I don't know when it started, but it irritates me to no end when people say, "Happy Holidays" as they interact with others this time of year. I understand that Jews celebrate Hanukkah this time of year but why can't we just wish each other a Merry Christmas without being worried about being sued by the ACLU for discrimination. If I know someone is Jewish, I have no problem wishing them a happy Hanukkah. If you don't celebrate Christmas and someone says, "Merry Christmas," don't get offended, just return the greeting and go on your way. The phrase "Merry Christmas" is not used to put a curse on you and your family, it is the exact opposite.
So for all of you out there, have a Happy Hanukkah, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Return of the Fairness Doctrine
With the ascendancy of Obama into the White House drawing closer, certain parts of the left have been threatening to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". The proponents of it claim that it is so all points of view will be able to be heard. The problem is that it would target talk radio not the broadcast or print media. Why one and not the others? Anyone who is intellectualy honest, realized that the broadcasters did nothing to hide their bias during the past election and the print media was little better. The one area that had anything critical to say about Obama was talk radio.
What would the "Fairness Doctrine" do? Essentially what the fairness doctrine does is mandates that for every hour of conservative programming, there would have to be an hour of programming. This may seem reasonable to some but what they don't realize is that liberal talk radio has been tried and has failed in almost every market that it has been tried. Those who own radio stations aren't in the business of charity, they are in the business of making money. Whether the owner is a conservative or liberal, they realize that conservative radio programs draw listeners to their station which in turn increases their profit. If these same station owners were forced to put liberal programing on, they would not only lose listeners but they would also lose money.
All of this is really a moot point. The "Fairness Doctrine" is unconstitutional. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(Emphasis added) The fact that Congress wants to pass a law saying what programming is acceptable or the setup of the radio scheduling goes completely against the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." means that Congress cannot pass a law that would restrict the speech. What do they think that talk radio is? The speech that the founders specifically had in mind was political speech. What would they think of us today when Congress thinks that they have the authority to pass a law that would violate the freedom of speech.
Is anyone surprised that Congress thinks that they have the authority to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" when they were able to pass a law that restricted political speech under the guise of campaign finance reform which places limits on the raising of money for political candidates. Another gift that was given to us thanks to campaign finance, was the limiting of political ads as an election gets closer. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in the position that we are in?
What would the "Fairness Doctrine" do? Essentially what the fairness doctrine does is mandates that for every hour of conservative programming, there would have to be an hour of programming. This may seem reasonable to some but what they don't realize is that liberal talk radio has been tried and has failed in almost every market that it has been tried. Those who own radio stations aren't in the business of charity, they are in the business of making money. Whether the owner is a conservative or liberal, they realize that conservative radio programs draw listeners to their station which in turn increases their profit. If these same station owners were forced to put liberal programing on, they would not only lose listeners but they would also lose money.
All of this is really a moot point. The "Fairness Doctrine" is unconstitutional. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(Emphasis added) The fact that Congress wants to pass a law saying what programming is acceptable or the setup of the radio scheduling goes completely against the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." means that Congress cannot pass a law that would restrict the speech. What do they think that talk radio is? The speech that the founders specifically had in mind was political speech. What would they think of us today when Congress thinks that they have the authority to pass a law that would violate the freedom of speech.
Is anyone surprised that Congress thinks that they have the authority to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" when they were able to pass a law that restricted political speech under the guise of campaign finance reform which places limits on the raising of money for political candidates. Another gift that was given to us thanks to campaign finance, was the limiting of political ads as an election gets closer. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in the position that we are in?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Global Warming
Al Gore, you can call off the man made global warming scare. New Orleans, LA received its earliest snowfall ever on December 11 and it was not a little dusting, they got a few inches of accumulation. This last weekend (Starting Dec. 14) the Pacific Northwest was hammered by the first cold front that brought snow to the valley floor. I am currently trying to survive the latest cold front and still make my delivery on time. If CO2 is supposed to warm the planet, we have to get to work pumping some serious CO2 into the atmosphere. If this is just a small taste of what we can expect this winter and the winters to come, we should all be worried about what this will do to the growing season and food supply.
If you are one of the (un)lucky ones who have been dealing with these snow storms, take the Boy Scout motto to heart and Be Prepared.
It is December 23, 2008 and I am currently in southern California in the hills over Los Angeles. I only say that to state that on my way up, there was a little snow on the side of the road. This is southern California not Montana. At home yesterday when I left, there was over a foot of snow that had accumulated from Saturday morning, when this round of snow started falling. When I left, it was snowing still/again. Once again, I am looking forward to the day that I can enjoy this global warming that Al Gore and all the other enviro-Nazis are trying to push on the rest of us.
If you are one of the (un)lucky ones who have been dealing with these snow storms, take the Boy Scout motto to heart and Be Prepared.
It is December 23, 2008 and I am currently in southern California in the hills over Los Angeles. I only say that to state that on my way up, there was a little snow on the side of the road. This is southern California not Montana. At home yesterday when I left, there was over a foot of snow that had accumulated from Saturday morning, when this round of snow started falling. When I left, it was snowing still/again. Once again, I am looking forward to the day that I can enjoy this global warming that Al Gore and all the other enviro-Nazis are trying to push on the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)