That’s what liberals call it anyways. The Fairness Doctrine is an outdated totalitarian tool of state that is ostensibly about “equal time.” They want us to believe it is about Rush Limbaugh getting one hour and then giving Al Sharpton an hour for rebuttal - or whatever.
But don’t we already have that ad nauseum? Anyone can sign up for a free blog account and rant all day long if they want to. There are hundreds of channels, thousands of newspapers, and millions of podcasts. If you want to get heard you have a forum.
The real reason for reenacting the “Fairness” Doctrine is to shut down people like Rush Limbaugh. He has pissed off every single liberal on the planet and many republicans as well. And he has a massive audience.
If Rush gets shut down then our all-hallowed governmental officials will have a lot less to worry about. No longer will their idiotic statements and foolish governmental boondoggles be aired for three hours a day, five days a week to millions of Americans.
Oh, about Obama. According to John Gizzi from Human Events in an article titled Pelosi Supports ‘Fairness Doctrine”:
The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08. In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” — which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Duh. They’re not going to bring this up at all this year. It would be a simple issue that would serve as a lightning rod against Obama. But, the second he gets situated in the Oval Office and the democrats have a veto-proof majority in the Senate then all bets are off.
Well, there is one good thing about the “Fairness Doctrine.” All you libs won’t have to trash your disappearing rights mugs. You can recycle them by giving them to your conservative friends. BigT
Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!
Take Me To Your Homepage!
Is this what we want?
A former fireman who developed liver cancer after 25 years’ service has been told that if he pays for the only drug that can treat his disease his NHS care will be withdrawn.
Barry Humphrey, 59, from North Walsham, Norfolk, was told by NHS doctors that the drug Nexavar was the only available treatment for his advanced liver cancer.
However, consultants at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge said the drug was not routinely funded by the NHS and told him that if he paid for it he would be billed for the rest of his NHS care.
Humphrey believes his cancer is linked to his time as a fireman. His cancer was caused by cirrhosis of the liver after he contracted hepatitis C. He believes he caught the virus from a casualty while on duty.
Research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology found patients with advanced liver cancer survive for an average of 11 months if they take Nexavar, while those denied the drug live for just eight months.
Humphrey’s wife Hazel, 58, who also worked in the fire service, said: “Doctors said this would ‘not be viable’ because we would be deemed as opting out of the NHS and would need to pay for everything.
“I think it is absolutely disgraceful. When people are terminally ill, they want to spend as much time as they possibly can extending their life expectancy.” She said the couple know the drug will not provide a cure but should have the right to spend their savings to prolong her husband’s life.
BigT
Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!
Take Me To Your Homepage!
Here’s an article from Reason Magazine written by Matt Welch. It’s about what happened after the tech crash that happened at the turn of the millenium.
Despite the considerable hit that the wave of tech publication closures had on the pocketbooks of freelancers like me, it was terrific fun to have post-crash sport at the expense of jargon-addicted IPO charlatans and Koolaid-drinking late adopters, and there was a hope in those days that the post-crash Web would revert to the individual, low-budget level of wacky experimentation and cheap humor. That hope, we have seen, has turned out well.
But what turned out best of all, and what has the most relevance to today’s various economic busts, was the regulatory response to the technology crash: a grand, collective shrug.
Like the subprime collapse of 2008, the dot-com bust of 2000 took place during a heated presidential campaign. Yet the tech bubble didn’t merit a single mention in any of the presidential or vice presidential debates that fall. The Federal Reserve responded to the 2000 contraction by using the main mechanism at its disposal: repeatedly slashing interest rates (a move, many say, that helped inflate the next bubble). The Fed is responding to 2008, on the other hand, by proposing vast new mechanisms for itself, including regulatory oversight of investment banks, new rules for credit rating agencies, and authority over such far-flung sectors as insurance and commodities trading.
…
The only substantial “reform” that came in the wake of that crashwas the disastrous Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a make-work program foraccountants that was more a reaction to the shoddy internal reportingof Enron, Adelphia, and WorldCom than it was to the fantasy-basedprice/earnings ratios of fill-in-the-blank.com.
What were thenefarious effects of the surprisingly laissez-faire attitude towardtech stock de-listings and baby boomer NASDAQ wipeouts? The Dow Jonesrecovered its 2000 highs by 2006, and even tech-heavy NASDAQ has morethan doubled its value since post-crash lows in October 2002. TheUnited States, led by the ongoing information revolution, has continuedto innovate and thrive, with only a few minor macroeconomic hiccups in15 years of robust growth. The broadband dream that seemed so far offin 2000 has long since become a reality: It’s YouTube’s world; we justlive in it.
Should we throw out this history lesson and push our government to enact far reaching regulations that will give us only a ragged and moth bitten security blanket? Heck no! Our government is there to make sure that contracts are followed. If you entered into a bad contract - tough. Saving these people from themselves will just create more dependence on the government. And this will just lead to more economic problems in the future.
You know, I just don’t get it. Do these statists think that the government can manufacture an economy that just goes up at a reasonable rate? That’s insane! No one knows where the economy is going or what sectors are going to be important a decade from now. Let’s let the market and all its actors (you and me) figure this out for ourselves and, like the adults that we are, we will take our lumps when we are wrong and will enjoy our rewards when we are right.
BigT
Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!
Take Me To Your Homepage!
