Merry Holiday

Time for a Christmas post!

Let me get straight to the point. The idea that wishing somone a merry Christmas is offensive has got to be one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard.

It seems to be offensive on both fronts: for people who don't like the Christianity aspect and for those who feel only wishing happiness for one holiday is unfair to the other religious holidays around that time. (Why no love for Boxing Day?) Either way, people need to lighten the freak up.

I just do not understand what is so wrong with basically telling someone, "On December 25th, I hope you have a good day." It's just a general wishing of goodwill. It's inherently friendly, and the opposite of offending. I mean, do people who don't believe in Jesus want to have a bad day on Christmas? And so what if you're not a Christian? I wouldn't be offended if a Hindu wished me a Happy Diwali. I'd be honored, actually, that they thought to include me in their celebration and well-wishing. It's basically people just saying, "We're going to have fun now, and we want to share the joy with you."

Why do people care if complete strangers do not wish them well on their specific religious holidays? Most people don't even know when Channukah and Kwanzaa actually take place (or how to spell, or maybe even pronounce them). Besides, many Jews don't even consider Channukah to be a major holiday. And Kwanzaa is a made-up holiday, apparently only for black people, anyway. If I celebrated a specifically Scottish holiday, I wouldn't expect Mexicans to keep track of it.

And why is all the argument over this time of year? Where's the offense in not wishing Jews a Happy Passover around Easter? Or on ANY of their major holidays? If Channukah and Kwanzaa occured in August, I don't think anyone would raise a stink about this.

I just love seeing TV stations and such having their graphics that say the obligatory and PC "Happy Holidays" as to be all-inclusive, but the graphic is decorated with wreaths, holly and red and green. Good try.

So why does Christmas get the prominance? Probably because, and this is key, it's a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. Channukah and Kwanzaa are not. When a holiday is a national holiday, it's going to get a lot of public attention. Especially when it has grown past it's specifically religious roots and expanded as Christmas has. Now it's almost just a joyful shopping holiday full of generic happiness.

So if things keep going as they are, Christians may join the ranks of those offended by wishes of "Merry Christmas." Think about it. It may become all about the materialism. And materialism is a sin. And as Christians, sin is at least supposed to offend us, right?

Speaking of the real reason for Christmas, we should all now be hearing the call from pastors for us to celebrate it's true meaning, the birth of Christ, all year round, not just this time of year. But have you ever noticed that they only say that around this time of year? Isn't that a bit ironic? Why are they not checking up on us throughout the year to make sure we still appreciate Jesus's birthday?

Of course, I wouldn't have a problem with wishing someone well on their specific holiday that I don't observe. But that would probably only be if I knew the person and knew when the holiday was. I just don't like it when people are commanded to recognize only a handfull of specific holidays as a nation, even so much as being threatened with litigation if they do not. That's different.

But, just to cover all of my readers anyway, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Chappy Channukah, Krazy Kwanzaa and Boffo Boxing Day!

"Isn't this America?"

I'm trying to find the words for just how frightening this is, but I can't. Just read. And if it doesn't scare you, that scares me.

"I'm sorry, I thought this was America."

Thanks, Matt.

Folk Metal - It's Not Just for Trolls Anymore

Hmm...how do I feel right now...



Ah, that's it.

Do-do-do-do-doooo-do-do Do-do-do-do-doooo-do-do Do-do-do-do-doooo-do-do TROLLHAMMAREN!!!

Hehehehe...F' yeah.

The Fairness Doctrine, Part Three: Have you heard of the internet?

Anyone who read the comment that Barnes left on my last post has an idea where I'm going with this last entry. He made the case pretty well. Ironically, so did the proponents of The fairness Doctrine in the first link I posted:

"When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04)."

Thank you, Steve Rendall.

You see? We didn't need the FCC to step in. The market handled things all by itself. That's because this is a capitalist nation. That's just how it works. No expensive government oversight. No mazes of buraucracy and red tape. Just good ol' supply and demand. Citizens made decisions for themselves, and it didn't cost any of my tax dollars.

I just wonder why they chose to lead with this paragraph. Rather counterproductive, as long as people actually think about what is going on there. But I think that's the problem...

It can be pretty dangerous for government to interfere using socialist-type policies in a capitalist nation. So much depends on the market doing what it can, and what it can bear. When policies are imposed on it, it may be in such a way that the market cannot bear it. But if you let the people decide what they want, they can find a way to make it happen in a way that will actually work.

And this ties in a lot with my first entry. One of the reasons that we don't want government being so involved is because they don't have to be. If people don't want something, they won't buy it. If what they do want is unavailable, they can demand it, or just supply it themselves. We have the freedom.

But you know what the good news is? Multitudes of people have already exercised their freedom and you can already find all views on all issues anytime you want, thanks to things like cable, satellite, and the internet.

The Fairness Doctrine just seems so absurd in this way. It only focuses on broadcast radio and network television. If the government wishes to regulate effectively, why are they ignoring other large areas where people are getting more of their information? Don't they care? Are they that out of touch with the way technology is advancing? Cos seriously, who relies on network television to keep them completely informed?

It's like the CDC focusing only on the bubonic plague.

In conclusion, it's all about personal responsibility. We need to stop relying on the government for so much. It's like how some friends of mine work with missions organizations that have in programs to teach people how to help themselves with resources that they have. The simple solution would be to just give them some great technology that we have here in the States. But as soon as we leave, or it breaks, they're SOL. So now, when government programs go belly up (which they tend to do), we need to be able to take care of ourselves. But if we need the government in order for us to do something so basic as to stay informed, we are in big trouble.

Just remember: you have the power!

The Fairness Doctrine, Part Two: The government is not God.

Let's step back a moment from all of the legal and political ramifications of The Fairness Doctrine and just take a look at logistics. Now, it would be one thing for the FCC to monitor and regulate every single broadcast signal being dispersed over the air, or by cable or satellite, on TV and radio. But, apparently, this will only concern radio and network TV (for now, anyway). Fine. That's still a freaking lot of content.

There is also another very troubling notion floating around out there. I think that Dick Durbin expressed it well:

"I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The troubling word here is "both," which is often used in such arguments, and insinuates that there are two sides. Well, Dick, if you believe that there are only two sides to every issue, your attitude is very "old-fashioned" indeed. Dick.

If recent elections are any indicator, people in droves are becoming disenfranchised with the notion of a two-party system because they don't see that only having two choices can represent them fully. We have the classic Democrat and Republican views. But even within those categories we have hosts of differing opinions. Then you also have your Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Neo-nazis, and on and on and on. Are their views going to be represented? Well, if the FCC truly wants to be "fair," then they will have to be.

But could you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare? How could anyone possibly regulate this and make sure that ALL sides are given a voice? They will no doubt have to limit the number of sides being represented just because of sheer plausibility. Then, by doing so, they will be guilty of censorship by omission. But then how do they decide which views to respect and which to ignore?

"Well, we obviously wouldn't go to any trouble to make sure that people like Neo-nazis, Fascists, racists and the like have their views fairly expressed."

Why not? They're Americans. The First Amendment still applies to them.

And now we get into the government deciding what opinions are relevant, and which sets of values matter. That is fucking scary.

So we would either have only a select group of opinions being voiced, or we would try to squeeze so many in that many would not have adequate time. It would be like the Presidential Primary debates. All of them are there (the "important" ones, anyway), but they only get a few seconds to fit in a blurb consisting of talking points and little substance. And who wants that?

If this thing ever gets passed, I would not want to be one of the people responsible for enforcing it. Not only would I feel like part of my soul is just gone forever, but it would be impossible! It would take a miracle to do what they intend!

It's the kind of thing where you see someone so gungho about an idea that you know is doomed to fail, but you almost want to let them try so that they learn something. Unfortunately, they want me (and you) to fund this little exercise in fascist futility. (Alliteration!)

And that may be the biggest miracle of all: getting me to agree to this madness.

The Fairness Doctrine, Part One: I'm not five.

If I were to sum up my views on what the government is responsible for, it would be this: to do for its citizens that which they cannot do for themselves. This is stuff like national security, law enforcement, fixing roads, etc. And though I don't like it when they go to far, I am in favour of safety nets, like Welfare and Medicare for those who legitimately need them and have no other choice (and I believe that the lack of other choice can be blamed in large part on the Church, but that's another entry). With everything else, just stop taking our money so we can do it ourselves.

The Fairness Doctrine does seem to have been founded out of good intentions. People want to be able to hear all sides on controversial debates. Sounds good to me. I'd like that, too. But here's where many good-intentioned causes go awry: we are given a goal that everyone wants and somehow convinced that government is the only way to see it done. It's like how I care about the poor, but think that the government is way too inefficient and impersonal to handle it properly. So I don't "Vote Out Poverty" and suddenly people think I'm a monster.

Things happen outside of politics, believe it or not. We can actually do things without the government. With The Fairness Doctrine, I can take care of the problem myself. Know how? It's easy, really. Say I feel that I have heard enough of one point of view on the radio or TV station I'm on. I can just change the station to hear/see something else! All by myself! [GASP!] Or, better yet, I can just TURN IT OFF. Then I can go research opinions for myself! "But how?" you may ask. Well, I'll get to that in the third section. But it's just plain insulting that the government thinks that I can't handle this myself. I'm a grown man, for crappin' out loud!

Another key problem with issues like this is, how I like to say, the difference between freedoms and rights. Freedoms are things that we are allowed to do and the government can't stop us, but we are responsible for attaining ourselves. Rights are things that the government has to actually make sure we have. See the difference? It's subtle, but very important. Take free speech for example, since it is an important issue here. We have the right to express ourselves. And with that right, we have the freedom to express whatever view we want. We also have the freedom to seek out any view that we want that other people are freely expressing. But, the government can't tell us what views to express. So it's not my right that I hear all sides of issues, but it is my freedom to hear them or express them myself. Make sense?

These TV and radio stations are private entities. In a free country (like we're supposed to be in), the government can't tell them what to say. Or what not to say. Or how much of certain things to say. Period.

Chuck Schumer made what may have at first appeared to be a good point, which is pretty good for him. Here's what he said about those opposing The Fairness Doctrine:

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

And we are expected to believe that there is no difference between one-sided debate and hardcore porn. WTF, mate? The reason we censor certain things is because we don't want our children innocently flipping through channels and seeing things that their tender minds shouldn't be processing. Personally, I think it is far more dangerous for a five-year-old, while channel surfing to find The Disney Channel, to come across upwards of 3-4 adults in the throes of flagrante ardvarkus than to come across discussions about how raising the capital gains tax will lower tax revenues with no rebuttal in sight.

But, then again, I'm not Chuck Schumer.

The Fairness Doctrine: Introduction

The Fairness Doctrine was/is a horrible idea. Leftists are calling for its reinstatement. This has me quite concerned.

But before I launch into my views on this, I want to give you a chance to inform yourself if you are not familiar with it. And, in the spirit of fairness, I will give you links to both sides of the argument. I am always a big fan of people researching things for themselves, so I'm giving you the chance. (And the FCC didn't even have to lift a finger!)

First, the pro-Fairness Doctrine side: The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

Now the opposition: Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

Got it? Alright.

I basically oppose the fairness doctrine on three fronts: one, I believe that it allows the government to overstep its boundaries; two, the logistics just don't seem feesible; and three, it's just not necessary.

My arguments in these areas can be summed up thusly: I'm not five, the government isn't God, and have you heard of the internet, respectively.

Now, since my points seem to be quite lengthy as I write them, I have decided to give each argument its own entry. This one's basically an intro to give you an idea of the issue at hand. So, I'd appreciate it if you read them through and let me know what you think!