The War On Bullshit

I am not often caught going after the left, guns blazing, but as someone with some experience as a radio host, I have to voice opposition to possibly the biggest idiocy in radio broadcasting: the Fairness Doctrine. Never heard of it? Let’s define this bit of garbage, first.

Definition
This is an ancient law that was in effect from the late 40s until well into the 80s, the goal of which was to ensure that the airwaves were fair and balanced. Though the law didn’t require radio hosts to offer both sides of the political spectrum within a single program, it required stations to ‘fairly’ divide their programming schedules to address both the leftist and right-wing views. Possibly the smartest thing Ronald Reagan ever did was get rid of this garbage.

Support from the left
Unfortunately, there are a number of folks on the left who have pushed to have this deceased doctrine brought back to life. One-time presidential candidate John Kerry supports passing this legislation; Dennis Kucinich would also like to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back to life; even California Dems Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are strong supporters of this load of bullshit.

The theory is that there are a limited number of airwaves, but an infinite amount of people who would like their voice expressed on those airwaves – thus, we must regulate radio stations to ensure that they express both sides of the fence equally. There are a few reasons this is bullshit – in particular in today’s multimedia world.

Why This is B.S.
First off, it’s terrifying to me for the government to control political expression. It seems counter to the political dogma of the left, who, using the American Civil Liberties Union, fight so hard to protect people’s right to freedom of expression. Why should the government be able to tell the owners of a radio station (or stations) what their programming schedule must look like? I’m not exactly a conservative in favor of complete free market, but I certainly don’t like the regulation of what is said in the media.

I bet these guys support the Fairness Doctrine.

Besides, this kind of regulation is based on a bullshit concept to begin with: complete objectivity in media. Students of writing and journalism used to learn all about hiding their bias and trying to objectively present both sides of an argument, without favoring one or the other. Unfortunately, that never really worked. It just leads to media outlets covering their bias up while using clever, sometimes subconscious, rhetorical tactics to favor one side over the other. It probably makes a little more sense to expose one’s bias as a media outlet; just be up front, and let people know which side of the political fence an agency leans toward.

Second, the Fairness Doctrine in its original incarnation was a tool for leftist politicians to attack their adversaries. Bill Ruder, Kennedy’s Secretary of Commerce, has openly said that the political strategy of the Dems in the 60s was to use the Fairness Doctrine to attack right-wing radio hosts in the hope that the attacks would cost the right-wingers so much they would decide the show was too expensive to continue airing.

Now, I’m not exactly a big conservative, but I don’t like to see anyone attacked for expressing their political views. This doctrine was used to force small radio stations to drop right-wing programming when station owners realized they would have to give free time to liberals to balance the programming. That is the most under-handed, sly and terrifying form of political censorship.

Most importantly, though, why is this nonsense about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine absolutely idiotic? Because it serves no purpose today. We live in a multimedia world, and the idea that radio is the place most people develop their political opinions is simply not true anymore. While it is true that radio programs are unquestionably right-biased, liberals now have outlets they did not have under the original Fairness Doctrine. This very blog is a good example of why the Fairness Doctrine is no longer necessary – if, in fact, it was ever necessary in the first place. Television is now filled with a host of liberal-biased shows to counter the conservative voices, and it’s now easier than ever to self-publish political ‘zines to get the liberal word out on paper.

Even traditional radio is on the verge of dying, giving way to satellite radio and Internet broadcasts, which are fairly easy to set up for those wishing to get their liberal voice heard.

We should all let this nonsense serve as a warning: there are no politicians not worth watching. Left or right, they will still spread the manure to get re-elected - or to silence Rush Limbaugh, apparently. This is just a dirty tactic to silence the free expression of opposing ideas, and I think conservative and liberal alike can see that this is dirty politickin’ in its purest form.

So, in closing, way to go, Pelosi & Co. Orwell would be proud. Or Hitler. Or Stalin…

In Utopia, Thomas More argues that governments are a conspiracy of the rich to control the poor:

“Therefore I must say that, as I hope for mercy, I can have no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know, than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who, on pretence of managing the public, only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so ill-acquired, and then, that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please; and if they can but prevail to get these contrivances established by the show of public authority, which is considered as the representative of the whole people, then they are accounted laws…”

Although some argue that Utopia is a satire, I’m not concerned with whether More was serious; I’m concerned with whether he was right. Suppose that governments were a conspiracy of the rich. What would we expect to find?

1. Most government leaders would be rich

The average net worth of President George W. Bush’s cabinet falls between $9.3 and $27.3 million. In, The Audacity of Hope, Barrak Obama points out that most senators are already rich before they go into office.

2. Poor people’s crimes will carry greater punishments than rich people’s crimes

The punishment for theft over $400 is up to a year in prison in the US and in some states repeat offenses can get life imprisonment. In Canada, theft over $5000 gets you up to 10 years. In comparison, the criminal penalties for insider trading, which may involve stealing millions, is a fine of between $10 000 and $100 000. Why is it that if you steal $10 000 000 through insider trading, you have to pay a fine, but if you steal three cars, you can get life in prison?

3. Government would ignore the will of the poor

In response to allegations that most Americans are against the war, Dick Cheney said, “So?” I rest my case.

4. The rich would pay less taxes

It’s pretty bad when Warren Buffett (as in the billionaire) pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, there’s something really wrong.

5. Government will bailout the rich but not the poor.

As pointed out by Stephen Colbert, when rich people lost big money on BearStearns going bankrupt, the Fed stepped in to bail them out. When poor people lost their houses in the recent mortgage disaster, did anyone bail them out? No.

Conclusion

Assuming that government is a conspiracy of the rich allows us to make startling accurate predictions. However, Ptolemy’s model of the solar system can make the same claim, despite being totally ass backwards. None of this is conclusive, but it is thought provoking.

Recently, Barrack Obama argued that homophobia was unchristian. This is another one of these “New Stupid” things I’ve been talking about.

Here’s an analysis of anti-gay bible verses from the old and new testaments. It gives both pro- and anti-gay interpretations of each controversial verse. I think the anti-gay interpretations are clearly closer to the original meaning. A pro-gay interpretation of “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination” is a bit of a stretch.

Homophobia is very Christian. Does that mean that homosexuality is immoral? NO. Christianity is immoral! Don’t believe me? Have you ever read the bible? Oh yeah, Jesus wanted everyone to love each other, but the old-testament God was a genocidal psychopath. Don’t believe me? Go READ the shit. And don’t give me any counter-arguments about those parts being wrong but the “basic teachings” being right. The basic teachings are just as crazy as the rest. To summarize:

Old Stupid Idea: Homosexuality is unnatural and ungodly because it says so in the bible
New Stupid Idea: Homophobia is unchristian
Intelligent Idea: Perhaps if the bible glorifies rape and murder, cheerleads for genocide, accepts slavery and demonizes women and homosexuals it’s a stupid book representing an immoral religion.

While I’m on the subject, I just finished reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. One thing he brings up is the separation between supporting the troops and criticizing policy. I’ve dealt with this before. But let’s take it to a new level:

Old Stupid Idea: Criticizing the war is not supporting the troops, hence unpatriotic
New Stupid Idea: Criticizing war policies has nothing to do with the troops, hence not unpatriotic (Obama)
Intelligent Idea: What’s wrong with criticizing the military??? The military attracts all kinds of misfits and fuckheads!

Begin Tangential Rant.

And whether or not your darling son was one of the fuckheads before he got shot is irrelevant. I used to work at McDonald’s. You won’t hear my mother defending some idiot who works there just because I used to. Furthermore, if your son died while working for McDonald’s because General Ronald sent him to do something stupid and dangerous for no good goddamn reason, would you defend McDonald’s? NO! So why do you defend the military??? GET A CLUE.

End Tangential Rant.

Let’s review what we have on the US military to date. We’ve got rape and possibly murder of female soldiers by their male counterparts. We’ve got totally uncalled for cruelty to animals. We’ve got generally terrorizing kids and more specifically gang rape/murder of a 14-year old girl. Oh, and there’s been plenty of killing innocent people.

I could go on, but there’s already a comprehensive, well-cited list of atrocities and war crimes by american soldiers here.

So can we please drop this ban on criticizing the troops? And don’t give me any bullshit about them giving their lives for “our freedoms.” Message to Americans: in case you haven’t noticed, the people taking away your freedoms are not in Iraq, they’re in the White House.

In Obama’s defense, he may understand these points very well. He may simply be downplaying such controversial arguments for the very good reason that making them would not go over well with the (undereducated, brainwashed and delusional) voting public. It’s not like any of the other remaining candidates have this stuff figured out. I’m just saying, I hope it’s an act. The current US president is clearly part of the “Old Stupid” class. If the next president is part of the “New Stupid” class, he or she will just find new and exciting ways to fuck everything up.

Edit: I can’t help but throw in one more great reason to criticize the army: discrimination against atheists.