Some topics too painful for Quin. Dems sound like a broken record. Enforcing the fairness doctrine everywhere. Plus more.
(Page 3 of 3)
John Adams, a Federalist like Lincoln, said on his death bed,
“Jefferson survives,” meaning that Jefferson’s ideal of a loose
confederation of states survived the test of time while his
belief in a strong central government didn’t. I doubt either
Jefferson or Adams would look too approvingly upon where we are
today given that the written Constitution means nothing as a
check and balance and the Federal Government is bankrupting the
nation and subsidizing the production of more slaves by the
day.
— Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
FINALLY, SOMETHING TO LIKE ABOUT BC
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III’s A
Miracle in Boston:
Thank you for this article. And so timely! I look forward to
showing it to my fellow alumni at the Boston College High School
New York Alumni Club get-together tonight (17 Feb) in
Manhattan.
— Paul DeSisto
Cedar Grove, New Jersey
GOLF DIGEST, PROPAGANDA
MILL
Re: The Prowler’s In All
Fairness:
If we are going down the “Fairness” road…will it change magazines and retail stores? Will “Golf Digest” be required to carry baseball statistics and information?
And, last weekend I was in “Babies ‘R Us.” I looked all over and
couldn’t find an outdoor charcoal grill anywhere. Can Mr. Waxman
see about requiring them to stock outdoor products as well?
— Bill H.
Plano, Texas
I guess Barack Obama and his cronies want to remake the media in their own image.
This is the same nonsensical pattern the liberal left has been following for years: preach honest debate and the “fair” exchange of ideas, but silence your opposition.
Obama’s cronies contend that broadcast media operate on airwaves that belong to the public. If that’s true, then why is it that the government defines what is in the public interest? Is the public too stupid to know that for themselves?
Perhaps what the public chooses to listen to or watch has a bearing on what their interest might be. Businesses, if they want to stay in business, will from time to time survey their customers to see how well they are meeting their customers’ needs. And businesses will study those results and make adjustments accordingly. They don’t need the government’s help.
Broadcast outlets are also businesses. In order for them to stay in business they must know what their customers demand. And like any business, they have the means to get that information from them without interference from the government.
Unless, of course, the government wishes to control the information that the media outlets disperse.
In the 1770s, the only media we had were Committees of Correspondence. These committees let people in Pennsylvania know what was going on in Massachusetts, as well as the other colonies so that the Founding Fathers and others had reliable sources of information.
Just think. Had there been a “Fairness Doctrine” in
place in the 1770s, there would never have been a United States
of America.
— Mike Sheeran
AH, FOR THE GOOD OLD (TESTAMENT) DAYS
Re: Mark Tooley’s A
Real “Economic”
Recovery:
Samson slew a thousand Philistines with the jaw bone of an ass
(Judges 15:15). Boy, oh, boy, what he could have done with
“church maestro Brian McLaren.”
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Pingback| 2.18.09 @ 8:03AM
Topics about Health, Food and Well being » Archive » Better Not Discuss links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.18.09 @ 8:03AM
Baseball » Blog Archive » Better Not Discuss links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.18.09 @ 8:46AM
Stimulus » Better Not Discuss links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DSAMMIS| 2.18.09 @ 11:54AM
Why in the world are we wasting time and space with PINGBACK's mindless references
Sons Of Sam | 2.18.09 @ 3:33PM
hello to Mike Sheeran: there WAS a fairness doctrine back in the 1770s! It's precisely because of foreign oppression by a far away king that we set up the "committees of correspondence" in the first place. That's what we need to be doing RIGHT NOW. The modern day "hate America" oppressors are trying to strangle our free speech, so we need to start fighting back, NOW.
S.O.S.
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos/
Roy| 2.18.09 @ 6:03PM
Re: Lincoln: No, slavery was not any worse an abomination in 1861 than it was in 1619. The morally decent had been trying to eliminate it that entire time. But it's a lot easier to embed a brutally evil institution than it is to eliminate it(see: abortion).
They had to move very, very slowly. At the beginning of large scale slavery Bartolomeo de Las Casas knew he had no chance of stopping slavery as a whole or even slowing it down. He was forced to argue for using Africans as slaves as opposed to Indians, believing they would be better able to survive it. Think about being reduced to that. After a very long time, and building on a foundation of fundamentalist let-justice-be-done-though-the heavens fall, along with more secular beliefs about the rights of man, they finally brought things to the point where most people saw slavery as morally wrong. After that there was still the very long struggle for morality to triumph over economics. And life had to go on that whole time, meaning all kinds of awkward compromises such as those embedded in the original Constitution.
In reality, Lincoln was pursuing a slow, incrementalist strategy. He was not going to just get elected and say "OK, no more slavery." He and his party were going to outlaw slavery in the federally administered territories. Obviously, then, slaveowners wouldn't move there and when those territories became states, they would have been free states. Then the slave states would have been outnumbered in the Senate and eventually the Constitution would have been changed.
This would have taken decades to work, if it ever had. It takes a 3/4 majority of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment, and 15 states had legal slavery, which would still be more than 1/4 even today. But the slave states decided that even seeing the balance tip decisively against them like that was enough to cause them to violently secede. They were the ones that forced the issue, not Lincoln.
Alan Brooks| 2.18.09 @ 9:59PM
i worry not about dems or libs.
i've been reading william jennings bryan's bio-- and what a likeable fool was he.
but Commies, Marxists literally sicken me; i dont want to even be remotely exposed to their caterwauling.
and yet we'll hear what they have to yowl as it will walk on cat's paws into the national 'discussion' (catharsis).
What was marginally charming in '68 is no longer.
Alan Brooks| 2.18.09 @ 10:04PM
DON'T complain about pingback, DSAMMIS,
you do not bankroll AS.
Pingback| 2.27.09 @ 9:06AM
Shhh..Don’t Talk About It @ Beating of the Drum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: