reporting by claiming that one of its sources, an Iraqi policeman named Jamil Hussein, does not exist, that AP simply invented him. As it turns out -- and as AP itself had the great pleasure of reporting (and then rubbing in the face of its irresponsible, taunting accusers) -- the Iraqi Government, which previously denied it, now acknowledges that Jamil Hussein does exist and he is a police officer in Iraq, just as AP reported accurately.

Oops.

There is more to the story. It’s best just to link over there and follow up yourself. However, the main point I want to cover is that what Greenwald says is true nationally is also true here in our own little corner of the blogosphere. Not only do right-wing blogs insanely leap to erroneous conclusions on a regular basis, they are also, as Greenwald says:

… wrong over and over and over -- and not just in error, but embarrassingly so, because so frequently their claims are transparently, laughably absurd, and they spew the most righteous accusations without any sort of evidence at all. The New Republic has its Stephen Glass and The New York Times has its Jayson Blair. But those are one-off incidents. The right-wing blogosphere is driven by Jayson Blairs. They are exposed as frauds and gossip-mongerers on an almost weekly basis. The only thing that can compete with the consistency of their errors is the viciousness of their accusations and their pompous self-regard as "citizen journalists." (bf mine)

These right-wing bloggers love to piously masquerade around as "media watchdogs," keeping a watchful eye on the "MSM" and compelling them to adhere to facts. And ever since their involvement in the use by Dan Rather of fraudulent documents, and then heightened by Charles Johnson's oh-so-monumental observation that a Reuters photograph of Lebanon had been photoshopped to give the appearance of more smoke during an Israeli air strike on Beirut, the media has largely recited this storyline.But they are nothing of the sort. Nobody is less interested in media accuracy than they are. Correcting media mistakes is so plainly not their agenda. They are nothing more than hyper-partisan hysterics who jump on any innuendo or rumor or whispered suspicion as long as it promotes their rigid ideological views and political loyalties and hatreds.

Here in SE Wisconsin we have our own righties whose claim they are here to do the job of the MSM is so hilarious. Just recently, during the last election, they were fed a load of crap regarding some documents that mysteriously appeared supposedly indicting the Democrats for plotting dastardly deeds and, like sheep, they nodded their heads and repeated the story until … oh, oh, everyone discovered it was not true. Suddenly, sites like Texas Hold ‘em Blogger and most notoriously, Boots and Sabers, were sent scrambling to cover their butts.

Instead of accepting any blame, they blamed the source of their woes. For someone claiming to do the job of the MSM, there surely was a lack of confirmation that the blarney was true. Pomposity levels (and testosterone levels) dropped a little that day.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The beauty of blogging is it’s free and one is free to spew stupid things like the trash tossed about by Michele Malkin, InstaPundit and our own Jessica McBride.

Just don’t claim you was had when you’re had and expect sympathy … no one will accept your pleas of innocence.

Duped and Used

Saw the article first in the JS Online, then went to the humble folkbum to see if he had latched onto it. I then let it sink in a bit ... in the end, I decided (as others have also) two words apply to Owen at Boots and Sabers and Peter at Texas Hold'em Blogger, two of the loudest conservative bloggers.

Duped!

Used!

This is what happens when someone untrained in journalism attempts to be a journalist. Guys, you are bloggers, not reporters. You don't need to apologize to anyone. I would offer, however, the proverbial towel to wipe the egg off your face.