Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, December 7. 2010

Cobb and his ilk creep me out

It's clear as day that Leftists are interested in restricting information flow and limiting, suppressing or intimidating dissenting voices. That's good old "Liberal fascism." They can't stand the new reality of diversity of news and viewpoints.


Have you ever heard a Conservative push the government to limit public access to cable, broadcast, or internet information or opinions? I haven't (except for porn).


True, we are opposed to PBS - but not because of their bias. It's because it's taxpayer-supported. I'd be fine with PBS as a donor-supported organization. We do believe that government-supported or controlled media is a terrible and frightening idea. At Maggie's Farm, we do not ask for a penny from the government to help us put our stuff out. So why PBS?


FCC push to regulate news draws fire


Sharpton: We’re Going To FCC… Limbaugh “Doesn’t Have The Right” To Use Public Airwaves


What’s Next for Internet Regulation?

Posted by The Barrister at 14:25 | Comments (26) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

If you live in Seattle you know that there are approximately 40 floors of attorneys in several different buildings downtown, they are all working on ways to control the internet! The most determined of course is the old Preston, Gates, Ellis.
#1 anotherone on 2010-12-07 15:01 (Reply)
You'd think it's the 101st Amendment, not the 1st.
#2 buddy larsen on 2010-12-07 15:42 (Reply)
Self-defined liberals are outnumbered by self-defined conservatives in the U.S. by about 2 – 1. Therefore, liberals can only cling to power by being totalitarians who control free speech.

It is the undecideds who are up for grabs. And they don't want to restrict the 1st Amendment. So the devious Left has targeted institutions, NGOs, judges, universities, and other influence peddlers to push the idea that somehow the internet is dangerous and must be censored.

But the internet is only dangerous to totalitarians.
#3 Rocky Horror on 2010-12-07 16:16 (Reply)
...and they will be glad to define 'dangerous', too. Just give them the chance, that's all they want.
#3.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-07 16:49 (Reply)
...liberals can only cling to power by...

Ah the bitter Klingers. I knew they could be found.
#3.2 dorf on 2010-12-07 17:25 (Reply)
Al, yall need understand Rush has no one at home who listens to him.

He has no less right than anyone to speak his whoredoms and screw the innocent on and off the public airwaves.

This is free country below, upon and above earth plane.

That's why yall, wannabe black folks may freely jump up and down on it and talk trash.
#4 Leag on 2010-12-07 17:23 (Reply)
My mind reels. Where is the difference between the aclu outlawing religion and the fCC outlawing speach.....
#5 dorf on 2010-12-07 17:29 (Reply)
Could someone let Al know about the tuning knob on a radio?
#6 Dave J. on 2010-12-07 17:40 (Reply)
Have you ever heard a Conservative push the government to limit public access to cable, broadcast, or internet information or opinions? I haven't (except for porn).

I have. Ask any religious fundamentalist about a) magic or b) evolutionary theory. Or anything else that contradicts his/her/its interpretation of the Bible.
#7 wolfwalker on 2010-12-07 17:43 (Reply)
Please provide an example of a "religious fundamentalist" "push[ing] government to limit public access to cable, broadcast, or internet information" concerning "a) magic or b) evolutionary theory. Or anything else that contradicts his/her/its interpretation of the Bible".

I'm assuming this refers to the U.S., and not a Muslim country.
#7.1 LWS on 2010-12-07 18:02 (Reply)
As you wish. See: Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968.
#7.1.1 wolfwalker on 2010-12-07 21:40 (Reply)
Two of those mediums did not exist in 1968.
The case you refer to was about a public school teacher and teaching evolution, not about broadcasting anything.
#7.1.1.1 Deb on 2010-12-07 23:46 (Reply)
A voice of reason, which likely won't be answered, Deb.

Thanks from me, though!
#7.1.1.1.1 Big___Al on 2010-12-08 05:12 (Reply)
Fail. Typical leftist muddled thinking combined with hair trigger mouth.
#7.1.1.2 LWS on 2010-12-08 09:12 (Reply)
Some MFr's think Joe Lieberman is conservative?

I read Smokin' Joe wants to arrest Julian for treason.

Where the hell do yall Conneticutt yanks find these wing nuts?
#7.2 Leag on 2010-12-07 20:17 (Reply)
I have never been this scared at any other point in my life. By the way, I have not led a quiet life.
#8 RM on 2010-12-07 18:13 (Reply)
i feel much, much muchmuch better after Nov 02. Had it not been as strong as it was --we would've been Venezuela pretty quick.
#8.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-07 18:30 (Reply)
buddy ... I too feel better after November 2nd. But I won't be comfortable until the 'lame duck' Congress period is over, and the new Congress takes over.

However, the signs being given by Boehner and Mitch McConnell that they are being both serious and careful in their choices of committee leaders and battlefields on which to take a stand are reassuring. And I was charmed that Boehner has moved to establish potty parity for House women Representatives, something which Miss Busybody Pelosi never bothered to do for her fellow female legislators.

In my many years in the business world, I met many women like her. She wants women's rights and privileges. But only for her splendid unique self.

Marianne
#9 Marianne Matthews on 2010-12-07 19:17 (Reply)
Good for you Marianne-- You said it just right again!
#10 anotherone on 2010-12-07 19:51 (Reply)
Marianne et al,

It's a good thing, the Republican takeover of the house. But the stuff hit the fan a long time ago, the horse is out of the barn. There is no going back to our originally conceived government.

We're screwed.
#11 Big___Al on 2010-12-07 20:32 (Reply)
--seems that way --we feel like we're in a little dinghy adrift on a boundless sea --but could be just out of sight over the horizon the USS Citizen Tea Party is coming at us like old 31 Knot Burke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke
#11.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-07 21:20 (Reply)
it was too late. By now agencies like the TSA, DHS, FCC, FDA, have powers to negate constitutional rights without congressional oversight.
And as they're (on paper) not the federal government (they're after all organisations set up by the government, but not the government itself) leftist judges can always claim that such restrictions are not in violation of the constitution as they're not federal law and thus not covered by the constitution.

Don't you love it when a plan comes together?
#11.2 J.T. Wenting on 2010-12-08 02:06 (Reply)
The agencies are part of the executive branch --they can be reined in by the congress.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2637090/posts

What can be done? The short term solution is simple. Have one senator and one congressman insert an amendment into any (all?) legislation that states something like the following: "No government agency, organization, or entity created by Congress shall have the power to create rules with the power of law without full consent of both houses of Congress." Additionally, "Presidential Executive Orders shall be restricted to directives pertaining to the internal workings of the agencies under his control and shall not be used to create, change, alter, or abolish any law."

for starters --
#11.2.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-08 03:16 (Reply)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law

Agencies have their own body of law, "Administrative Law".

It can bedevil you via license and fines.

If someone in an agency decides to shut down your enterprise, he or she must do so according to the rulebook.

The rulebook, which will require a forklift to move from room to room, will be written in a language superficially much like English.

The rules will be impossibly vague where detail is needed, and impossibly detailed where common sense is required but, on the part of the agency, undesirable.

If you don't energetically kiss ass on the inspectors and regulators, from field inspector on up, you will be unofficially, by wink & nod, 'marked for special action'.

This will be when the true Kafkaesque intent of the obscenity of the rulebook will become awfully clear to you.

Its meaning is: "We shall selectively enforce these rules, and by carrot and stick control your every thought and action. If you can please us, you can do no wrong, if we do not like you, you can do no right".

Don't like this situation? Well, the advice you will get from your lawyer is to call your congressman, and "seek legislative relief".

No problema --just shut down your business, and get ahold of a million bucks, and 'go to Washington'!
#11.2.1.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-08 03:43 (Reply)
"Dangit Pa, how'd them agencies DO thet?"

"Son, this is how they did it:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-zzJnKtDg
#11.2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-08 04:05 (Reply)
"No funds appropriated herein shall be spent upon the enforcement of any regulation, not expressly worded in legislation enacted by Congress, unless the regulation applies solely to the performance of the official duties of the officials, employees, and/or military personnel of the United States."

No money for enforcement = no enforcement.
#11.2.1.2 John on 2010-12-08 07:58 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.