Respect my authoritah!

So, I was testing this new search engine called DuckDuckGo, and by "testing" I mean "typing in my own name," and I discovered that a "Best Answer - Chosen by Voters" on Yahoo Answers had cited one of my blog posts.

Also, the answerer, Love Heart ♥ ("a full time model" with an "LLB Degree in Law & BA (Hons) in English Literature and Linguistics"), uses this for an avatar:

DuckDuckGo, it is claimed (via), does not save your search queries nor pass them along to the sites you visit by clicking on its results, unlike the Google, so that may be of interest if you are concerned about this aspect of your online privacy.

As far as my own concerns about online privacy go, I can only say that I am always happy to be discovered by well-educated environmentally conscious underwear models.

"Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"

Timothy Egan's latest post is a very good summary of where we're at.

I was going to say, eh, maybe if you're reading this blog you already know everything he talks about, but then one line made me reconsider.

... this astonishing level of willful ignorance has come about largely by design, and has been aided by a press afraid to call out the primary architects of the lies.

It's not so much that I think you, dear reader, are uncertain about where our president was born, or how well established AGW is, or what a lying sack of shit Rush Limbaugh is, or any of the other points Egan touches on, but maybe you're not aware just how much effort is being put into hammering the misinformation home.

Coincidentally enough, right before reading that, I had just finished an email from a friend, who mentioned that one of his right-leaning friends told him about Park51: "… it's a monument to the Muslims who flew the planes into the towers." Three guesses as to where that notion came from, and you won't need two of them.

On a related note, two Republican Senators named Jim -- DeMint and Inhofe -- are AGAIN obsessing over the Fairness Doctrine.

I'll tell you the one thing Republicans know: how to gin up fear, even about the most absurd ideas possible.

Priorities

Despite recent assurances from White House spokesman Ben LaBolt that President Obama has no interest in reviving the Fairness Doctrine, the paranoia rages on among the hysterical right. Maybe it had something to do with this statement being reported by Fox News? Do even they know, deep down, not to trust that source?

No, that can't be it. Much as I'd like to think so.

Anyway, Blue Texan reports on Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SoClueless) and his latest efforts to keep the base whipped to a froth: a recent announcement "that he will force a vote next week on a bill that prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."

A quick check of DeMint's official Senate website confirms this, and also informs us that a House version of the bill has been introduced by Rep. Reps. Pence and Walden. We've heard from this bunch before.

Leaving aside how realistic the idea is that a minority party can force a vote on a bill in Congress (because I don't want to think about Harry Reid and his less than steely spine), I now drift off into real dreamland: What would happen if the Dems just grabbed the bill, said, yes, let's do this right now, and voted unanimously to approve a law banning the Fairness Doctrine forevermore?

Sure is fun to think about taking the wind right out of the GOP's sails. Could even be spun as a win for (everybody genuflect, now) bipartisanship! Hell, really stick it to them show them how much you're with them by naming it the

Right to Utter Stuff However Lame It Might Be And Ugly it Gets, Hurray

for free speech Act.

Part of me is enjoying the thought of so many heads exploding at once. Part of me is serious -- why not? Toss the GOP this bone, say, okay, we've worked with you to speed through something you're apparently very concerned about, it's done, now let's address some real problems, how's that?

And part of me wants to see the Dems do this just because I think the Republicans are so hard-wired to oppose anything the Dems propose that it could make for real hilarity, as all of DeMint's co-sponsors withdraw their support and start babbling about this being the Worst Idea Ever.

Baitwatch

Bill Clinton mentions in a radio interview that maybe the Fairness Doctrine wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Wingnuttia reactions, summarized:

(alt. video link)

I love it. This is like Charlie Brown and the football, only this time we're rooting for Lucy.

(h/t: Thers/Whiskey Fire)

When I Say "Wingnuts," I Don't Usually Mean "All Republicans"

However ...

"Freedom of speech is under attack in this country," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican …

I know. Seems like no one gets to call the President-elect a "Magic Negro" anymore. Whatever shall we do?

... and co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

No, wait. You can't possibly mean ...

"I am just committing today to use every rule, every tactic that we have at our disposal to keep the Fairness Doctrine from moving in Congress or to overrule it if it is implemented by the FCC."

Auuuugghhhhhh! Not the Fairness Doctrine again.

Maybe just a lone wacko? Ahhh, no.

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine today would amount to government control over political views expressed on the airwaves," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and a former broadcaster.

Joining Mr. Pence and Mr. DeMint were Sen. James M. Inhofe [R-"Greatest Hoax"] of Oklahoma and Rep. Greg Walden [R-Obviously] of Oregon.

The group did not cite any immediate effort to revive the doctrine …

... since, we suspect, they were too busy refilling their plates at the All-U-Can-Eat Paint Chips Buffet.

Any response from the other side of the aisle?

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said he was unaware of any plans to revive the policy. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went a bit further.

"We have enough real problems facing this country that we don't need to invent ones that don't exist," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "This is not even close to being on our radar screen."

Clearly, flunkies for the top two Stalinists in the country aren't going to admit their secret plans. Thank goodness for brave Congressional Republicans, and their unflagging love for preemptive war legislation.

(h/t: Blue Texan/FDL)

[Added] The other Instaputz says not to miss Atrios's warning.

More Fearness Doctrine!

You know how I loooooove that the wingnuts can't let this one go. I have no new observations to add at the moment; I'll just direct you to Steve Benen's post for the latest report on the mysterious wingnut obsession over the Fairness Doctrine. The madness appears to have spread to mainstream conservative George Will, who during the campaign had shown the occasional sign of sanity breaking out. No more, I guess. Pass the popcorn!

Well, I will say one thing: Whenever a wingnut starts fuming about what "liberals want" or "liberals say," it is the closest thing to a sure bet that said wingnut is unable to come up with any actual references to support his assertion.

Number of times Will says "liberals" in his column: 8
Number of liberals he cites by name: 0

The Return of the Fearness Doctrine

I've noted a couple of times in the past the bugaboo that the Fairness Doctrine represents among the denizens of Wingnuttia. Panties have been at full twist since late November 4th -- when the mouthbreathers aren't running out to buy more guns and ammo before President-for-Life B Hussein X wipes out the Second Amendment and surrenders to Castro, they're fretting in their online echo chambers about the horrific possibility that, as Blue Texan hilariously observes, Rush Limbaugh will be silenced!!1!

I have to say, I still can't take seriously the idea that the leaders of the Right actually believe that there's any chance at all that the Fairness Doctrine will be reinstated. I am inclined to think it's a prod for them to use on their cattle, in this case, to get out the vote for Saxby Chambliss, and in general, to sustain the levels of paranoia among those who self-identify -- with pride -- as "dittoheads."

Still, I do like to imagine Chuck Schumer (and look at all those trackbacks!) and Nancy Pelosi sitting in a dark Washington bar, cackling with delight, toasting each other, plotting when next to let slip on camera that this is "an idea worth considering."

As far as I'm concerned, the longer the wingnuts obsess over shiny objects like this, the better off we'll be. It's fashionable to say that we need a healthy opposition party lest the Democrats go off the rails, and in the long run I agree, but for the next few years, I'm happy to have the hyperactive children distracted while the grownups clean up the mess.

---

[Added] Looks like the PUMArhoids are dropping all pretense that they're just disgruntled Democrats.

More on the Fairness Doctrine

(Updated below)

Back in April, I wondered whether the Fairness Doctrine would require that TV stations remove Law & Order reruns from the air when (if?) Fred Thompson officially announced his candidacy for the presidency. As I understood it, the Fairness Doctrine had been done away with during the Reagan Administration, so I thought the answer was no, the unkillable show would not have to be killed.

However, I did see several stories speculating about just this possibility. You'd think reporters at small-time rags like the NY Times and Slate would have nothing better to do than to respond to my emails asking about this, but I never did hear back from any of them.

Once again, it's BloggingHeads.tv to the rescue. A diavlog between Jack Balkin and Eugene Volokh, two law professors who also blog regularly, was posted yesterday. They did not specifically mention the Thompson issue, but they had a detailed discussion about the Doctrine itself which pretty much allowed me to conclude that my thinking was correct.

The entire thing is well worth watching, if you like the sort of debate that occurs when law professors discuss First and Second Amendment issues. I myself enjoy gnats and straining thereat, so I found it fascinating. The diavlog raised any number of subtle considerations about gun control and the separation of church and state.

Lately, I have found myself losing steam in my anti-gun stance, mostly because it seems like a lost cause. The diavlog validated my attitude to a degree, confirming my sad belief that instituting a sweeping gun control policy is probably hopeless, even from a purely legal point of view. However, many local and specific remedies might well be made to pass.

By contrast, I have lately become ever more vehement about church/state issues. I was somewhat chastened here, finding that my thinking regarding various issues was simplistic. It turns out to be really hard to maintain the ideal when you get down to cases. (Again, speaking from a purely legal point of view.)

I won't go on about this. I found the diavlog highly instructive, but I realize that it won't be to everybody's taste.

---

Update

2007-08-14 11:49 EDT

BTW, if you're interested only in the Fairness Doctrine, the discussion starts at this point. Also, in response to a comment that I posted on the BH.tv forums, I was informed by Ogieogie that TV stations are contemplating doing away with L & O reruns on a voluntary basis.

The Fearness Doctrine

There's a funny article on Salon titled "Is Rush Limbaugh next?" It covers a panel discussion that (really) took place last Friday, in which wingnuts wondered whether the ousting of Don Imus portends a wholesale purge of conservative talk radio hosts.

Not that the wingnuts consider Imus a conservative, mind you. Check out this bit of paranoia:

… the left has sacrificed one of their own to give them a platform to go after true conservative talk show hosts.

That insight came from Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio Secretary of State whom you might remember from his stalwart oversight of the elections in 2004, and it's far from the most lunatic of the utterances noted.

The bulk of the panel discussion revolved around fears that We, the All-Mighty Liberals Who Control All Media, are bent on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Until reading the Salon article, I was vaguely aware that this law was no longer around, but I didn't know that it was abolished by the FCC during the Reagan Administration, an act which the Salon article notes was "widely credited with making the explosion of conservative talk radio possible."

For the younger readers: the Fairness Doctrine basically mandated that whenever a broadcast outlet aired an opinion piece, it was required to give equal air time to someone who wanted to express an opposing point of view. This was all part of the quaint notion that the airwaves belonged to the public, a view last popular in Congress when we shared the Earth with dinosaurs.

I buy the argument that there are enough outlets for differing views these days that we don't need to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Also, I'm convinced that it would be a waste of money and a source of way too much squabbling and hot air. Even if I thought it was a good idea in principle, the reality of today's political arena is that it would almost certainly be doomed to failure in implementation.

So, I don't plan to vote in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine when We all get together at George Soros's secret hideaway to plot our next moves to suppress conservative voices.

But I'm glad that we've got the wingnuts fretting about the possibility.

---

Update

2007-04-18 13:18 EDT

It just occurred to me that one of the inside baseball memes threading through the blogosphere (example here) concerns the possibility that Law & Order reruns featuring Fred Thompson would have to be removed from TV during his campaign, because of the Fairness Doctrine. Anybody got any ideas as to why this meme has legs? I mean, isn't the Fairness Doctrine gone?