Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Call them "Leftist", not "liberal"

There is nothing liberal about them. One need look no further than this comment at DailyKos on the television stations that dare to air advertisements critical of The One's choice of friends:

Failure to serve the public commonweal is sufficient. If and when progressives gain power, we should revoke the broadcast licenses of all Sinclair and Clear Channel outlets.
What makes this threat possible is the "broadcast licenses", which in turn depend on the idea of "public airwaves". How that came to be accepted is a mystery to me. If the Supreme Court can find a general "right to privacy" in penumbras of emanations of the actual text (and I do happen to agree with that reasoning), then they ought to find in "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" that an agency of the US government has no business dictating what can be broadcast by the electronic press.

We know that Democrats desire to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" if Barack Obama can appoint FCC commissioners to do the deed. The only way to end the threat of some group that gains a majority of FCC seats using it to silence opposition is to take away any power it may have to regulate content. Let the FCC "license" broadcasters on strictly technical grounds, assuring that Channels 4 and 5 don't interfere with one another's transmissions. Let them even see that the technology to decode transmissions be standardized so that an RCA television can receive a CBS signal as well as programming from RCA's own NBC network, but they have no place dictating what those signals should convey.

Let us keep Rush Limbaugh on the radio, and they can have Janet Jackson's breast on TV. It seems a fair trade to me.


  1. From jewishencyclopedia dot com.
    In Rabbinical Literature:

    According to the Rabbis, "Barak" is merely another name for "Lapidoth," Deborah's husband (not her son, as Ambrosius says in "De Viduis," i. 8, 45). A third name given him was "Michael." The reason for the three names is thus given: Barak was an ignorant but pious man; and not knowing how he could otherwise especially serve God, he accepted his wife's proposal to make candles to be offered by him at the sanctuary of Shiloh. Deborah, therefore, is designated as "the wife of Lappidoth [Torchlights]." God, whoalone knows the inward thoughts of man, said to the worthy couple, "You have had a pious intention in making large candles, that their light may be bright; I, too, will make your light shine brightly." Barak's real name was Michael, because, like his namesake, he was to be a messenger of God.

    Oh Gawd, not another f^*king 'messenger'.

  2. I happen to know New Shiloh is nowhere near Ill~noise.


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.