Archive for October, 2008

Is it a match?

quiz banner

and try this quiz to see which presidential candidate fits best for you!

Surprise – McCain was my highest :)

October 31, 2008 at 11:34 pm Leave a comment

Happy Halloween

A little political humor for your holiday! Have a safe night, filled with goodies.

October 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm 1 comment

I just don’t get it!

I am a little perplexed these days by some things that I see in the media and online, wondering how much of what I am hearing and seeing is factual and how much is total spin – from both parties.

As much as the liberal crew would like to believe it is only the right who “spins” things – they have bought into the so-called lie from their own campaign, just as much as they think I have. The problem is there is some truth hidden in there, that keeps getting skirted over. Somehow there is just blindness or a willingness to explain away some truths that just don’t fit the purpose.

I will be among the first to say that the Republican candidates are not my very first choice. But they are solid individuals. When I say individuals that means they are free-thinking humans. They are not clones of any previous administration. If we are so hot on comparing voting records why is it only McCain’s that anyone cares about, not Obama’s record (or lack there of). Add to that any time Obama’s record is question and the whole Republican party is questioned and belittled – we must just be trying to distract or are just grasping at straws. Right.

There are so many legitimate things that are not even mentioned of anywhere. I am tired of incessent badgering and harassment of McCain. He is not George Bush. But I get that strategy that Obama’s campaign has set as its major goal.

But what I don’t get, what I really don’t understand is how you can explain away things that are apparent to a large majority of the country – a larger percentage than you might think – not just the “fanatic” Republicans. I am a pretty non-fanatic, balanced person.

Issue 1

How can you really think that the economic plan, the giving of tax credits, not tax breaks – is anything other than redistributing wealth? I just don’t get the logic?

This audio clip has been sweeping around this week, it bears a listen.

And another thing about the tax plan.

I looked at the tax calculator on Obama’s website to see what my “savings” would be under a McCain administration vs Obama. Got to tell you it was interesting. For my particular situation, there was an irrelevant savings of around $200. Not that exciting. But it gets even more interesting. I changed the scenario to be income of $50,000-75,000; married filing jointly; with 3 children. My tax savings under Obama would be a whopping $33. Wow. I don’t even think that is worth it for that group.

My next question is why is their tax savings so low? Shouldn’t they be the working middle class? Getting a bigger tax “savings”?

And a chart I posted a few days ago showing some of the new proposed taxes showed that individuals making more than $2.87 million would have their taxes increased by over $700,00 by Obama. That is a massive increase.

Since when does anyone have the right to tell you how much money that you have earned that you get to keep.

Issue 2

Associations. Folks he has some interesting ones. And it is terribly obvious to a good many people that he has not been totally truthful in his explanation about any of them. Why not just come clean when asked? Videos, audio, documents, pictures, etc. all keep coming to light to illustrate this. They are worth looking at, because they are real. They are not fake things made up by some Republican operative to try and thwart the campaign. This all goes back to the lack of proper vetting of Obama.

Here is the most recent example of this:

In April L.A. Times article…the Obamas attended a “lavish farewell dinner” in Chicago for Khalidi and his wife as they headed to Columbia University in 2003:

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

Yet now the Times which has the video from this toast is refusing to release it, Why? Why, if there is nothing to hide would you not just release a video clip of the man who is headed to be the next President?

Well, it would seem that the Weather Underground men, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn attended this dinner.

According to the Times Obama is on tape saying,

…that he hoped his relationship with Khalidi would continue even after the professor left Chicago. “It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table … [but around] this entire world.”

And I still want to know why there have not been answers on these things,

Occidental College records – not released.
Columbia Thesis paper – not available, locked down by faculty.
Harvard College records – not released, locked down by faculty.
Selective Service Registration – not released.
Medical records – not released (only a one-page report).
Illinois State Senate schedule – ‘not available.’
Law practice client list – not released.
Certified Copy of original Birth certificate – not released.
Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth – not released.
Harvard Law Review articles published – None.
University of Chicago scholarly articles – None.
Record of Baptism– Not released or ‘not available.’
Illinois State Senate records–‘not available.’

Issue 3

While it does seem that Obama is leading in the polls and has an advantage over McCain, the election is not over. It is only Obama’s to lose. I do not in any way think this is going to be a landslide, rather I think this will go down as one of the closest elections ever. This will be another one that will test the popular vs electoral vote. What I am curious about here is the fact that the electorate can choose to vote against the people in their state. So they could just choose to ignore the will of the people they represent and vote for who they want, rendering the citizens vote totally useless. Not that this will happen but I think in this election we are at point that it could happen.

I am concerned about the possibility of a Washington superpower. A trifecta. There would be no balance in power when the interests of only one party are being served. The last time that happened, the party was swiftly back out of power. A quick snippet from an article:

Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on . . .The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

as well as these: affecting the business climate, union supremecy, taxes, green revolution, free-speech, voting rights & special interest potpourri  - one group being in total control is not a good thing

BUT

if all of this comes to pass we will have a lot to keep an eye on over the next four years, at which point I do believe that there will be another radical shift of power. To who? I am not sure but I am almost positive Obama will lose power and control will totally shift to a more conservative party.

Until then, I will continue to look at information, weigh out the facts, and make my own educated decisions. I only ask that you do the same. Don’t be swayed by party lines and talking points. Use your own brain.

October 29, 2008 at 5:49 am 1 comment

Why can’t we all just get along?

Seriously. Why can’t people even pretend to get along, or at least be civil?

We are not going to agree on everything. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact that I have different views and opinions from you is great. We are individuals with our own thoughts and opinions. If we all had the same views and opinions we would not be human. Diversity is a good thing.

That even extends into the political arena. I am free to vote for whoever and whatever I like. What I hold to be good and true. Your view may be totally different. We can agree to disagree.

Where has this bitter divisiveness come from? Everyone is attacking each other and then calling foul on the other. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Some of the comments I have been reading around the internet are just hateful – from BOTH parties.

People have been jumping onto the bandwagon to defend their beliefs at the expense of the others. In doing that, when you attack back with hate and bitterness – you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. Talk about defeating your own purpose. I know this happens on both sides. There are things I hear that make me cringe. I hope that no one supports those who seem to be extremist in their reaction.

We all know there are extremists in every group. They exist throughout society in all groups. What has happened to letting the few overshadow the rest? It would appear that the media is helping to perpetuate this stereotypical image through frequent, consistent reminder.

Here is what I don’t get.

People stealing each others signs, replacing them with the opposing view. Why do that? It is their yard, their car, their right to have that in their yard. If you don’t like it – look away. Don’t taunt them or try to engage in a battle of words or will. Simple human decency seems to have flown out the window.

Yes, we all have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Ammendment. That is why it is okay for me to even write about what I think without fear. Everyone is guaranteed that.

  1. Freedom of speech
  2. Freedom of Religion
  3. Freedom of the Press
  4. Right to gather/assemble (peacefully)
  5. Right to petition

It seems that in the name of “freedom of speech” people have been carrying things a bit too far. You don’t have the right to slander or libel, attack someone, etc.

My tips for how to behave during an election season:

* Don’t park your car beside someones home, write something inflammatory about them on it, and then leave it there for all to see for days.

* Don’t attack at a campaign motorcade.

* Don’t list someones baby on ebay.

* Don’t threaten people physicially for having views other than yours.

Political Signs Bring Threat

Two supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found handwritten death threats in their mailboxes Thursday and reported them to Villa Park police. A 74-year-old woman and a 46-year-old man with Obama signs in their front yards near the 600 block of South Villa Avenue received similar letters that had a Villa Park Village Hall return address. “Get the Obama signs off your property–now,” the letter reads. “Failure to obey this order will result in the immediate death of all family members.” Both residents said they will not remove their signs, though the man, who had voted Republican for 25 years before switching parties this year, said his wife is worried about letting their 7-year-old son play alone outside.

* Don’t steal people’s yard signs and replace them with your own. -I am pretty sure theft is not covered by free speech.

* Do you really have to wear the really negative shirt against the other candidate? I have some that went to far on all of them. Some that I would be embarassed to even be standing next to someone wearing.

* Don’t assume that just because someone has different views than you – that they are ignorant, uninformed, racist, you get the jist.

As a conservative and Republican I am not out to get you. I do not slander you, I do not call you names for your views and I would appreciate the respect that I show to you.

Even if you don’t like my views, you don’t get to insult or call me names. I am not doing that to you. You have the chance to be the bigger person.

October 24, 2008 at 5:24 pm Leave a comment

Understanding taxes (if that is possible?)

Unfortunately taxes are a necessary part of life. Generally speaking we don’t like paying them. But we do. Every year we file our income taxes – state & local, as well as pay city, county, social security, fica, etc. The list is exhaustive. Our current tax plan but into place under President Bush is set to expire soon so whatever the new President puts into place will affect us all greatly.

First I would like to point out that when talking about the current budget deficit critics are quick to blame the Bush tax cuts for the so-called wealthy for the deficit. In reality this is not the case. Revenue is the highest it has ever been. The cuts on capital gains taxes has brought dramatic increases in federal revenue. Truly. The increase in the deficit has to do with being in a war and government spending having increased by over 30%. It is highly inaccurate to blame the tax cuts for this situation.

Both plans have plenty in them to make you question what is the better choice. As well, there are exhaustive views and commentaries to support whichever view you support. On paper they seem to not have that much of a difference in the overall economic picture, as mentioned in the clip below.

From – How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain’s tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama’s could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy – which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

“Distributionally, they’re markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different,” said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.

The differences come from how they are put into place and what the ramifications of each would entail.

So here it is:

McCain-

  • Keep Tax Rates Low
  • Cut corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%
  • Allow First-Year Deduction, Or “Expensing”, Of Equipment And Technology Investments
  • Establish permanent tax credit equal to 10% of wages spent on R&D
  • Ban Internet Taxes
  • Ban Cell-phone Taxes
  • His most radical adjustment to the tax system which is not being mentioned as much in the tax portion is his health care credit. – “Transforming The Tax Code To Create Greater Equity: The McCain plan transforms the current tax code to provide all American families – including the self-employed and the uninsured – the same tax benefit, a $5,000 refundable tax credit ($2,500 for individuals) that was previously only available to those with employer coverage. Families can use this credit to purchase insurance of their choice, including keeping their current coverage.”
  • As well by not raising capital gains taxes the wealthy will continue to invest at a time when it is most needed to help our economy. If those taxes are raised the level of investment WILL drop.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic adviser to McCain, notes that many reports does not take into account the spending reforms – such as eliminating earmarks – that are central to McCain’s strategy to support tax relief and help reduce the deficit.

Overall, we would all continue to do well under this plan.

Obama

  • Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
  • Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
  • Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of health care and to reward investments in innovation.
  • Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

Obama proposes a radical change in the tax system to cut taxes to the bottom “95%” of wage earners. Unfortunately this has major implications as well. It sounds good but there is much more to it. 50% of wage earners do not even pay taxes. So while what he says may be technically factual . . . the plan increases the number of welfare recipients, and extends the poverty trap of poor households.

    What it really means is that he is reintroducing a massive increase in the welfare state, costing about $30 billion per year. According to the Center for Data Analysis’ micro-simulation modeling, Obama would increase the number of tax filers who receive a check from government without paying any taxes, including payroll taxes — people filing just to receive a welfare check — by about 10 million. Where will the $30 billion per year come from? From those who are paying taxes, of course. And indirectly from all of us, when the economy is dragged down by higher tax rates on businesses. – from The FoundryBut it does not stop there, raising business taxes, national health care, etc. There are many facets to this plan that will have a trickle down effect. While taxes may go down for the lower income families, companies that are also hit by tax increases will raise prices, lower salary, cut back on jobs which in turn will all effect the very same people that Obama is out to help.

    Another good article on Obama’s 95% tax plan

To the surprise of some, even though Senator Obama’s tax plan lowers taxes for the bottom four quintiles, marginal tax rates would fall only for the very lowest-income couples. Taking both income and payroll taxes into account, those at the very bottom of the income distribution would see their effective marginal tax rates fall from 27.4 percent to minus 58.6 percent due to proposed changes to the earned income tax credit and Senator Obama’s new “Making Work Pay” credit.

Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent.

High-income taxpayers can also expect their effective marginal tax rates to rise—to 47.2 percent-under Senator Obama’s tax plan. This increase is caused by rolling back the 2001 and 2003 reductions in the top two tax rates, curtailing deductions and exemptions at high income levels, and potentially raising Social Security taxes. – The Tax Foundation

    Now some commentary:Aside from the overall theory of wealth redistribution, which some may relate to socialist types of theory, that does not help the economy in the long run. There should never be total equality in income. The neurosurgeon and the fast-food worker should not have the same salary. There has always been brackets, or castes if you want to call it that. Equality as a person is not equated to equality in income or possessions. All people are created equal, but it pretty much stops there. We all have different aptitudes and abilities and will work where we are best suited. The driven individual will work hard to become successful and then will be told, “Hey, we need your money to help Tom, he does not have as much as you and you have to share it with him.” That is wealth redistribution. I should not HAVE to give money I work for to someone else because they are not making as much as I am. It does not work.

    The definition of “wealthy” to be $250,000 does not allow for areas in our country where while that sounds like an amazing annual income, it is not. California and New York are two prime examples. This article explains it well, better than I can.  – Tax Rates for New Yorkers would top 50% under Obama.

    I was talking to someone yesterday who has valid fear of losing his home under the Obama tax plan since he does make $250 in one of those states. He has a family of five and is scared that he will not be able to afford the mortgage he saved for years just to get. As well I spoke to a mother who has lived in a socialist country and said she does not want to go there either, giving examples of the lack of incentive to the worker because they don’t care anymore. While it sounds good to the supposed 95% of the country the other five pump money into the economy to keep it moving, fund most of the governments revenue already, and are the most positioned to give generously.

    I am in favor of encouraging and rewarding people to work hard. To earn what they have. Not to blindly give more to them to try and make things more. While a plan might sound good on the surface it deserves to be looked into further to see what the actual ramifications and implications are to all citizens. If we are being fair and equitable, you will remember that that upper five percent helps keep our economy and businesses running. Personally I am a fan of the Fair Tax plan. I hope that one day it comes around as a possibility again.

    Look closely at the lines for $111,000 – $226,000 – According to those estimates you will actually fare better under the McCain plan. Curious.

    A final thought -

    Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they’re paid for by raising taxes in the future, “the economy is worse off than if you didn’t cut at all,” Burman said.

October 23, 2008 at 5:49 pm 3 comments

At least he knows.

Kudos for knowing that you are not yet the president Senator Obama!

Obama sidestepped a question on whether he would attend a summit of world leaders the Bush administration has called for Nov. 15 to discuss the global economic crisis, saying he has ideas but doesn’t want to say much about them yet. “We have one president at a time,” he said. – AP article

October 23, 2008 at 4:33 pm Leave a comment

Conservative Hollywood – They do exist.

Ok. There are some big names that we know are Republicans. The nice Baldwin, the Governator. But there have to be a few more. And don’t you just wonder if some of the others are closet Republicans anyway? I mean these are the people with most of the money in our country.

Taken from these sources. If you know of any others let me know!

List of John McCain presidential supporters
Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret

October 22, 2008 at 10:10 am

I qualify to vote! Do you?

Look at that I get to vote! See how you fare in this little quiz. I only wish I knew which three I missed!


You Should Be Allowed to Vote


You got 12/15 questions correct.

Generally speaking, you’re very well informed.

If you vote this election, you’ll know exactly who (and what) you’ll be voting for.

You’re likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

Should You Be Allowed to Vote?

October 22, 2008 at 2:16 am Leave a comment

Out of touch – aren’t we. . .

Like I said yesterday, out of touch with that middle class that you are out to “help”

Thanks Michelle for really showing us you are willing to give up your pie for the rest of us. And frankly I would prefer you to share your pie cause you have a whole lot to share, more than most of us. In fact you are part of that top percent who should be giving a whole lot more than you do. AND mandating giving anymore to help people who are not already trying to help themselves just grates on my last nerve.

Yes, I know there are people who legitimately need assistance. I am NOT referring to them. But we all know there are people who abuse the system. These are the people that make me mad. And we let them. And now we are going to have to take the money we work very hard to have to pay our own bills and give it to people who feel like we owe it to them.

News flash.

No one owes you anything. Having your life paid for by the government is not a right. Personally I think there should be a massive overhaul of the welfare system to encourage capable individuals to have to go back to work. That would help the employment rate.

When did having your bills paid, health care, free food, college education, etc. become a right. Most of those things are privileges. Our ancestors would never have dreamed that today we would just expect to have these things without having to work for them. Our grandparents generations were some of the hardest working, most sacrificing people there have been. We have lost some of that and now our society feels that we should have more. More and more and more. We live in excess.

And the American Dream, guess what – we are all living it.

Being a millionaire is not the American Dream, it might be a dream but not the intent of what we call the “American Dream”. Our country is wealthy. The whole thing. Look at countries overseas and you will see that they do not differentiate between Bill Gates and an office worker. They see an American and think of a wealthy country. So while you might not see yourself as rich, know that you are. Get a grip on reality and understand that you are living a dream. And even if it is not your dream there are lots of people who would give anything to be in your shoes.

So please leave my “pie” alone. If you really want to see the economy grow encourage people to work hard. Taking their money for doing that is not going to make it better.

Check out this post too. Pretty funny. Top 10 things Obama knows.

October 21, 2008 at 11:03 pm 5 comments

Fairness Doctrine – not so fair is it.

Until yesterday I had never even heard of the Fairness Doctrine. Then in two separate instances yesterday I heard mention of it, so that must mean I should look into it and see what it is and then see if it is good or bad.

One was in this essay, obviously opinion – Memo to President Obama from 2010 and then again on Red Eye. (yes I was up very late)

So after hearing mention of it twice I decided to look it up. The doctrine was originally implemented to try and make sure that stations were giving opposing views on topics. They did not want stations/channels to impose singular views. That sounds almost reasonable. But is it next to impossible to enforce. Who decides what is balanced?

It is curious to note that when this was put in place there were far less options of what to watch or listen too. As well, the Republicans are against this legislation. It went out during the Reagan administration and they have fought to keep it as such. The Democrats are pushing to have it brought back, Pelosi is a strong supporter. The funny part here is by large the media leans far to the liberal Democrat side so why on earth do they even care? They are concerned about the success of conservative talk radio – Rush type people. I would venture to say the left has far more media outlets than the right so why can’t they just let it be. It does violate free speech and first ammendment rights. AND would all the other channels give a balanced view of the conservative? I doubt that.

McCain does not support bringing this doctrine back, he has actually worked to enact legislation to keep it from returning. Obama does claim to oppose a reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.” But more recently, a campaign surrogate told a C-SPAN TV audience Obama had not taken a position on the doctrine. In addition, a source in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told B&C in July that he could not rule out a push from House Democrats to bring it back, either in this Congress or the next. (broadcasting cable)

And this from the New York Post:
Should Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
More…

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?

The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles

So here is what the Fairness Doctrine states: (from wikipedia)

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.

It was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan‘s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).

In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it.[6] In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.[7]

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[8] The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.

It could really change things if brought back. I like the comparison I read that said requiring balance would be like making a country station play Toby Keith and then play Kanye West. They just don’t go together. You can find what you want to listen to.

Other links:

Why the Fairness Doctrine is anything but Fair.

October 21, 2008 at 4:49 pm 3 comments

Older Posts


Blog Stats

  • 57,125 hits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.