Applying The Fairness Doctrine To Public Schools
Democrats are talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as a way to bring "balance" to talk radio. Air America tried to do that--and the left discovered that there was no market for hard left talk radio--even in big cities.
Now, I'm not generally impressed with talk radio. I wasn't impressed with it back when the left dominated the field back in the 1960s. If I could somehow force Americans to read for information, I would be much happier. Even liberal newspapers and magazines like the Washington Post and Newsweek do a better job than liberal broadcast media of covering multiple perspectives--perhaps because you can read a lot more words per minute than you hear.
But if the Fairness Doctrine is such an important technique for making sure that broadcast radio is "fair" and presents both sides of an issue--why not apply the same law to public schools, K-12 and universities? In both cases, the theory is the same: the airwaves belong to the public; so do the public schools. Broadcast misinformation is bad for democracy; ditto for teacher misinformation. And as much as I agree that talk radio leans to the right, it is nothing like the manner in which the educational system leans so hard to the left that it can't even get off the floor.
What would be the practical effects of applying the Fairness Doctrine to education? If you are teaching American history, for every hour you spend teaching about slavery, the Fairness Doctrine would require that you bring in a representative from one of the neo-Confederate groups to present their perspective. If you teach about the Holocaust, someone presenting the "Holocaust didn't happen" perspective (or perhaps, "the Holocaust was a good thing" perspective) would get the same amount of time with your students. Indeed, you might end up having to decide whether to split the time among these two groups, or give each of them the same amount of time that you spent teaching that the Holocaust was a bad thing.
If you are a biology teacher, and you teach about evolution, then this question of fairness gets even more interesting. The Young Earthers will demand equal time (and in geology class, too!); the Old Earth Creationists will insist that the Intelligent Design crowd really aren't on the same side (and this is true), so they will demand equal time. And the Intelligent Design crowd will demand equal time. Can you see why the biology teacher might decide just to skip the whole evolution unit?
And this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do. The Fairness Doctrine would require that for every hour of conservative talk radio which makes money selling advertising space, the radio stations would need to run an hour of left-wing talk radio--and lose piles of money. In practice, it would make conservative talk radio so unprofitable that talk radio would largely disappear. And that's the goal: to shut down what has become the only significant counterweight to the left's domination of broadcast radio and television.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
We Aren't Past Race, Unfortunately
We Aren't Past Race, Unfortunately
On the History of the South email list, the moderator asked members to discuss what, if anything, President Obama's election has to say about the decline in racism in American society. I pointed out that while I had voted for McCain, it was a positive sign that at least for white Americans, race was no longer the big issue that it had been for so long. Obama wasn't elected just by blacks, but by a large number of white voters.
I mentioned that I had attended a "redneck barbecue" a few weeks before the election, and I heard a great many concerns about Obama, but race wasn't one of them.
I did point out, however, that at least 90% of black voters voted for Obama--a level that suggests that while race doesn't necessarily drive whites anymore, race still matters to blacks. After all, it is implausible that 90% of American blacks agreed more with Obama than McCain.
The reactions from other members of the list (which is almost entirely professors and grad students) was, unfortunately, quite predictable. I was told that of course it was plausible that only 10% of American blacks agreed with McCain. So I pointed out these facts.
For starters, in California, a large majority of black voters supported Proposition 8, to limit marriage to one man, one woman. According to the November 8, 2008 Los Angeles Times:
This Zobgy poll shows that a majority of blacks, like John McCain (and quite emphatically opposite of Barack Obama), are pro-life. Those are just two fairly hot button issues where a majority of blacks nationally, or a supermajority in the nation's most populous state, agree with McCain, not Obama.
If American blacks were a completely homogenous group with respect to income, poverty, and life experiences, I would find the claim that 90% of American blacks just happened to vote for the first black President at least half plausible. But the fact is that while there is still a
disproportionate number American blacks who are poor, the majority are economically hard to
distinguish from their white countrymen. So yes, I find it utterly unbelievable that 90% of black
voters voted for Obama simply based on issues other than race.
On the History of the South email list, the moderator asked members to discuss what, if anything, President Obama's election has to say about the decline in racism in American society. I pointed out that while I had voted for McCain, it was a positive sign that at least for white Americans, race was no longer the big issue that it had been for so long. Obama wasn't elected just by blacks, but by a large number of white voters.
I mentioned that I had attended a "redneck barbecue" a few weeks before the election, and I heard a great many concerns about Obama, but race wasn't one of them.
I did point out, however, that at least 90% of black voters voted for Obama--a level that suggests that while race doesn't necessarily drive whites anymore, race still matters to blacks. After all, it is implausible that 90% of American blacks agreed more with Obama than McCain.
The reactions from other members of the list (which is almost entirely professors and grad students) was, unfortunately, quite predictable. I was told that of course it was plausible that only 10% of American blacks agreed with McCain. So I pointed out these facts.
For starters, in California, a large majority of black voters supported Proposition 8, to limit marriage to one man, one woman. According to the November 8, 2008 Los Angeles Times:
Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1.Obama clearly opposed Proposition 8. While McCain certainly didn't stick his nose into that initiative, it is quite clear that McCain was on the same side of the issue as more than 2/3 of black California voters.
This Zobgy poll shows that a majority of blacks, like John McCain (and quite emphatically opposite of Barack Obama), are pro-life. Those are just two fairly hot button issues where a majority of blacks nationally, or a supermajority in the nation's most populous state, agree with McCain, not Obama.
If American blacks were a completely homogenous group with respect to income, poverty, and life experiences, I would find the claim that 90% of American blacks just happened to vote for the first black President at least half plausible. But the fact is that while there is still a
disproportionate number American blacks who are poor, the majority are economically hard to
distinguish from their white countrymen. So yes, I find it utterly unbelievable that 90% of black
voters voted for Obama simply based on issues other than race.
Someone is Very Confused
Someone is Very Confused
Instapundit points to this news report is about homosexual activists disrupting church services:
It is true that if you are a large and powerful minority of the population you may not need government to protect you--you can protect yourself. The experience of the post-Reconstruction South, however, suggests that even if your minority group is almost half the population, you need government to protect some basic human rights (such as the right to not be lynched). Homosexuals are, at most, about 3% of the population, and outside of big cities, more like 1% of the population. If this is really the fiercely homophobic society that these activists believe, anarchism is the last thing that they would want.
Instapundit points to this news report is about homosexual activists disrupting church services:
A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.Gay anarchism--there's a concept that someone hasn't thought through very carefully! Anarchism means the absence of government--so there's no one to call if gay bashers decide to beat up homosexuals, there's no one to punish employers that refuse to hire homosexuals, and there's no government to recognize your same-sex "marriage."
The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout “Jesus was a homo” and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building.
Members of Bash Back issued a press release Tuesday saying that it targeted Mt. Hope, a church that claims a flock of around 5,000, because it is, "complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond."
According to the Myspace.com page of the Lansing chapter, the network initially sprung up with the intent of increasing homosexual visibility within the anarchist community.
It is true that if you are a large and powerful minority of the population you may not need government to protect you--you can protect yourself. The experience of the post-Reconstruction South, however, suggests that even if your minority group is almost half the population, you need government to protect some basic human rights (such as the right to not be lynched). Homosexuals are, at most, about 3% of the population, and outside of big cities, more like 1% of the population. If this is really the fiercely homophobic society that these activists believe, anarchism is the last thing that they would want.
Who Elected Obama?
Who Elected Obama?
This column from the November 11, 2008 The Politico reports something that doesn't surprise me at all--the people who are supposedly going to be soaked for taxes by Obama voted for him:
UPDATE: I thought about this in the shower this morning. I've made the observation in the past that high income voters are overwhelmingly in support of higher taxes and Democrats--as the 2004 pre-election polls showed. One of the reasons that Republicans can't hold onto power is that their policies promoting economic growth and low income tax rates--especially in the higher brackets--end up creating vast swarms of highly paid, undertaxed voters--who reward Republicans for this by voting Democratic. Democrats can't hold onto power because their tax policies wipe out many of these highly paid, undertaxed voters--and middle class voters (those making under $100,000 a year) start to predominate again.
If Republicans want to hold onto power next time the Democrats flub it, they should make these the core of their plan:
1. Under no circumstances should they cut income tax rates on those making above $100,000 a year. This just strengthens the Democrats.
2. The primary focus of tax cuts, even though it is economically unproductive, should be middle class voters. The families making $40,000 to $80,000 a year are the only realistic Republican base.
3. Emphasize policies that help workers at the very bottom--the ones making $25,000 a year, because of competition from illegal aliens. Indeed, stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens would be an example of such a policy.
This column from the November 11, 2008 The Politico reports something that doesn't surprise me at all--the people who are supposedly going to be soaked for taxes by Obama voted for him:
Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.So the well-off--and indeed, the extremely well-off--voted for Obama--and the "youth vote" surge turns out to be non-existent. I think we can count on the fact that Obama is not going to raise taxes on a core constituency, but on people making below $100,000 a year.
This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.
The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.
...
While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.
And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.
UPDATE: I thought about this in the shower this morning. I've made the observation in the past that high income voters are overwhelmingly in support of higher taxes and Democrats--as the 2004 pre-election polls showed. One of the reasons that Republicans can't hold onto power is that their policies promoting economic growth and low income tax rates--especially in the higher brackets--end up creating vast swarms of highly paid, undertaxed voters--who reward Republicans for this by voting Democratic. Democrats can't hold onto power because their tax policies wipe out many of these highly paid, undertaxed voters--and middle class voters (those making under $100,000 a year) start to predominate again.
If Republicans want to hold onto power next time the Democrats flub it, they should make these the core of their plan:
1. Under no circumstances should they cut income tax rates on those making above $100,000 a year. This just strengthens the Democrats.
2. The primary focus of tax cuts, even though it is economically unproductive, should be middle class voters. The families making $40,000 to $80,000 a year are the only realistic Republican base.
3. Emphasize policies that help workers at the very bottom--the ones making $25,000 a year, because of competition from illegal aliens. Indeed, stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens would be an example of such a policy.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Oh Great, Two Major National Disasters To Her Credit
Oh Great, Two Major National Disasters To Her Credit
The decision to firewall FBI's criminal investigation and foreign intelligence divisions which helped to bring about 9/11, and her involvement with the Fannie Mae scandal. and Obama is considering her for Attorney General. See this November 9, 2008 New York Times story. If Republicans had any guts, they would make this a major story in her confirmation hearings.
The decision to firewall FBI's criminal investigation and foreign intelligence divisions which helped to bring about 9/11, and her involvement with the Fannie Mae scandal. and Obama is considering her for Attorney General. See this November 9, 2008 New York Times story. If Republicans had any guts, they would make this a major story in her confirmation hearings.
So For Much For Drilling
So For Much For Drilling
From a November 9, 2008 Associated Press story about Obama's plans to use executive orders:
From a November 9, 2008 Associated Press story about Obama's plans to use executive orders:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.I'm not sure exactly which lands they are talking about, but I guess that Obama doesn't have too much concern about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
...
On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."
High Finance
High Finance
I was planning to pay off the only car loan we have, but the more I do the math, the less sense it makes.
I owe a bit under $18,000 on it. If I put the money into a five year CD at the credit union, I can earn 4.30% on it--or about $774 a year. I'm in roughly a 39% combined federal and state income tax marginal rate bracket (and I will probably still be there next year, unless Obama was lying to all of us--which could never be!) That's $472.14 a year after taxes, or $39.34 a month interest income.
The last car payment statement shows that I paid about $65 in interest to GMAC for the month (and this isn't tied to a house mortgage, so none of it is deductible).
So if I paid off the car loan, instead of putting the money in a CD, I would save about $25 a month--this year. Because the finance charge is calculated based on declining balance, next year the finance charge that I will be paying will be less (probably about $50-55 a month), so I would only save about $10-$15 a month by paying off the loan right now.
The savings is so small, and the advantage of having the money in savings is so substantial, that it just doesn't make much sense to pay off the car loan.
I was planning to pay off the only car loan we have, but the more I do the math, the less sense it makes.
I owe a bit under $18,000 on it. If I put the money into a five year CD at the credit union, I can earn 4.30% on it--or about $774 a year. I'm in roughly a 39% combined federal and state income tax marginal rate bracket (and I will probably still be there next year, unless Obama was lying to all of us--which could never be!) That's $472.14 a year after taxes, or $39.34 a month interest income.
The last car payment statement shows that I paid about $65 in interest to GMAC for the month (and this isn't tied to a house mortgage, so none of it is deductible).
So if I paid off the car loan, instead of putting the money in a CD, I would save about $25 a month--this year. Because the finance charge is calculated based on declining balance, next year the finance charge that I will be paying will be less (probably about $50-55 a month), so I would only save about $10-$15 a month by paying off the loan right now.
The savings is so small, and the advantage of having the money in savings is so substantial, that it just doesn't make much sense to pay off the car loan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)