To Our Friends On The Left: What, Exactly, Are You Afraid Of?

The left is going unhinged.

Look, I understand the disappointment when "your guy" loses the election.  My guys lost the last 2, and I'm 5-4 in presidential elections.  I get it.

I was very afraid when Obama was elected.  Specifically I was worried about my 2nd Amendment rights, and I was justified in that--Obama talked about gun control all through his candidacy and all through his presidency.  Only Heller kept his worst impulses at bay.

I was worried about my 1st Amendment rights.  Candidate Obama talked about implementing the so-called Fairness Doctrine.  Fortunately, he dropped such talk within the first year of his presidency, and for that I was truly relieved.

I was concerned about socialism, and one of my worst nightmares came true when Obamacare was passed.  On the day that I learned that Chief Justice Roberts was the deciding vote that declared Obamacare constitutional, I admitted to myself that I was no longer a free citizen but a subject of a far-away government.

So yes, I get that you're disappointed, and I understand that you have some fears.  I don't understand what those fears are.

To my gay friends:  what are you freaking out about?  Gay marriage is a right as determined by the Supreme Court.  There's nothing a Republican Congress and president can do about that.  I get the impression that you're worried about violence against gays.  Why?  Because, after the election, someone points out that VP-elect Pence believes in gay conversion therapy?  Why do you care, do you think he's going to compel anyone to undergo it?  Do you think Trump is going to make anti-gay actions a part of his agenda?  If so, on what basis do you believe this?  Do you think that there were plenty of homophobes just dying to harm gay people, but were kept in check by Obama's presidency, but are now somehow freed from their shackles by a Trump victory and are going to go on some rampage?  What possible reason do you have for believing such a thing?  Have you checked even left-leaning Snopes?  Try here and here.

To my ethnic minority friends:  what are you freaking out about?  Do you think a President Trump is going to advocate lynching for American blacks, and deportation of anyone who isn't lily-white?  What basis do you have for believing such a thing?  Yes, he wants to temporarily stop Muslim immigration until we can feel relatively safe that we're not going to admit a bunch of jihadis into America and suffer the fate of Paris, Brussels, Cologne, etc.  One 9/11 here was enough.  And you may not like to believe it, because it goes against your worldview, but huge majorities of Americans of all stripes support that.  What is it, though, that you really think he's going to do?

Remember that Trump got a higher percentage of both black and Hispanic votes than Mitt Romney did.  Why do you think that is?  What do you think he's going to do, round Americans up and put them in camps or march them across the continent?  No, that's what Democratic presidents did in the past.  Why are you worried about a Trump presidency that might enforce some of our immigration laws, but don't lift a breath to complain when Obama's tenure has seen a significant (Trump would say huuuuge) increase in deportations of Hispanics?  What do you think he's going to do, such that you wail and, in some cases, burn down your own cities?

To women:  yes, Trump was recorded (10 years ago) saying vulgar things.  Have you never said vulgar things in private?  I have.  Yes, it was foul, but do you really believe that he's a misogynist?  Do you really believe that he'll--what, compel women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?  What is it, exactly, that you fear?  Did you support President Clinton, after all of his actions were well-known?  (This Vanity Fair article, as you can tell from the URL, appears first to have been published in 1998.)  I get that you're not on the Republicans' team, and I get that you may not like Donald Trump, but what is it that you fear?  Do you think he, a long-time Democrat and liberal, is going to somehow unilaterally overturn Roe v. Wade--which, like gay marriage, has already been decided?

If you really, genuinely, truly believe that Trump has the desire to do these things, and that the president has the power to do these things, then I invite you to join me on the right and work to keep from consolidating so much power and authority in Washington, DC.  Let's return to having 50 states and a "laboratory of democracy", where we in California aren't impacted by what they do in Alabama and the people of Wyoming don't care what they do in Massachusetts.  If you support consolidating power in Washington, DC, you have no one but yourselves to blame when the "other side" takes control and tries to implement their vision of what's right.

Again,  I understand being disappointed.  But I'm trying, and failing, to see the logic of your positions.  Please--with the same decency and civility I've shown in this post--help me understand.  I may not agree with you, but this is a genuine outreached hand I'm offering.

Update, 11/12/16:  Added the Snopes links.

Update #2, 11/14/16:  What else does the man have to say in order to make his position known?

In an apparent attempt to assuage the fears of LGBT Americans, President-elect Donald Trump told Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes that he has no plans to roll back same-sex marriage rights. Asked by Stahl if he personally supports marriage equality, Trump replied, “It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.” He went to clarify that even if he were to appoint a judge who opposes marriage equality, the issue has been “settled” and he’s “fine with that.”

As for the “fears” that other groups, such as blacks and Muslim Americans, have expressed since his election, Trump told Stahl, “I think it’s horrible if that’s happening.”

These groups' concerns aren't real.  They're manufactured in order to generate fear and divisiveness.

It's About Time

Stick a fork in it:

The FCC gave the coup de grace to the fairness doctrine Monday as the commission axed more than 80 media industry rules.

Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule, but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license.

While the commission voted in 1987 to do away with the rule — a legacy to a time when broadcasting was a much more dominant voice than it is today — the language implementing it was never removed. The move Monday, once published in the federal register, effectively erases the rule.

One less unconstitutional law on the books....

Is It True? Is This Small Battle Over?

If so, it's a great victory for conservative views and especially for individual freedom:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said his agency will remove the Fairness Doctrine from the rulebooks in response to a recent request from House Republicans.

"I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead," Genachowski wrote in a letter Monday to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.)...

The commission stopped enforcing the rule in 1987 after concluding it was unconstitutional, but in recent years some Democrats have suggested reviving the policy in response to the increasingly partisan nature of cable news.

Hat tip to NewsAlert.

Filter Bubbles

Given that I have a lot of time on my hands lately, I've taken to watching TED videos. What is TED? Here's some information from the About Ted page:

TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader. Along with two annual conferences -- the TED Conference in Long Beach and Palm Springs each spring, and the TEDGlobal conference in Edinburgh UK each summer -- TED includes the award-winning TEDTalks video site, the Open Translation Project and TED Conversations, the inspiring TED Fellows and TEDx programs, and the annual TED Prize.

The annual TED conferences, in Long Beach/Palm Springs and Edinburgh, bring together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes or less).

On TED.com, we make the best talks and performances from TED and partners available to the world, for free. More than 900 TEDTalks are now available, with more added each week. All of the talks are subtitled in English, and many are subtitled in various languages. These videos are released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license, so they can be freely shared and reposted.

Our mission: Spreading ideas.

Some of it is pretty highbrow stuff, but much that's interesting is.

Anyway, I just finished watching this video and wanted to comment on it immediately. If you have 9 minutes and 5 seconds to spare, go watch it; if you don't, I'll not do it justice with this synopsis:

The speaker fears that instead of presenting us with a "worldful" of information, the internet instead is allowing each of us to live in a "bubble" wherein we get only the information we want to get--to the exclusion of ideas that challenge ours. This often happens behind our backs, as search engines use detailed algorithms to feed us information based on several criteria (e.g., our location, our browser, our search history, etc.). This lack of diversity of ideas being presented to us threatens, among other things, democracy itself.

I'll state up front that the author labeled himself a "progressive", and at that point I feared he was going to suggest some form of legislation mandating that we receive information we might not want. I was ready to award myself the Prescience Prize when he talked about newspaper editors as the old "gatekeepers of information", and his fears that nameless, faceless algorithms , without humanity and ethics, are replacing editors as gatekeepers. I was ready to pounce--but he never suggested mandates or legislation; rather, he appealed to search engine companies (Larry and Sergey in particular) to make their algorithms transparent and to allow users to have control over their own filters, to find and have access to whatever information they want regardless of their search history. In this I applaud the speaker.

If my tangent has taken us too far from the speaker's thesis, let's review it: that search engines are filtering content for us, without our knowledge, with the result that we don't even have access to a variety of points of view. Among other things, this is bad for democracy.

Again, I feared he was going to suggest legislative mandates. He spoke about intellectual fine dining vs. intellectual fast food, and I wondered: who is to determine that which is valuable and that which isn't? After all, is not one man's garbage another man's treasure? To his credit, he appeals to search engine companies to allow individuals to determine their own filters. He suggests society would be better off if people were to be presented with the opportunity, at least, to access information that might run counter to their own world views, and on this point he and I happily agree. Allow me to show a case in point:

In my Cross-cultural, Language Acquisition and Development (CLAD) classes I was introduced to the writings of one Paulo Freire, a Brazilian socialist who posited that rather than telling students what they need to learn, we should allow them to explore ideas that interest them. While it sounds wonderful, I side more with the idea of Bertrand Russell that education should get a child to see what's beyond his own nose.

You might think I'm being hypocritical here, stating above that people should choose what they want and here stating that we should force a curriculum on children, but honestly, let's not go there. I'm willing to be a bit more paternalistic with children than I am with adults, and for millenia that's been a reasonable position to hold. If you want to argue it, let's not do so here.

Back to the TED speech: I compare the speaker's point to Russell's in that we need to allow access to a wide world of information, and that we should resist a "tyranny of the local and immediate", especially when it is imposed on us without our permission.

We should be free to choose, and not be force fed information by either a human or an algorithmic gatekeeper. It's the same reason I oppose the so-called fairness doctrine.

Update: added the last two sentences.

California Budget and Debt Is All Republicans' Fault

Despite having elected a few Republican governors, California is a Democrat state. Both houses of the legislature have been controlled by Democrats for as long as I can remember.

Still, though, all of California's problems are caused by Republicans, at least according to the major Sacramento newspaper. It's because Republicans don't want even higher taxes on Californians that we have such a crushing state debt and no budget (at least, not one before a few hours ago). No way is it the fault of Democrats, who continue to spend and spend and spend.

If you don't see a bias in these two editorials, you're definitely a liberal. Here's the first:

State Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have all made concessions on a deal to bridge most of the $40 billion gap...

The deal would have become law days ago if California, like other states, permitted a majority vote to pass a budget or raise taxes. Sadly, that is not the case. Because of the state's two-thirds vote requirement, a handful of Republican senators have blocked passage, even with polls showing that Californians are willing to support tax increases.

This page is no fan of the secretive "Big Five" process that produced this compromise, so we understand why some GOP senators have criticized it. But let's be real: Republican senators are not trying to kill this deal – details of which have been public for several days – because of its closed-door origins. Most are opposing it because far-right bloggers and radio hosts are threatening to recall Republicans who vote for a tax increase.

Get that? We're in deep doo-doo because of Republicans, who take their marching orders from "far-right bloggers and radio hosts". Of course, to the libs, there's no such thing as a "moderate-right blogger or radio host". These editors would certainly never refer to "far-left bloggers" or to NPR or the former Air America as "far-left radio". It's no wonder lefties support the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Here's the second, excoriating Republicans for replacing their squishy leader in the state senate:

The circular firing squad of the Senate Republican caucus claimed another victim Wednesday – Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto.

GOP senators ousted Cogdill as leader because he dared put the state's interests above his caucus's no-tax pledges, and negotiated the best compromise he could craft to close the state's $40 billion budget shortfall.

A handful of senators shamefully replaced Cogdill with Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta, who immediately signaled that taxes were a no-go. That provided the red meat that anti-tax activists demanded, which was the whole point of Cogdill's ouster.

You'd almost think that higher taxes were a good thing, and damn the Republicans for not wanting to raise them.

What was that Boston Tea Party thing all about, anyway?

Differing Takes on Reviving The So-called Fairness Doctrine

Again, President Obama says he's against it. However, I've already posted about how he might try to implement it anyway.

Too Extreme For George McGovern and Camille Paglia

Democrats who think the so-called Fairness Doctrine is a good idea should realize they're way to the left of George McGovern and Camille Paglia--and that's saying something. McGovern's appeal is high-minded and philosophical, whereas Paglia brings up Berkeley and the free speech movement. They're both right.

Update: Listen to a liberal try to defend the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Protecting the High School Press

From the major Sacramento newspaper:

Senate Bill 1370, which goes into effect today prohibits a school employee from being dismissed, suspended, disciplined, reassigned, transferred or otherwise retaliated against for acting to protect a student's speech.

During the past two years, civil libertarians and First Amendment advocates have documented 16 instances of faculty advisers being disciplined for content in a student newspaper.

"We haven't seen this occur anywhere else in the country," Jim Ewert, legal counsel with the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said of the number of cases.

Ewert's organization was one of several – including the California Teachers Association and the California Labor Federation – that supported the bill by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco.

"Allowing a school administration to censor in any way is contrary to the democratic process and the ability of a student newspaper to serve as the watchdog and bring sunshine to the actions of school administrators," Yee said in a press release.

In 2006, Yee wrote legislation making California the first state to prohibit censorship of student press by administrators and to protect students from being disciplined for engaging in speech or press activities.

Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin said some school administrators "realized they could still go after the faculty."

The new bill is meant to close that loophole.

A commenter pointed out that our state government, which passed this bill, is run by the same political party that wants to eliminate conservative thought via the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Excellent point.

Incidentally, I support this new bill. I also oppose the Fairness Doctrine. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but it's the bedrock of well-developed ones :-)

So-Called Fairness Doctrine

Here's one view that says that a President Obama will not try to impose the so-called "fairness doctrine" directly--but will impose it nonetheless.

"Alinsky jujitsu" as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called "localism." Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

I don't see this going gently into the night.

The Fairness Doctrine

It's foul, unconscionable, and probably unconstitutional, but have no doubt that the Dems will push for it if and when they get enough power to do so. Here's an interesting tale about the so-called fairness doctrine, as it played out on a small scale at the Aspen, Colorado airport.

President Bush Mentions The So-called Fairness Doctrine

It's a very serious subject, yet apparently it's only the first time he's addressed it. The President used the term Orwellian, and it's disgustingly accurate.

Liberals Fume Over *7 Minutes* Of Conservative Discussion on NPR

I'm sure there are plenty of people who delude themselves into thinking that NPR (National Pravda Radio) is centrist or balanced. The facade of this charade (it rhymes if you pronounce "charade" as a snooty northeasterner) came tumbling down 10 days ago, when NPR devoted 7 minutes per day, over 4 days, to interviewing conservatives.

How's that diversity coming along? How's that "reaching across the aisle", "let's all come work together" going?

7 Minutes.

Would that 7 minutes get NPR off the hook under the Fairness Doctrine? With Democrats running the country, it probably would.

Update, 3/17/08: Here's a story calling it National Progressive Radio. A snip:

National Public Radio is funded in part by federal tax dollars. The last time I checked, both liberals AND conservatives are required to pay federal taxes. So what’s wrong with having four seven-minute segments out of the year where conservative ideas are brought forth? You know, throw them a Milk Bone once in a while to pretend you care about them while you spend their money on things like Garrison Keillor’s “Prairie Home Companion.”

The problem with many liberals is that while they say they espouse tolerance, love for your fellow man, and discussing problems instead of resorting to fisticuffs, when they’re actually expected to “walk the walk,” things get ugly.

I've been saying that last part forever. In fact, it's why I have a label called "hypocrisy" on this blog.

So-called Fairness Doctrine=Gag Rule

They say it fairly well here.

The market, in which people make decisions without government interference, has chosen. Conservative talkers such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity rule the airwaves because they offer the opinions and analyses most Americans want to hear. At the same time, there is little market for the rantings from the Democrats' worldview. The public has heard both sides and has found the ideas on the left to be wanting.

So Democrats, jealous of the right's success and frustrated over their failures (they can't understand why everyone doesn't think correctly, as they do), aim to fix things with authoritarian regulation. Apparently the legacy of liberty left to us by our founders is an archaic notion. Censorship is the new freedom of speech.

Fred Thompson On The So-Called Fairness Doctrine

The man is correct.

Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable, satellite, and local access TV channels than anybody can keep track of — the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, podcasts, and satellite radio, and it’s absurd.

The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

How can this not clearly be a 1st Amendment violation?

Ann Coulter on Free Speech

In a column about the Iranian President and Columbia university, she hits a few home runs:

At Syracuse University last year, when liberal hecklers tried to shut down a speech by a popular conservative author of (almost!) six books, College Republicans began to remove the hecklers. But Dean of Students Roy Baker blocked them from removing students disrupting the speech on the grounds that removing students screaming during a speech would violate the hecklers' "free speech." They had a "free speech" right to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative's free speech.

That's what colleges mean by "free speech." (And by the way, my fingers are getting exhausted from making air quotes every time I use the expression "free speech" in relation to a college campus.)

"Tolerance of opposing views" means we have to listen to their anti-American views, but they don't have to hear our pro-American views. (In Washington, they call this "the Fairness Doctrine.")

Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy. In fact, those will often get you course credit.

You don't have to like her, but you can't say she's wrong here. Go read the whole thing, if you libs truly celebrate "diversity" (digital air quotes).

Do You Feel Safer Now With Democrats Running The Congress?

Remember when we were told to be vigilant and report suspicious-looking people and activities? Well, do that now, and the Democrats will let the terrorists sue you.


Update: Does the stock market indicate anything relating to the Global War on Terror?

It has been widely reported that President Bush simply refuses to turn against the surge in Iraq, or even compromise on it. At the same time, he admonishes Congress to toss out troop-withdrawal timetables and to give Gen. Petraeus' new counterinsurgency plan time to work. And you know what? While the Democrats stand against nearly all of the president's wartime policies -- and in the process court defeat -- the stock market is standing with Bush, and the chance for victory.

Early last week, when the Democratic leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi launched their latest antiwar offensive, stocks dropped about 150 points. Then, in a press conference a few days later, after Bush discussed clear successes in Iraq's Anbar province, the Dow Jones soared nearly 300 points, marching ever closer to the 14,000-point plateau.

I'm not saying there's any correlation, Larry Kudlow is.

Update #2, 7/22/07: More thoughts on keeping your mouth shut.

Update #3, 7/25/07: Apparently, those same people who need to be muzzled by the so-called Fairness Doctrine have "encouraged" the Congress to rethink the John Doe Amendment. It's may be safe to report suspicious activity again.

Another Reason Not To Elect A Democrat in '08

As if you needed another one. This is about as important as the nomination of Supreme Court justices.

Update, 7/19/07: Here are some further thoughts on the subject.

Talk Radio, Blogs, and the So-called Fairness Doctrine

Dean Barnett has a brilliant piece over at Hugh Hewitt's blog. You owe it to yourself to read the entire thing, which I'll excerpt here (without ellipses):

In the Beltway’s eyes, Markos (of Daily Kos fame) leads a movement of progressives in the blogosphere. But this is inaccurate, and Markos would be the first to tell you so. Markos doesn’t lead the movement. He stands in front of it and is symbolic of it, but the movement’s direction and interests flow directly from the people who compose it. The movement is a bottom-up thing, not something that a guy leads from the top.

If Markos came out tomorrow and said he’s supporting Hillary, the people who read his blog would tell him to pound sand. They would keep reading his blog, but they wouldn’t open their hearts or their wallets for Hillary.

CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO has the same kind of dynamic. The people who listen to conservative talk have their own views, and they are extremely well informed ones at that. They listen to conservative talk because they hear opinions that are friendly to their political and personal philosophies. Listeners also tune in to conservative talk because, unlike liberal talk, conservative talk shows are fun and entertaining.

Mort’s (Mort Kondracke) a great guy, but he has the immigration bill debacle completely bass-ackwards. Talk radio didn’t lead the charge so much as it gave voice to the angered conservative base. The Republican Party’s problem wasn’t that it angered a handful of professional talkers (myself included). Its problem was that it outraged virtually its entire base with the content of the immigration bill and the downright un-American way the Senate and the administration attempted to shove the bill down the throat of the American body politic.

In truth, the Republican Party should be grateful for both talk radio and the blogosphere. If certain Republican politicians had paid attention to talk radio rather than baselessly assail it, they would have seen how dangerous this immigration bill was. If the bill had passed, the damage to the party would have been incalculable. The political class should appreciate the presence of an early alarm system like talk radio rather than bemoan it.

As far as the blogosphere is concerned, both the left and right blogopsheres have readerships that are puny parts of the electorate. Rush’s and Sean’s audiences are each nearly 50 times the size of the most-read center right blog. But the blogs provide an even earlier alarm system. If we’re going berserk in the blogosphere, the smart politician should take note.

The political class would be well advised to remember that the message that so distresses them comes from the people.

I left out specific examples, but the condensed version above gives you the slightest flavor of the entire piece.

Making Fun Of The President

Liberals don't get that they're usually not funny, they're just mean. Bitterly, rabidly partisan, and mean. And mean isn't funny, which explains in part why Air America, the liberal radio network, is such a flop, and conservative talk radio is successful enough that some liberals (and Trent Lott) want to reintroduce the clearly unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine.

There is a way to poke jabs at the President, and yet do so in a very humorous way. It's not partisan, it's not mean--it's funny. Who can show us how to do this? The Manolo, of course.

Feinstein and the Fairness Doctrine

I'd like to think that Democrats bring up the so-called Fairness Doctrine only to scare us conservatives, who then spend our time and money to prevent its reappearance--a reappearance the libs don't intend, anyway. I'd like to believe it's a political feint.

But Feinstein's rather intelligent. I don't agree with her a lot, but I can respect her. If she's talking like this, maybe there's something to worry about.

And yes, I do believe any so-called Fairness Doctrine would clearly be a violation of the 1st Amendment and would be struck down rather quickly and strongly. That doesn't mean we should tolerate its existence, even for a little while, though.

Apparently, though, not all Democrats are stupid enough to tout something so clearly unconstitutional.