FCC Drops Fairness Doctrine: This is a Step in the Right Direction

The Federal Communications Commission decided to drop the Fairness Doctrine, and 83 other obsolete measures that were media-related as part of its reorganization (“reform agenda”).

The dropping of the Fairness Doctrine is good news, as it will protect talk-radio, both conservative and liberal, from being effectively silenced.  It will give the consumer the choice of what kind of talk radio they prefer to listen to.

I don’t know about the other measures that they dropped, but the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine from the agenda is a step in the right direction.  I’m still looking at all the others.

British Riots Make No Sense: Rioters Come From a Wide Variety of Backgrounds, Have Nice Jobs and And Are Not Gang Members

Like many, I’ve been watching the riots taking place across Britain and find myself wondering…why are people over there doing this?

I thought that it was gangs at work, as described by the Prime Minister, but the British courts have started dispensing justice to accused rioters, and it’s a veritable who’s who of British society: primary school workers, lifeguards, organic chefs, musicians, children of millionaires (I did a double take when I read that), college students, real estate agents, opera stewards, postmen, charity workers, hairdressers, professional and semi-professional football (British) players, Olympic ambassadors (another double-take), and dozens of other respectable sorts.   And tons of kids are standing before the judges too.

They have been charged with a wide variety of crimes, including stealing, various forms of theft, concealment of stolen property, throwing bricks at police and police vehicles, violent disorder, assaulting an ambulance crew, mugging, lying to police, racial crimes, inciting violent disorder (Facebook), arson, destruction of property (public and private), handling stolen goods, carrying weapons, using weapons during the commission of a crime, obstructing police, assaulting police officers, and up to eighty other crimes not listed here.

The sheer volume of what was taken is extraordinary too.  One guy broke into a bicycle shop and stole the equivalent of $32,500 worth of cycles.  What was he going to do with all those bikes?  Ride them around?  Try to sell them?  He was also accused of breaking into two other shops and stealing money, cigarettes, and other assorted stuff and causing major damage to both shops.

Another idiot stole the equivalent of $65,000 worth of plasma TVs, computers, and other electronic equipment.  He’s been denied bail and will be back in court next week.

The police are also said to be going after people who were invited to attend the riots on Facebook, and very stupidly said “yes” to the invites as well, or joined the pages.   The police really like having their suspects lined up in a row like that on a Facebook page.

I’m sure there are some gangs involved in the mischief, but the majority seem to be unthinking and greedy people who took advantage of the trouble.

Unbelievable.

Point of Order: Changes to the Electoral College Require a Constitutional Amendment; States Can’t Write Laws to Arbitrarily Change It Without Taking a Few Steps First

I’ve become aware over the years of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or an agreement between several states to throw their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

It’s back in the news as California governor Brown signed the compact, making California the eighth state to join the compact.

This smells of election rigging, and here’s why.  If the majority of voters of California choose, for instance, a Republican candidate for President, but his/her Democratic candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, all of California’s electoral votes go to the candidate that the majority of California voters didn’t choose.

This is inherently unfair, and runs the risk of disenfranchising large blocks of voters (the other 49% of their populations??!)

I also couldn’t help but notice that the eight states (and DC) that are in this Compact either lean or are heavily Democratic:  Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont and California.

Definitely smells of election tampering.

States can decide themselves how they determine their electors, as enshrined in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2.   However, it is unknown if this compact needs Congressional approval, as it seems to indicate in the same article, same section, under Clause 3.   The whole thing may not even be Constitutional. 

I think one of more of the small states will challenge it in court if their influence is threatened, and it’ll end up going to the Supreme Court eventually.