Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

The Fraud of the Fairness Doctrine

January 24, 2007

Besides the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is all but unenforceable, there are many other flaws with the concept of dictating political fairness to a free media.

First off, the Fairness Doctrine only refers to the obvious and would require an Alan Colmes for every Sean Hannity. But what about less obvious political partisanship? For example, how would the biased agenda setting of a network like CBS be addressed? In this way, the Fairness Doctrine would be superficial at best, allowing more classic forms of political bias to slip under the government radar undetected. Unless the government plans on require hiring practices based on political party affiliation in the news rooms of every television and radio network, this is doomed to failure.

Secondly, how would an individual’s personal politics be determined? There are Conservatives who lean liberal on certain issues and liberals who happen to skew more conservative on some issues.

Those who say that the Fairness Doctrine will bring about a return of “media democracy” are selling you a bill of goods, as a matter of fact, the effects of the fairness doctrine would be quite the opposite. A return to the Fairness Doctrine would take control of program content from the listener, and put it in the hands of a government regulatory commission. Under private ownership, the public determines what the public interest is. That relationship between the public and content can not exist with overburdensom regulations. It’s enough that the FCC combs the airwaves for indecency do we really need them combing for ideology?

Let’s face it, the government can’t even control the blaitant bias of the publically financed PBS and NPR.

For more on The Fairness Doctrine, American Thinker’s Selwyn Duke makes a good case against it:

Of course, many may wonder why I’d take issue with fairness.  Shouldn’t we give the “other side” its day in court, one may ask?  
 

The problem is that this regulation would be applied to talk radio but not arenas dominated by liberal thought, a perfect example of which is the ever-present mainstream media (which presents the “other side”).  This is because talk show hosts trade in red meat commentary, whereas the mainstream press is more subtle in its opinion-making. 
 

Fine then, say the critics, that’s as it should be.  We don’t have to worry about “responsible journalists”; it’s those acid-tongued firebrands who pollute discourse with their pyro-polemics who bedevil us.  And on the surface this sounds convincing, which is why I tell you of the talker and the shill.
 

The dirty little secret behind the Fairness Doctrine is that it punishes the honest.  Think about it: Radio hosts are the talkers; they wear their banners openly as they proclaim who and what they are.  Sure, they may be brash and hyperbolic, loud and oft-sardonic, but there is no pretense, little guile, and you know what they want you to believe.  You know what they’re sellin’ and if you’re buyin’.

A Losing Strategy

January 21, 2007

A Losing Strategy

Rep. Eric Cantor

January 18, 2007

CantorChief Deputy Whip, Representitive Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 7th district will be joining The Andrew Wilkow Show today(1/18) in the 3rd hour of the show (2pm EST). He will discuss recent legislation he has proposed along with former POW, Representitive Sam Johnson which will keep house Democrats from cutting off funding for American troops in Iraq.

His statement about the proposed legislation:

“The purpose of this legislation is to assure our men and women in Iraq that Congress and America support them.  As a nation, we are debating the future of our involvement in Iraq; this debate is necessary and good.  However, our troops and the dollars that fund them should not be used to play politics during that debate.  Playing politics with our nation’s purse strings will only hurt our troops and encourage the terrorists who want to harm them.

“We must not forget that we are at war with an irreconcilable wing of Islam and it is imperative for the security of the Middle East and America that we succeed against the terrorists.”

Harry Reid and Ethics Reform Lite

January 16, 2007

harry_reid.jpgIt still takes a Republican to make the earmark reforms that the Democrats promised on the campaign trail. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was seeking to implement only a lite version of Earmark reform until Republican Senator Jim DeMint scuttled him. DeMint is slowly proving himself as the most honest man in the Senate.

This from the Las Vegas Sun:

Just days into the new Congress during a debate on earmarks, a leading campaign issue last fall, nine Democratic senators broke with Reid to vote for a Republican amendment to beef-up his proposal to reform earmarks – the special spending provisions that lawmakers tuck into bills, almost always for pet projects in their home districts.

Senators wanted to require their colleagues put their names on virtually all earmarks, which run into the thousands.

Reid wanted to put names only on those earmarks that did not go to a federal agency but instead go to an outside entity. Those kinds of earmarks number in the hundreds, not thousands.

The story continues:

The amendment to his bill was authored by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, with backing from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. – the anti-pork duo who tried last fall to halt a massive year-end spending bill because of its earmarks.

While DeMint’s amendment would have required more than 12,000 earmarks to have names assigned to them, Reid’s legislation would cover about 500.

DeMint supported essentially the same disclosure that House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi put in place as part of the Democrats’ agenda for the first 100 hours – and that provision won over the likes of Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and John Kerry of Massachusetts, and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

Rep. Patrick McHenry

January 16, 2007

McHenryAmerica’s youngest Congressman, Patrick McHenry will be joining the Andrew Wilkow show today (1/16) at 12:20 EST to discuss his recent spar with Congressman Barney Frank over the Samoa minimum wage exemption.

Pelosi’s Tuna Hypocrisy

January 12, 2007

pelosiLess than 100 hours in, and Pelosi can’t seem to stem the growing tidal wave of hypocrisy. This time it’s the minimum wage hike.

This from The Washington Times:

On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
    

The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
    

One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island’s work force. StarKist’s parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

Patrick McHenry gets quote of the day though, to the obvious perturbing of Barney Frank:

During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, “just as it was for the minimum-wage bill.”
    

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, “No, it would not be.”
    

“So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?” Mr. McHenry pressed.
 

“The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain,” Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
 

The bottom line is that the libs are protecting this industry…God…they’re acting like Republicans!

update-3.jpgI decided to dig a bit deeper. It turns out that Star Kist Samoa, inc. does not allow its employees to unionize. This is from the American Samoa Bar Association web site which lists lawsuits brought against Star Kist Samoa:

Employee handbook that strongly advised employees not to join a labor union, described a system of “progressive discipline” prior to termination, and required the employee to sign a statement that he has read the manual and understands its provisions, gave rise to contractual rights and obligations with regard to discipline and termination of employment. Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162.

They not only advise not to unionize, they TERMINATE employees for Union activity:

Termination of employment due to union activity is perhaps the most obvious example of conduct which is federally preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and over which territorial court has no jurisdiction. Su`a v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 7 A.S.R.2d 58.

But wait, Starkist Samoa must at least pay their employees a fair wage right? Think again:

Territorial minimum wage statute, including provision for punitive damages for wilful failure to pay territorial minimum wage, does not apply to employees covered by provisions of federal minimum wage law. A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0320, 32.0340. Moea`i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48.

Punitive damages provision of territorial minimum wage statute, for wilful failure to pay the minimum wage, is limited to a claim based on the difference between the employee’s hourly wage and the minimum wage; this provision does not apply to an action for breach of contract where, although the employee has not been paid, his contractual wage was higher than the statutory minimum. A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0320, 32.0340. Moea`i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48.

That’s 5,000 employees of Star Kist who have been absolutely hosed by the hypocrite Pelosi.

update-3.jpg Newsbusters is all over it.

update-3.jpg Video of Congessman Patrick McHenry on the floor asking Barney Frank about adding an exemption for American Samoa in Stem Cell Research:

update-3.jpg Democrats are now promising to change the minimum wage bill. This from The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Fending off charges of favoritism, House Democrats say a just-passed minimum-wage bill will be changed to cover all U.S. territories – including American Samoa – before it reaches President Bush’s desk.

The story continues:

Spokesmen for Pelosi and Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, the author of the minimum-wage bill, said it excluded American Samoa at the request of nonvoting Delegate Eni Faleomavaega, a Democrat who represents the Pacific island territories in the House. Raising the federal minimum wage would devastate the local tuna industry, Faleomavaega said in a statement last week, adding that American Samoa’s economy is “more than 80 percent” dependent on Chicken of the Sea and StarKist. 

If this incident has done nothing else, it has proven that Democrats are willing to sacrifice jobs and businesses at the alter of political points. Also, their bending to the protest of Delegate Eni Faleomavaega of Samoa proves that Democrats understand the effect that a minimum wage hike has on jobs…they just dont give a damn.

Queen Nancy’s Fuzzy Math

January 12, 2007

So we’re about at the half way point in the Democrat’s “100 hours”…or are we. Not according to Queen Nancy. This from Yahoo! News:

The clock is ticking for House Democrats, but it’s hard to tell what time it is.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., was touting a plan to push six bills through a Democratic House in 100 hours or less as early as June of last year. She’s reached the halfway point — in fewer than 20 hours, according to her count.

But just as the official clock for a basketball or football game stops for time-outs and commercial breaks, Democrats aren’t counting the minutes spent on business unrelated to those six designated bills.

So while the House has been in session for almost 48 hours since the 110th Congress was sworn in Jan. 4, the clock on Pelosi’s Web site says only 17 hours 48 minutes have elapsed.

Ok, I’ll bite. Let’s do some math here.

The new congress was sworn in on the 4th of December and have completed, according to Queen Nancy’s official count, 17 hours and 48 minutes of legislative hours. That’s 6 of the new congress doing an average of approximately 3 hours of legislative hours a day. A day equals 24 hours. It would therefore take, in Queen Nancy’s eyes, 8 days to complete 24 hours worth of this congress legislative duties.

For the Republicans to have finished their first 100 days when they took over 1994 it would have taken 800 days according to Queen Nancy’s Fuzzy math…but wait a second, that doesn’t include weekend days which would number around 228, giving us a total of 1028 days for the Newt Gingrich house to complete it’s 100 days. For now, I’ll let the Holidays and football games slide and we’ll leave it at that.

Folks, Queen Nancy’s fuzzy math tells us that the 1994 newly sworn in congress should have had 2 years and 9 months to complete their first 100 days of business.

Just Another Kennedy

January 11, 2007

This is absolutely sickening. Especially coming on the heals of El Loco consolidating power.

Dems Take a Sick Day for Football

January 11, 2007

Dick Morris has the scoop.

House Democrats lost considerable credibility yesterday when their opening session was cancelled so that members could attend the Ohio State-Florida State football game.

This is not a joke.

It is, however, a blunt metaphor for how genuinely out of touch the members of Congress really are. How many other Americans do you suppose were given the same perk? A day off because of an evening football game? And how many school kids would like to have time off to watch their own favorite teams? What kind of message is the House leadership sending?

Is it that they don’t get how bad it looks, or that they don’t care?

When Morris has to preface everything with “This is not a joke” you know it’s bad. Question: did CNN pause its 100 hour clock for this?

Mark Levin Responds to Kennedy

January 10, 2007

Hot Air has posted Levin’s response to Kennedy’s Vietnam comments.

I think it’s safe to say that our country is now split into two camps in our Vietnam-comparison obsession; those who learned from everything up to the Tet offensive and those who’ve learned from everything up to and including the slaughter that followed our exit from the country.