Fairness for all

Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently revived discussion of the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine (for those of you who are too young to remember it) was an FCC rule that dictated if you had 1 hour of programming from one side of the politicial spectrum, you MUST provide equal time to the other side. This was government interfering in business with a heavy hand and it lead to some really boring radio. Also it was really easy to cheat. A station could put all of it's "liberal" programming on during the day (for example) and all their "conservative" programming on overnight when no one was listening and they could still be in compliance with the law.

Rep. Kucinich says this is because liberal views are not getting "equal time" in talk radio and in the blogosphere (apparently he has not heard of the Daily Kos which has traffic that dwarfs what most conservative bloggers get but I digress). However, is that really the case?

As I discussed previously, scientists who deviate from the Al Gore "man made global warming is a reality" matra are routinely stripped of their jobs and their funding. However, it is not just the MMGW activists that use these tactics.

But the MMGW activists are entitled to their heartfelt opinions aren't they? Of course they are, and their opinions should be respected. Just as they respect the heartfelt opinions of conservatives right?????

"That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger. " (emphasis mine)

I do find it "enlightening" that this same group of people that "hate" the thought of anything conservative are the same ones that are advocating hate speech legislation! Some would say that there might be some historical parallels to be made here.

""Why don't you go f--- yourself?" That was how House Democrat Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel reportedly responded to a Politico reporter's request – made "in the effort for openness and disclosure" – to sit in on a caucus debate over the language of a lobbying bill. "

Now I will leave aside the snide remark about Vice President Cheney saying the same thing and getting in hot water for now. What I will say is that this reaction, to a member of the media's request to sit in on a caucus debate, just goes to show the elitist arrogance of the left. It is this kind of attitude that got the Republican Caucus in trouble last year. You would think that Rep. Emanuel - as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - would be well aware of that little fact.