At its heart, the “Fairness Doctrine” would only apply to the editorial content broadcast on radio and television. Straight news content would be exempt.
The trouble is that today's "straight news" is very heavily slanted to the left, and this isn't exactly a secret. In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates. Key findings include:
* Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.
* The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.
* Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.
* Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.
There's much more information at the link provided, but you get the gist. Talk radio is, in fact, the only medium in which liberals do not have a staggering 'advantage' - and it's the only medium specifically designed around opinion, and not news.
In conclusion, it's obvious that the so-called Fairness Doctrine is, indeed, aimed at silencing the conservative viewpoint by watering it down with liberal information easily available - literally - everywhere.
Link:
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Slavery Reparations
Slavery was an abomination. There's no morality-based argument that can justify slavery and its attendant evils. A case cannot be made for reparation payments to slave descendants.
Adjoa Aiyetoro, a legal consultant to the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, said: "We're not raising claims that you should pay us because you did something to us 150 years ago. We are saying that we are injured today by the vestiges of slavery, which took away income and property that was rightfully ours."
This vestige-of-slavery argument, as an explanation for the pathology seen in some black neighborhoods, is simply nonsense when you think about it.
Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors (such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement) is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.
In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.
In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.
According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"): "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."
That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.
The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.
I doubt whether the reparations gang could develop a coherent theory of the generation-skipping effects of slavery. Vestiges and legacy of slavery arguments are simply covers for another hustle similar to the $6 trillion dollar War on Poverty hustle.
Further, the case for ameliorating white guilt regarding the vestiges of slavery has been a mixed success: Affirmative Action, here defined as a situation where a white candidate and a black candidate are equal in qualifications for university admission or employment, and the preference should be given to the black candidate. While it appeared on the surface that affirmative action policies were successful - based on the numbers of minority students gaining acceptance to colleges and universities, despite lower-than-acceptable scores normally used to secure such acceptance - the dropout and failure rates for those students was so high as to negate the policy's existence almost entirely. Though there have been some success stories, they are individual and few; instead, what has come to light is the horribly inadequate PRE-college education prevalent in public schools.
Far from the federal government abandoning anyone, the opposite is true: The War on Poverty and Affirmative Action were ill-conceived, though perhaps well-meaning, attempts at leveling what some felt was a tilted playing field - at a cost of trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Adjoa Aiyetoro, a legal consultant to the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, said: "We're not raising claims that you should pay us because you did something to us 150 years ago. We are saying that we are injured today by the vestiges of slavery, which took away income and property that was rightfully ours."
This vestige-of-slavery argument, as an explanation for the pathology seen in some black neighborhoods, is simply nonsense when you think about it.
Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors (such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement) is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.
In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.
In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.
According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"): "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."
That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.
The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.
I doubt whether the reparations gang could develop a coherent theory of the generation-skipping effects of slavery. Vestiges and legacy of slavery arguments are simply covers for another hustle similar to the $6 trillion dollar War on Poverty hustle.
Further, the case for ameliorating white guilt regarding the vestiges of slavery has been a mixed success: Affirmative Action, here defined as a situation where a white candidate and a black candidate are equal in qualifications for university admission or employment, and the preference should be given to the black candidate. While it appeared on the surface that affirmative action policies were successful - based on the numbers of minority students gaining acceptance to colleges and universities, despite lower-than-acceptable scores normally used to secure such acceptance - the dropout and failure rates for those students was so high as to negate the policy's existence almost entirely. Though there have been some success stories, they are individual and few; instead, what has come to light is the horribly inadequate PRE-college education prevalent in public schools.
Far from the federal government abandoning anyone, the opposite is true: The War on Poverty and Affirmative Action were ill-conceived, though perhaps well-meaning, attempts at leveling what some felt was a tilted playing field - at a cost of trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Re-branding Republicans
One of the main problems confronting the Republican Party during my lifetime has been attracting new voters to it. If the majority of the country identifies itself as center-right, how in the heck did we wind up with a Marxist in the White House, backed by liberal Democrats controlling the entire Congress???
It's a matter of branding.
We have allowed the Left to control the conversation for far too long, using pretty labels (e.g., 'pro-choice' - sounds so much better than 'pro-abortion', doesn't it?) and meaningless tripe (i.e., 'open space' - who could be against that???).
What we lack, and have lacked since President Reagan, is a communicator. Newt Gingrich came pretty close, and perhaps a few other "lower-level" Republicans, as well. But until Governor Palin came along, we lacked a loud, clear, honest voice, and we desperately need one. Or two. Or forty.
Loud.
Clear.
Honest.
We're so afraid to tell the American public WHY we should be drilling in the ANWR - along with the ancillary information, like how much it will actually hurt the caribou, how long it will take to get the oil from the ground to our cars, and so on. We don't tell the American public the FACTS, we sugarcoat them because we've allowed the Left to dictate the terms of the debate, when what we should be doing is ignoring their rules utterly.
If we have the most strict environmental controls in the world (and witness how many oil spills we experienced during the last few hurricanes in the Gulf), why does it make more environmental sense to allow Venezuela to drill our oil for us - when they have horrid environmental controls? Aren't we just causing more harm to the environment, on a global scale, by letting them do for us what we could do for ourselves better, cleaner, and quicker?
That's the kind of argument I want to hear.
I want to hear how not only does the 2nd Amendment 'allow' us to own and carry weapons for our protection, and the protection of others, but that EVERY statistic from EVERY state supports the fact that: More carry permits = less violent crime.
I hear and read these things from secondary sources, but not from those we elect, or ask to lead our party. And it's high time we did.
It's a matter of branding.
We have allowed the Left to control the conversation for far too long, using pretty labels (e.g., 'pro-choice' - sounds so much better than 'pro-abortion', doesn't it?) and meaningless tripe (i.e., 'open space' - who could be against that???).
What we lack, and have lacked since President Reagan, is a communicator. Newt Gingrich came pretty close, and perhaps a few other "lower-level" Republicans, as well. But until Governor Palin came along, we lacked a loud, clear, honest voice, and we desperately need one. Or two. Or forty.
Loud.
Clear.
Honest.
We're so afraid to tell the American public WHY we should be drilling in the ANWR - along with the ancillary information, like how much it will actually hurt the caribou, how long it will take to get the oil from the ground to our cars, and so on. We don't tell the American public the FACTS, we sugarcoat them because we've allowed the Left to dictate the terms of the debate, when what we should be doing is ignoring their rules utterly.
If we have the most strict environmental controls in the world (and witness how many oil spills we experienced during the last few hurricanes in the Gulf), why does it make more environmental sense to allow Venezuela to drill our oil for us - when they have horrid environmental controls? Aren't we just causing more harm to the environment, on a global scale, by letting them do for us what we could do for ourselves better, cleaner, and quicker?
That's the kind of argument I want to hear.
I want to hear how not only does the 2nd Amendment 'allow' us to own and carry weapons for our protection, and the protection of others, but that EVERY statistic from EVERY state supports the fact that: More carry permits = less violent crime.
I hear and read these things from secondary sources, but not from those we elect, or ask to lead our party. And it's high time we did.
Monday, November 10, 2008
To Rule or to Govern?
The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and told Brokaw, "...given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
Obama Spokesman Says That Obama Is Ready to Rule from Day One
From Dictionary.com, the definition of rule:
-- to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern: to rule the empire with severity.
-- to decide or declare judicially or authoritatively; decree: The judge ruled that he should be exiled.
The question is: Did we elect a president or a king?
From Dictionary.com, the definition of govern:
-- to exercise the function of government.
-- to have predominating influence.
I know that liberals would be ever-so-happy to think that we just elected a king, though I suspect they would change their tune once those tax increases begin hitting their paychecks. When that happens, even committed Marxists become moderates, which is about the bext the nation can hope for right now.
I just recall how horrified the Left was about "King George" Bush, and all of the associated NONSENSE we've had to hear over the past couple of years.
Liberals, like children, believe that it's all right for them to do something they would deny to someone else; or, said in children's terms, "If I do something then it's all right, but if you do it you're a butthead."
Obama Spokesman Says That Obama Is Ready to Rule from Day One
From Dictionary.com, the definition of rule:
-- to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern: to rule the empire with severity.
-- to decide or declare judicially or authoritatively; decree: The judge ruled that he should be exiled.
The question is: Did we elect a president or a king?
From Dictionary.com, the definition of govern:
-- to exercise the function of government.
-- to have predominating influence.
I know that liberals would be ever-so-happy to think that we just elected a king, though I suspect they would change their tune once those tax increases begin hitting their paychecks. When that happens, even committed Marxists become moderates, which is about the bext the nation can hope for right now.
I just recall how horrified the Left was about "King George" Bush, and all of the associated NONSENSE we've had to hear over the past couple of years.
Liberals, like children, believe that it's all right for them to do something they would deny to someone else; or, said in children's terms, "If I do something then it's all right, but if you do it you're a butthead."
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama Didn't Beat McCain
Obama didn't win because we did a poor job as conservatives, or Republicans; the main mistake we made was selecting John McCain as the candidate. Hear me out: I love the guy, but he is NOT, and has never been, a conservative. An out-and-out liberal ran against a 'moderate' Republican --- to replace what the public considers a 'moderate' Republican. So no matter how we sliced it or spun it, the public's perception was that they were facing four more years of Bush.
THAT'S where Obama won. He didn't beat McCain, because he really wasn't running against McCain.
Obama beat Bush, feeding on the eight years of misery fed to the Left by the media... convincing them what a dunderhead, idiot and next-Hitler that Bush was.
Up against all of that, the only way for us to win was to nominate a diehard conservative, because THAT'S the candidate who would best have presented an "I'm not Bush" face of Republicanism to the voters. And we had poor choices from which to select (as far as the general public is concerned) --- one man who was too religious (Huckabee), one who had a weird religion (Romney), one who looked asleep during campaign speeches (Thompson).
Look back to the primaries: Republicans turned out in small groups to nominate a candidate, whereas Democrats turned out in DROVES to nominate theirs. We wound up with the 'default' candidate, and we lost; they wound up with a candidate who fought the Clinton machine for months on end, and he winds up on top... because all of his negatives (that could be used) were defeated during the primary season. Our candidate really didn't have much of a fight at all.
Let's not make the same mistake again. We can talk about our philosophies of smaller government and lower taxes, but the odds of our retaking the Senate in 2010 are infinitesimally small, as we will again be defending more open seats than the Democrats... meaning that we have to win not only our own, but also theirs, and that's a monumental and costly undertaking, since the Democrats have only to keep the status quo ante.
There's a great post, with some very good advice, here:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/nov/05/obama-administration-survival-guide/
THAT'S where Obama won. He didn't beat McCain, because he really wasn't running against McCain.
Obama beat Bush, feeding on the eight years of misery fed to the Left by the media... convincing them what a dunderhead, idiot and next-Hitler that Bush was.
Up against all of that, the only way for us to win was to nominate a diehard conservative, because THAT'S the candidate who would best have presented an "I'm not Bush" face of Republicanism to the voters. And we had poor choices from which to select (as far as the general public is concerned) --- one man who was too religious (Huckabee), one who had a weird religion (Romney), one who looked asleep during campaign speeches (Thompson).
Look back to the primaries: Republicans turned out in small groups to nominate a candidate, whereas Democrats turned out in DROVES to nominate theirs. We wound up with the 'default' candidate, and we lost; they wound up with a candidate who fought the Clinton machine for months on end, and he winds up on top... because all of his negatives (that could be used) were defeated during the primary season. Our candidate really didn't have much of a fight at all.
Let's not make the same mistake again. We can talk about our philosophies of smaller government and lower taxes, but the odds of our retaking the Senate in 2010 are infinitesimally small, as we will again be defending more open seats than the Democrats... meaning that we have to win not only our own, but also theirs, and that's a monumental and costly undertaking, since the Democrats have only to keep the status quo ante.
There's a great post, with some very good advice, here:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/nov/05/obama-administration-survival-guide/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe Today!
Posts
All Comments