Category Archives: Political Commentary

No Credibility Left

Victor Davis Hanson:

…in the post-Plame, post-Scheuer, post-Tenet era is that no one believes much what the CIA says any more about the Middle East; no one believes that a wire-photo from there is genuine or its caption accurate; and no one necessarily believes anything in once respected magazines, whether the Periscope section of Newsweek or anything published in The New Republic. The common gripe is that the administration lied to the public about WMD in Iraq; but what is lost is that once revered institutions proved disingenuous in their accusations and unreliable in their performance.

I remain appalled that Bush gave Tenet a Medal of Freedom. Just one more sign of his misjudgment.

Irony

Former prosecutor Nifong is whining that he’s being treated unfairly:

When former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong mailed in his law license last week, he also included a note bemoaning “the fundamental unfairness” of the North Carolina State Bar’s handling of his ethics case.

Nifong was disbarred for his handling of rape charges against three Duke University men’s lacrosse players. State prosecutors later dismissed the charges and declared the players innocent.

I think we have a new dictionary example of chutzpah, to replace the old one about the guy who murdered his parents and threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.

I have to say that I also like the part about how the dog ate his law license.

King Corn

Rich Lowry, on the insanity of our ethanol policy:

Prior to the Civil War, southerners genuflected before King Cotton. Now, we live in an era of King Corn. It is our most heavily subsidized crop.

We will plant 90 million acres of it this year, up 15 percent from last year. Still, the price of a bushel of corn jumped from $2 to $3 in the past year, thanks to the demand for more ethanol. This is increasing the price of corn-based foods

Bring Back The “Fairness” Doctrine

That’s what Bill Clinton says he wants:

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much,” Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

“Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view…then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn’t use the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel. And the “scarcity” argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn’t get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don’t want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine–they just want more “responsibility” on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of “balance” is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only “left” and “right.” Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.

Bring Back The “Fairness” Doctrine

That’s what Bill Clinton says he wants:

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much,” Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

“Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view…then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn’t use the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel. And the “scarcity” argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn’t get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don’t want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine–they just want more “responsibility” on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of “balance” is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only “left” and “right.” Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.

Bring Back The “Fairness” Doctrine

That’s what Bill Clinton says he wants:

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much,” Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

“Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view…then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn’t use the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel. And the “scarcity” argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn’t get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don’t want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine–they just want more “responsibility” on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of “balance” is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only “left” and “right.” Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.