If you look deeply enough, you can find common ground with the devil.
Earlier this week, members of the Christian Coalition of America (CCA) and The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) testified before Congress in favor of net neutrality. (Source)
Net neutrality is the idea that the Internet should be free and open. Broadband providers should not speed up or slow down a connection to a web site based on its content or its owner’s ability to pay for faster or priority access. No site is given priority over another. Net neutrality results in a “democratic” web, where surfers have equal access to everything, including junk. From Save the Internet:
[click to continue…]
Sunday, July 1: I like it:
————————————————————————————————-
Envy is ugly. All humans are capable of it, and some display it more than others. It’s always, always unattractive. When I feel a wave of it coming on, I channel the energy toward productive pursuits, drawing on my own strengths to create something instead of wallowing in envy over what others have created or trying to destroy or undermine it.
Envy is exactly why liberals are trying to revive a dead doctrine. Because no one wants to listen to a bunch of whiny white liberals on the radio all day, liberal talk radio is a dud. Conservative talk radio is king, and liberals can’t stand it. Instead of channeling the “envy energy” into creating profitable, market-driven programs (products) of their own, they want to shut down market-driven conservative talk by government fiat. Unimaginatively typical.
I had no idea liberal politicians were this serious about trying to destroy conservative talk radio. Last week, Republicans and a few Democrats in the House of Representatives defeated an attempt to allow liberals to piggyback off the success of conservative radio, the Hill reports.
This wasn’t the first time liberal politicians have attempted to suppress speech they don’t like, and it won’t be the last. They want free speech rights for their views, but they’ll use the government to shut down everyone else’s. It’s frustratingly predictable.
The Hill sums up why conservatives oppose the so-called Fairness Doctrine as applied to talk radio:
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show†and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.
Liberals’ motto: “If you can’t compete with it, destroy it.”
Conservatives’ motto: “If you can’t compete with it, find an untapped or under-served market for your product and sell it there.”
Addendum: The left-leaning, taxpayer-supported National Public Radio is 37 years old. I wonder how long it would have survived if it had to rely on advertising instead of tax dollars…
Related posts:
Liberals are such crybabies. (By the grace of God, I’m no longer a liberal. No more tears!)
They’re still whining about the domination of conservative talk radio. The Center for American Progress and Free Press, liberal “think†tanks, put out a joint 40-page report titled, Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (PDF). They outline the “problem†and propose solutions that wouldn’t surprise even the most politically apathetic American.
The Numbers
Liberals are hopeless. On the one hand, they seem to hate concepts like “business†and “market.†On the other, they have no problem taking advantage of the jobs and capital created by businesses or the opportunities created by a particular market. In fact, they want to piggyback off the success of conservative talk radio.
The researchers found that 91 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative and only 9 percent is liberal (they use the word progressive; I won’t). Every weekday, people who want to listen to conservative radio can enjoy 2,570 hours (and 15 minutes!) of it. Liberals who listen to liberal radio have to settle for only 254 hours. But that’s what the market demands, right? Not necessarily so, say the libs. I’ll get to that later.
The tanks say that 76 percent of the programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative. “While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast,†cried the researchers.
Why does conservative talk dominate the airwaves? I (and many other conservatives and a few honest liberals) believe that conservative talk dominates the airwaves because of de-regulation of the airwaves in the 1980s and because there’s a bigger market for conservative talk. But the think tanks believe these explanations are inadequate. Not wrong, mind you, but inadequate.
[click to continue…]
Tuesday, May 29: For the latest on Laura Mallory’s misguided crusade, see Laura Mallory, Foiled Again!
Update II (12/21 @ 2:47 p.m.): Would it be too much to ask readers to follow links and read the articles before commenting on this post? Probably. 
Update: According to Scholastic, J. K. Rowling’s American publisher, Book 7 will be titled, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. More here.
***
Laura Mallory, Christian mother, has been on a year-long crusade to have the Harry Potter books removed from government school library shelves in Gwinnett County, Georgia.
A few months ago, the Gwinnett County School Board refused to remove the books. Last week, the Georgia Board of Education upheld Gwinnett County’s decision. Mallory says she may appeal.
By the way, she’s never read the books. Not one.
Mallory’s quest is misguided, and her efforts will be fruitless. I don’t know any Christians who want to ban books, and I hope I never meet any. In the scheme of things, what Mallory is doing doesn’t matter that much. There are more important things going on in the world for Christians to worry about, and the Harry Potter books are so far down the list, they barely register.
So what is it about the books that offend Mallory’s sensibilities as a Christian?
[click to continue…]
I was shocked to learn that Austria has a law against, “whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.” (Source)
They’re kidding, right?
Don’t get me wrong. I understand how angry some are when people downplay or deny the Jewish Holocaust, but to make the public expression of it a crime?
Thank God I’m living in America.
No matter how despicable an utterance, no one should go to prison for expressing an idea. But I guess such a sentiment is uniquely American.
[click to continue…]
Update (12/5): New stuff!
—————————————————————————————————————————-
What does the head-geek-in-charge think he’s doing? Censoring Chinese bloggers just like communist China does? What goes on here?
Microsoft’s MSN Spaces is censoring bloggers. American blogger Rebecca MacKinnon has the scoop:
On December 16th I created a blog and attempted to make various posts with politically sensitive words. When I attempted to post entries with titles like “Tibet Independence†or “Falun Gong†(a banned religious group), I got an error message saying: “This item includes forbidden language. Please delete forbidden language from this item.â€
However I was successful in posting blog entries with non-controversial titles, but with politically sensitive words in the text body. For instance, a blog post titled “I love you†had “Tibet independence†in the text body, and a post titled “I am happy†had “Falun Gong†in the body, like so…
Bill, your innovative work with the personal computer was revolutionary and made possible by living in a country that allows a free market system and free expression of ideas. Pay attention to what’s going on in your company and stop the censorship now!
Related:
Everyone here knows the Scobleizer, right? Oh…just us business bloggers? OK. He works for Microsoft and adds his views to the discussion.
Hube here again!
Via the man whom I consider my “blogfather,” John Rosenberg and his awesome site Discriminations, comes word of a possible NAACP boycott of The Michigan Daily, the University of Michigan’s student newspaper, because of this cartoon it ran on November 28:
NAACP 2nd Vice President Jamila Fair said the cartoon reduced affirmative action to a black-white issue. Affirmative action policies do not only benefit blacks but also groups such as women and other minorities, Fair said.
“It makes it seem like affirmative action is only a black and white issue,†Fair said. “To the NAACP it was a slap in the face. It hurt what we are trying so hard to fight.â€
NAACP members said the Daily should not have printed the cartoon because they said it is racist. Members also said that the cartoon stereotypes blacks as a minority group that is both abusing affirmative action policies and underqualified to attend the University.
It comes as little surprise that the NAACP considers the cartoon “racist.” Virtually any form of dissent to what the NAACP desires is considered such. Ironically, Rosenberg received word of the cartoon from Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in the landmark US Supreme Court case on affirmative action. The SCOTUS actually decided two cases regarding the University of Michigan, and Gratz is the case in which they ruled harshest on AA. In Gratz, underrepresented minorities were “awarded” extra points (20, to be precise) in the admissions process. (Grutter was the other case in which the SCOTUS ruled that race can be used in admissions, but must be “narrowly tailored.”)
But back to the Michigan Daily. The Daily backs race-based admissions policies in its unsigned editorials, but that isn’t good enough for the NAACP.
Daily Editor in Chief Jason Pesick — who made the ultimate decision to run the cartoon — defended the paper’s handling of the cartoon.
“We give cartoonists and columnists on the edit page a great deal of latitude,†he said. “Their views don’t necessarily reflect the views of the editorial page or the paper as a whole.â€
[Cartoonist Michelle] Bien said she wanted to portray a variety of races in the cartoon but did not know how to draw certain other ethnic groups. She said children in the cartoon with dark faces were meant to represent many minority groups and not just blacks.
Well, why not? Doesn’t the NAACP consider Hispanics, Native Americans and/or Asian Indians “people of color”? Why did the organization automatically assume all the dark faces in the cartoon were African-American students? (Were they stereotyping?) In addition, Bien indeed could have made the subject of the professor’s explanation Asian, since it is they who are, as Abigail Thernstrom argues, most negatively affected by affirmative action (or affirmative discrimination, if you prefer).
If you criticize the culture of death, perversion, “choice,” or any religion that’s not Christianity, they call you phobic. If you criticize Christianity, which heavily influenced western culture (a culture that Islam opposes, by the way), you’re enlightened, intellectual, rational, progressive, free-thinking, tolerant. The irony is lost in the PC shuffle.
I thank God in heaven that such things embolden me instead of weaken me. Through him alone I have the courage to say what needs to be said, no matter how unpopular. Without him, I don’t think I could do this every day. Being a “voice in the wilderness” is something I expect to be for the rest of my life, and I feel no urge to explain myself, my words, or my beliefs to people who don’t want to listen. Each thing I say and do speaks for itself, and as long as I’m alive, I’ll continue to say it and do it, whether or not people want to hear it.
The truth, hidden from some for God’s own purposes, will make itself known.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so let’s round up some “Christianophobia” quotes from the media and bloggers. The entry needs balance and up-to-date information. I’ve already got a blogger and one of his many inane quotes in mind. How about you?
I wonder if Islamofascists can be considered “headophobic?”
Related post: No Such Thing As Bad Publicity
Update (7/10): “Every day it is thrown in your face. A small minority group — extremely small, maybe 3% of the population en toto, demanding that you not only allow for their sexual perversion, but, more so, that you abandon any way of thinking — religious, moral, social — that would say that their perversion is anything but good and moral. Out of the half dozen examples of this in the news and e-mail this morning, I present my experience last night in going home and flipping on the TV while setting up my bike for a run on my trainer this morning.”
The rest.
How appropriate that I chose to invoke the First Amendment (see post below) on the very day the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held a hearing on regulation of the Internet. You may recall that a few weeks ago FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith warned us that the FEC was considering applying campaign finance reform laws to “online political activity,” including political writing in the blogosphere.
The result was a blog swarm that united liberal and conservative bloggers (Also see this post). This unity led to the drafting of a bipartisan online petition, which has been signed by 3,239 people at this writing. The opinion storm got the attention of cable and broadcast news networks.
Yesterday FEC commissioners discussed how far to extend its burdensome regulations. According to the AP:
The Federal Election Commission took its first step Thursday in extending campaign finance controls to political activity on the Internet, asking for public input on limited regulations for the freewheeling medium.
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, who took the lead on drafting proposals with vice chairman Michael Toner, described the steps as “restrained.” The commission emphasized a hands-off approach to bloggers, or authors of Web logs, among the loudest and unruliest voices online.
“We are not the speech police,” said Weintraub, a Democrat. “The FEC does not tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet, or elsewhere.
That’s the kind of Democrat I like. We have the same interest in protecting each other’s right to express ourselves.
Once again I’m a bit late on this, but other bloggers are on top of things. Kevin of Wizbang writes: “The Federal Election Commission held hearings on their proposed rules for the application of campaign finance rules to blogs and websites. Even with the rules currently being discussed group sites like Wizbang, The Volokh Conspiracy, and thousands of others might not be exempt. Incorporated sites like DailyKos, Gawker Media, RedState, RawStory, etc. would have to qualify for a government cleared media exemption on case-by-case basis.”
RedState has a whole section dedicated to FEC news, and Winfield Myers at the Democracy Project has a series of informative posts (also see Michelle Malkin, Polipundit and ThoughtsOnline).
A site called Personal Democracy Forum has been doing an admirable job (via Richard Hasen) analyzing the draft regulations and asking some intriguing questions: Hasen writes:
[T]he greater danger of the FEC’s proposals, if enacted as they are, is the additional uncertainty that they would create. For example, consider someone who has a private website or blog that contains occasional political commentary. Suppose the blogger owns the site as a corporation. Corporations cannot engage in certain election-related activities except through a separate political action committee subject to numerous reporting and disclosure requirements. Can the blogger post commentaries calling for the election or defeat of a candidate for President? The draft rules extend the media exemption to news stories, commentaries and editorials appearing over the Internet, but written materials in this category must appear in a “newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication.” It is not clear that a blogger fits into this category, particularly if the blogger does not post regularly.
Regarding the media exemption to the FEC’s regulations, it’s arguable that blogs are media. According to the Library of Congress’s definition of serial publications (print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers and/or dates), blogs are indeed serial publications, just like magazines, newspapers, etc. If that’s the case, blogs should be exempt from regulation. The freedom of the press could easily extend to us.
Let’s say I really do qualify as a “blogosphere reporter” for MSNBC and drop the quotation marks. As someone reporting news, I am a member of the press, right? What I report on MSNBC would be considered news. In the same vein, my blog is a news column, where I generate reports for MSNBC and my audience. Along with any straight reporting I may do, I may also write editorials in support of a political candidate.
I could be extending this too far, but I wanted you to see the problems arising out of any regulation of the blogosphere. Some bloggers consider themselves hobbyists; others call themselves “the media.” I don’t think a government bureaucrat is qualified to make the call. Bloggers shouldn’t have to worry about any of this stuff in the first place. The FEC needs to keep its unwanted groping hands off.
America’s great selling point is freedom of expression. I implore the government not to play communist dictator and start controlling something as free-flowing, creative and expansive as the Internet. Let it continue to shape-shift and flourish unimpeded. Those with evil intent will make it harder on the rest of us, but the unencumbered exchange of ideas is priceless.
The power of the Internet is the same kind that propelled adventurers and risk-takers to experiment, create and fight for something magnificent: the United States of America.
I don’t hear people saying “eat your heart out” much anymore, but if Mr. Orwell were around, I’d dropped him an e-mail. The world he made up in 1984 is indeed reality. Words and symbols we don’t like, we ban and/or shroud in politically correct (and often nonsensical) terms. Orwell’s “thoughtcrime” is our “hate crime.” Want to know what I think of hate crime laws? Check this out.
A European Union official is considering banning the swastika. If I have to explain why this is dumb, counterproductive, dangerous and repugnant, you haven’t been reading this blog long enough. Perhaps it isn’t for you.
While I “get” that Europe is not America, we’re not far from it, my friends. What are the implications of banning the Confederate flag, for example, if that were to ever happen?
[click to continue…]
