The Fairness Doctrine is anything but

The Fairness Doctrine was first imposed in 1949 stating a broadcasting company must, " afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views." At the moment, the FCC has the authority to reinstate the doctrine without any legislation or executive action. Currently pending, is legislation to reimpose this doctrine into law for good, and legislation to ban this doctrine forever. The debate is on.


In 1987, this rule was revoked due to the fact that it failed to spark discussion of important and controversial issues. Over the years, the number of broadcast outlets have increased tremendously. There is no such reason for the federal government to get involved to try and make sure conflicting views are presented. With all the ways of communication nowadays, all different points of view will be presented many times over. There is also the question of the constitutionality of this rule. Though this issue has hit the courts, the United States Supreme Court has not deemed it unconstitutional. One reason being, the specific case being heard may not have adequately shown the limits of free speech it has imposed. The court has said though they have not seen any rights violations, if violations could be proven, they would reconsider their decision. In another decision, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, they did not deem it unconstitutional but stated, "the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate." The fact of the matter is, it does limit free speech. Let me give you an example. You start a talk radio show that has an hour slot time. You and your friend each have 30 minutes each to get your point across. You are 28 minutes in, and talking to a guest on your show. You guys are in a heated discussion about this topic and listeners are tuning in from around the country. Then two minutes later, you are forced to stop your discussion due to the fact your friend must present his point. That is a limit on free speech. It is a fact, that more Americans tune into conservative talk radio than liberal talk radio. Liberals do not like that conservatives dominate talk radio. I'm sorry people, what makes money, will last longer. It is not like liberals do not have an equal opportunity to host a radio show. They have just as much as a right as conservatives do. Now on the other hand, television airwaves and newsprint are dominated by liberals. Do you see conservatives pushing for fair time for conservatism on television? No. The push for the fairness doctrine is another attempt to silence conservative talk radio by the far left. Everyone needs to accept the fact that the two ideology's will dominate different parts of the media. Also with this rule, would come more federal regulation. Anyone who supports this doctrine please know, the federal government will have to decide for each individual broadcasting outlet what is "fair time" for each of the different views. All that will do is bring about massive lawsuits and censorship. What I mean by censorship is, say a news station gets word of breaking news. Some outlets may be reluctant to show the story, due to the fact it may be unbalanced. Unbalanced news may spark random invesigations into the fairness of the story. The truth of the matter is, the government cannot determine what is fair, nor do they have the man power to enforce it. There is a simple solution to this issue however. If you do not like what is being presented, don't listen. Turn off the TV, radio, or close the web browser.


So lets review. The fairness doctrine should be deemed unconstitutional. It clearly violates the first amendment. It will lead to more federal regulation, massive lawsuits, and censorship. Now after reading this, is this doctrine really fair? If your answer is no, please send a letter to your congressman or congresswoman addressing your concerns.

The Bush Presidency

Now that George W. Bush has returned to the private sector, lets look at his accomplishments these past 8 years. January 20th, 2001, George W. Bush became the 43rd President of the United States. Not even nine months later we had an act of terror against our country on September 11th, 2001. The president then acted accordingly by launching the war on terror. Today we still have not been attacked again, and we are winning the war in Iraq. Also in his first term he passed a fairly big tax cut and a controversial piece of legislation, though not at the time, entitled the USA Patriot Act. One mistake the president made was in 2003. It was when he stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln with a big banner above his head stating, "Mission Accomplished". He oviously interpreted that phrase differently then most americans did. On November 2nd, 2004, Bush was reelected to a second term and on January 20th, 2005 was sworn in for a second time. His next goal for his second term was to get his Social Security Reform passed. Instead of the normal 15% coming from the american worker and the worker's employer, only 13% would go into the Social Security fund. Leaving 2% for the american worker to invest. This change was propsed because if the system is left the same now then workers paying in now would not get the money they paid in when they retire due to the system going bankrupt. I thought this was a good idea. For Mr. Bush to even take on Social Security reform deserves my respect. It is considered the "third rail" in politics and should not be touched. That is the main reason the president's proposal failed. In 2008, the economy suffered, and is still in a reccession. He and his treasury secretary Henry Paulson propsed 700 billion dollar bailout that I am not sure has worked effectively. The bad economy was the biggest factor in President Obama's victory.

Now that we have reviewed President Bush's two terms in office, I have a few thoughts on the president's efforts and accomplishments. Many people do not approve of President Bush but cannot offer up a suffiecient reason why. I think President Bush put his best efforts into protecting our country and trying to move it forward. Though he saw opposition, he got some good things done. Such as the big tax cut I mentioned earlier. He also proposed a bill with Ted Kennedy called No Child Left Behind. There is a bit that can be revised, but mostly the bill gives expectations to schools and teachers. It provides clear standards. The Patriot Act also needs to be revised to be constitutional in some areas but over all it helps when fighting the war on terror. The recent surge in Iraq has worked and the Iraqi goverment is starting to take over for american troops, and the troops are slowly but surely coming home. Iraq is more secure today than it has ever been, and that is thanks to President Bush. So overall I think the president recieved to much negative feedback when his efforts were good, especially when he dared to reform Social Security. He does not deserve the negativity of the media 24/7, or booing when leaving office.

An Emergency Economic Stimulus Package?

Members of Congress are calling for an "emergency" bill to help stimulate the economy. I can see the reasoning behind that, but with all the added pork, I think not. The House has attached so much pork to this, that now it is not a stimulus package, it's just another spending bill that we cannot afford. Here are the list of some of the "pork" in this bill that has nothing to do with economic growth:

- $1 billion dollars for Amtrak. Just a reminder to anyone who is not aware, Amtrak has not turned a profit in over 40 years. What makes you think they can now?

- $50 million dollars for National Endowment of the Arts. Please America, someone give me one reason this is in an "emergency" economic stimulus bill. How many jobs is this going to create???

- $400 million dollars to Global Warming Research? So studying the earth's weather patterns, and how it is warming, is somehow going to bring us out of a recession?

- $600 million on top of the budgeted $3 billion to buy new cars for the federal government. The government already owns 600,000 vehicles. Why do we need any more??? I am sure the $400 million spent on global warming research will conclude we should be making less of a carbon footprint. So the government is spending $400 million to research the fact that they should really not be spending another $600 million on carbon emitting vehicles.

- $7 billion, yes billion on modernizing federal buildings and facilities. These expenditures should be accounted for in the yearly budget. Members of Congress should NOT go on a free for all and load it all into an "emergency economic stimulus bill".

Those are just a few spending items in this proposed bill. There was also billions of dollars designated to provide free contraceptives to women. The republicans made a big deal of it, and President Obama ordered Congress to take it out. The bill as passed by the House is not an "emergency" bill. An emergency bill would include only two things, spending on infrastructure, and tax cuts across the board. I am all for trying to create jobs, however I am not for items in this economic stimulus bill that do not stimulate economic growth.