Fairness Doctorine Amusement

Kevin Drum discusses the conservative belief that liberals are just itchin' to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, obessing about it far and wide despite the current apparent utter lack of interest on the part of liberals in doing it.  FCC formally laid that to rest on Monday, axing this and other "outdated" rules.

But first, let's look at what Wikipedia says the Fairness Doctrine (in use 1948-1987) means:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Kevin Drum points to Google image search results on the topic of Fairness Doctrine.  Many are from conservative political cartoonists.  I was highly amused that the Fairness Doctrine, which required that contrasting views be presented, was interpreted repeatedly as meaning that conservative voices would be silenced, that they would be gagged.  Go take a look for yourself.

In case Google search results change eventually, here's a few examples.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Either they don't understand the Fairness Doctrine-which would be odd considering how long right-wingers have howled about it-or they truly believe that the presence of dissenting voices is the same as silencing their own voices.  What that says about their beliefs or ideals, I don't know-that it's so weak?

Update on Pinocchio Watch & Nygren

I previously criticized Representative Nygren for boasting about how certain school districts benefiting from the "budget repair bill."  I noted that Kaukana and Pewaukee were the only two school districts I could find that benefited from the repair bill, although the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel  reported that 410 of 424 will receive less public aid.  I pointed out that both are school districts from affluent communities.

In the interest of honesty, I have to share that Representative Nygren's latest newsletter now reports that the Marinette school district will also have a balanced budget.  Marinette is by no means an affluent community, so my theory that the richer school districts benefits more has taken a blow, although my point about none of those three school districts dealing with a voucher program like Milwaukee and Racine does still stands.

An earlier newsletter from Nygren also points to a Fox6 report (I have my doubts about anything FOX-related, but I'll give the local station the benefit of doubt) on this topic which seems to confirm his assertion that forcing teachers to contribute to their health care insurance and pension plans costs are a good thing. 

Maybe it is financially for the district, maybe it's "fair." But I know that many, many, many teachers spend their own money on school and classroom supplies without reimbursement from the school district.  Where's the "fairness" on that?  Not many of our employers expect us to spend our own money on job-related duties.  Funny how "fairness" only seems to operate one way.

Update Here with a better picture of what else school districts had to do to make their budgets work.

HUD & Rural Communities

With a name like Housing and Urban Development, it's easy to forget that HUD does work in rural communities as well.  They recently announced $28 million in grants for rural communities.  The Rural Innovation Fund is designed to "to address distressed housing conditions and concentrated poverty" in rural communities.

HUD awarded Rural Innovation Fund grants in three categories:

• Comprehensive Grants – 7 Comprehensive grants, in which grantees have examined the social, housing and economic needs and resources of their target areas and made proposals that address these needs through activities that will have sustained benefit and resources after HUD assistance is used. The maximum grant amount was $2,000,000 for this category.
• Single Purpose Grants – 31 Single Purpose grants, for more targeted initiatives, which typically focus primarily on either housing or economic development. The maximum award amount was $300,000 for this category.
• Economic Development and Entrepreneurship for Federally Recognized Tribes – 8 Indian Economic Development and Entrepreneurship grants, awarded from $5 million set aside for applications for federally recognized Indian tribes. The maximum award amount was $800,000 for this category.

Congratulations to two Wisconsin grantees.

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Hayward which received $789,063 "to enhance the tourism-based economy by creating a visitor’s center, museum, and gift shop located in former Kinnamon School, which will be renovated. The visitor’s center will promote tribal businesses and will provide a venue for the work of local crafts and tradespersons."

The Ho-Chunk Housing and Community Development Agency, in Tomah, received $300,000 for rehabbing 20 homes in Black Rivers, which includes geothermal heat-pump system and new basement insulation to increase energy efficiency by 63%.

Strange Standards

I had to laugh at this.

In a statement issued late Sunday, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they regretted that "this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

"Ultimately, our intervention in Libya will be judged a success or failure based not on the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, but on the political order that emerges in its place," the two senators said.

"Ultimately, our intervention in Libya will be judged a success or failure based not on the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, but on the political order that emerges in its place," the two senators said.

 Look, I get that Republicans don't want to credit any part of the successes in Libya to the United States, and by extension, President Obama, especially with an election coming up.  But the degree to which they're abstaining from crediting our role is ridiculous.

Never mind the fact that the NATO forces were literally running out of targets in Libya.  The double standard here is breathtaking.    Remember that the rebellion in Libya began in Feburary, and apparently is concluding in September, an impressive timeline.  I don't pretend to know what happens next-probably nobody does.  But without the loss of American lives, compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, this has been a resounding success.

Yet by the good Senators' standards, this isn't good enough.  No, we have to wait and see what happens next.  Fine, maybe that's a fair standard, but certainly not one they held President Bush to as he invaded two countries, both which still are ongoing, incidentally, costing us billions of dollars and many lost lives.