Cap n' Trade is Not a Character on Spongebob

What is Cap and Trade? I kept hearing the term and had no idea what it was, but now that I do, I am sorry I asked. Cap and Trade is a system of selling so-called 'carbon credits' to companies to offset the pollution they create as a byproduct of their manufacturing. These credits are limited, or 'capped' at a certain amount per company, and those who need to make up the shortfall in credits can 'trade' with other companies that produce less waste. The problem lies in the limits, and the huge fines awaiting the non compliant. With only so many to go around, corporations will be forced to significantly reduce their emissions, either by costly retrofitting, or completely shutting down operations in some cases. And don't think it won't affect you. Operating costs will skyrocket, in turn inflating the retail prices of whatever product is being manufactured, be it automobiles, vacuum cleaners, food products, toys, anything. And in this difficult economy, it will be fatal for some industries.

These credits could be completely arbitrary, assigned by a government bureaucracy, more than likely headed by an environmentalist. It is a money making scam, akin to the indulgences sold to the faithful in centuries past. And they say environmentalism isn't a religion. This is also a liberal scheme to gain power over private industry, a dangerous tool that, hand in hand with a few other lovely policies, can cripple our economy in a very short time. This bill of goods will be sold to the American people as a wonderful thing protecting them from the big evil polluting corporations (and they have those deep pockets anyway, right?), preying on the fears of those uneducated to the big lie of global warming.

I don't believe for one second that those in power in Washington attempting to implement Cap and Trade are doing so for the good of the environment. It is purely for power, and to grow the government's size and reach to unheard of levels. Oh, and who doesn't want the government to run every aspect of our private industry? I mean, they are the best and most efficient at everything they put their hand to, right? This is just one more attempt to push us down that slippery slope towards a full on nanny state.

Fairness Doctrine Smackdown

There has been a lot of talk lately about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and how it will be a damper on free speech because of it's "equal time" provision. Well, I want to explain what it all means for those of you confused and scared by these implications. Without getting into the long involved history of it, the fairness doctrine was established in 1949, suffered a constitutional challenge in 1969, which it survived, setting a legal precedent, and was finally revoked in 1987. The actual language from the 1969 ruling is as follows,

"When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked
(1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast;
(2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the attack; and
(3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities."

This last requirement is what has caused all the worry, and has been popularly interpreted, albeit somewhat incorrectly, to mean that your favorite radio talk show host will be forced to stop speaking freely his/her opinions. While I agree that passage of a bill allowing enforcement of this doctrine would be chilling to free speech, it is not the end of the world. Now don't start sending me hate mail, let me finish! What I mean is that relatively speaking, we have much bigger things to worry about than the fairness doctrine (more on that later...), and secondly, the implementation of this rule-set will be much more harmful to the radio station owners/companies themselves than any individual talk show host or radio personality. You see, the FCC only has jurisdiction over the license holder, the broadcast station. They cannot force anyone to say or not say anything. What they can do is fine the station owners for not providing equal time for the 'opposing view'. For example, Rush Limbaugh does not have to let some liberal talking head onto his show for half of his planned broadcast time. The station carrying his broadcast must provide that time, at their own expense even, if a person or group with opposing viewpoints requests it. And you know they will. Here's the problem. The station is now forced to give away valuable broadcast time, that no advertiser is going to want to support, time that before would have been filled with some kind of revenue-producing programming. I mean, let's be honest, left-leaning radio broadcasts have never attracted a following big enough to justify commercial time to any large advertiser. Can you say 'Air America'?

The current iteration of the fairness doctrine was most recently defeated by Congress in the summer of 2007, but will be revived should the Democratic Party gain a veto-proof majority in the House (which is entirely possible come tomorrow). I am sure that whoever proposes the next bill will try to include internet content such as bloggers, which I oppose more from a 'keep your filthy paws off my internet' perspective than any attempt at censorship. There are a lot of good reasons why the fairness doctrine is bad, besides the obvious ones, and the arguments used to support it in the past just don't hold water anymore. There are so many outlets for varying points of view today that you couldn't read/listen to/watch a fraction of them if you tried. Gone are the days when you got your canned news in neat little prescreened doses at the end of a long day. Today you get your news fresh and raw on your phone via texting the instant it happens, before it has a chance to even hit the mainstream media filter. And analysis from someone you can create a rapport with, not the cute guy in the blue suit on channel eleventy-seven who is reeeeeeally good at reading a teleprompter.

A little something my friends and I like to call the mainSTREET media.

Unfortunately, there is already in place an 'equal time' provision in the US Code, relating specifically to political campaigners. If you really want to make your head explode, take a gander at Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part I, Subsection 315. Talk about micromanagement! I am of course aware there is such a thing as creeping incrementalism, and we must fight this just as vigilantly as any other possible encroachment on our freedoms, but sometimes we must pick and choose our battles. After all, how many of us thought 6 months ago we would be in bed with Hillary supporters, singing the praises of John McCain, of all people?!

Alas, we can fret and worry over the fairness doctrine, but I believe there are bigger fish to fry, and their name is Cap and Trade and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Ship of Fools

Well, well, well. There was one thing that made being forced to sit through HSM3 on Friday night with 7 giggling tweens worth it, sort of. I got to see a commercial about a new series from Animal Planet featuring a beyond leftist named Paul Watson, and his ship of fools, the Sea Shepherd. If environmentalism is a religion, then this guy is their pope. Let me splain: Back a few months ago, I read a bit on Drudge about some moonbat who proposed that having children was the most environmentally criminal thing you could do. Yes, you heard me... he doesn't believe that we should be procreating anymore, since it is the single most harmful thing to do to the earth. And his name was Paul Watson, none other. Specifically, he's the one who said that humankind was a "virus" that needed to be eradicated. At the time I first read that, I looked him up at his foundation and sent him a nastygram with my opinion of his idiocy, but apparently Animal Planet doesn't realize this guy is advocating the end of the human race, their main demographic, and gave him a show. The premise of the show is how these brave activists go out on their trusty ship and throw molotov cocktails at Japanese whaling boats. They are shocked (shocked, I say!) that the fishermen dare to defend themselves and fire back!! This man and his crew have a long history of dangerous, criminal attacks on many ships around the world, and has endangered the lives of MANY fishermen, sailors, and the police forces attempting to protect legitimate working people. I plan on sending my next nastygram to Animal Planet, protesting their glorification of this criminal. It took me less than 20 minutes to find all of the horrific details of the exploits of these people. You would think Animal Planet's legal department could have done a little homework before giving this libtard a platform.

If it won't go down, call Brown!!

I wonder if Bill Ayers had gone into a different line of work, would the elite left would be so quick to circle the wagons around him? Like, oh, say, plumbing?? Or if he had bombed an abortion clinic instead of a federal building, would 3,000 educators have signed a petition supporting him? My friend Sherri tried calling a bunch of those supposed 'college professors' using the info provided on their petition, and quite a few the schools listed had never heard of them, or the person who signed the petition was a student, not a professor at all. And NONE of the ones she contacted would come on her show and defend their stance. Hmmm.

Update!! Here's a related photoshop from my friend Joi the Artist, who rocks!