So just in case you're interested...

Congress is trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine (which ended by Presidential veto in 1987) this week. Why? Maybe because they're in the majority again and can't figure out how to compete economically with the strength of conservative talk radio.

On the face of it, that's bad enough. But the thing many people have found alarming is that there was an attempt to apply the rule to bloggers above a certain level of readership. So what's the big deal, right?

According to wikipedia, in 1969:

Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.

Is the blogosphere more limited than newspapers? On the contrary, most anyone who can use a computer can start a blog, and people are open to comment on whatever they wish. As long as the Fairness Doctrine remains a liberal fantasy, that is. So would that make the Fairness Doctrine supportive of the First Amendment or would it be more restrictive of our rights? You be the judge.

So as I said, there was an attempt to apply a resurrected Fairness Doctrine to bloggers. How did the vote go? The results are here. But how was the split?

Yea (favoring the amendment to scuttle the inclusion of bloggers) 55 (48 R, 7 D)
Nay (opposing the amendment) 43 (43 D, 2 Ind.)

So, which one would be the party of individual rights? And stepping on those rights helps whom? Just checking.

H/T: The Liberty Papers

Nothing to see here.

Well, maybe that's not the best title for a post when you get a sudden traffic surge. Most traffic I've had in months, and it seems to be because I've been adding labels to the existing posts.

Glad you stopped by, though. Please look around!

Subtle

As I may have mentioned before, our youngest son is something of a challenge most of the time.

The terrible twos was something of a mystery to us when our older two children were in that age range. But we truly got introduced to the concept by our younger daughter, who seemed at the time to be making up for the good behavior of her older brother and sister. She was, and remains at times, an extremely willful child. However, she's become positively delightful over time.

Our youngest seems to have followed in his sister's footsteps. He's probably more difficult in some ways than she was, but we're starting to see (we hope) the light at the end of that tunnel.

Earlier this afternoon, I'm working at the computer when he rushes up the steps from the basement to the kitchen. It's clear that he's on a mission.

"I'm sneaking your candy."

What are you doing?

"I'm sneaking your candy." He gets a chair and slides it up to the kitchen counter. It's obvious he knows where the good Christmas-stocking candy is kept.

Nearly incapacitated with laughter, I glance at my wife in disbelief. At her urging, I compose myself to rein him in.

So I correct him over violent protest. I let him know he isn't allowed to take what's not his without permission, and further that he isn't allowed to climb on the counter. I wouldn't need to tell the older kids this, but since he's only a day away from his third birthday, I tell him also that it technically isn't sneaking if he announces it.

For my trouble, I get a swat on the side of my head. He gets a brief time-out until he's prepared to apologize, which invariably comes, but not yet. He sulks, cries, and stops to return briefly to the basement.

"Guys," he hollers down to his siblings, the Instigators, "Dad says no candy." He climbs all the way down the steps, and I'm still listening, wondering what he's going to do next.

He returns in a moment, and enters the living room to talk to his mom. He sees me out of the corner of his eye and says with a hint (perhaps) of remorse, "Sorry, Dad."

"What are you sorry for?" she asks.

"Sorry I took the candy."

He turns three tomorrow, and the terrible twos... Well, I'm sure they're not gone, but their time is running short.