KSFO: THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ISN'T FAIR!
DavidFJackson
leap, but I get what KSFO is saying in today's email:
{snip}
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ISN'T FAIR!
The politicians in Washington want to censor KSFO and other
conservative radio stations. If they get their way KSFO would be
forced to add liberal talk show hosts or be put out of business. Sign
this on-line petition to stop the liberal assault on free speech
radio.
http://www.nrsc.org/CostOfDemocrats/StopLiberalCensorship/
{/snip}
Phil Kane
<david.ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sign this on-line petition to stop the liberal assault on free speech
"Liberal assault on free speech" ?? Now that's a new one.
Notwithstanding the perennial editorial rants in Broadcasting
Magazine, since when was broadcasting about free speech? The last
person who I heard rant about that was Stephen Dunifer and we all know
what happened to him.
Like I said before, the right-wingers want no part of the government
until they need it to protect their interests against the interests of
their opponents.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
Jonathan Biggar
> Like I said before, the right-wingers want no part of the government
> until they need it to protect their interests against the interests of
> their opponents.
That's all the government is *supposed* to do.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
David Kaye
wrote:
> I get what KSFO is saying in today's email:
>
> The politicians in Washington want to censor KSFO and other
> conservative radio stations. If they get their way KSFO would be
> forced to add liberal talk show hosts or be put out of business.
It's sad that the same people who run a class act like KGO have to
stoop to this crap to pander to their audience.
joewo
I thought there was a definite liberal bias inside the media
(according to the right wingers) so wouldn't they support the Fairness
Doctrine to get back their voice that they currently lack by the left
leaning media?
/snark
Patty Winter
In article <1184905856....@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It's sad that the same people who run a class act like KGO have to
>stoop to this crap to pander to their audience.
I heard one of their illustrious hosts today whining, "Why aren't
they asking for the Fairness Doctrine for newspapers??!" Apparently
he doesn't understand the concepts of "broadcasting" or "public
airwaves."
Patty
Tester
wrote:
>I heard one of their illustrious hosts today whining, "Why aren't
>they asking for the Fairness Doctrine for newspapers??!"
I think Florida tried this at one time, but it failed in court.
Of course, the general distinction between a newspaper and a radio
station is that you need a hard-to-obtain government license to run a
radio station which allows you to use a very limited public-owned
resource, a piece of the frequency spectrum. You are likely to LOSE
MONEY FAST if you go into competition with a big newspaper, but you
probably won't be raided by the FCC.
John Higdon
Tester <te...@test.org> wrote:
> Of course, the general distinction between a newspaper and a radio
> station is that you need a hard-to-obtain government license to run a
> radio station which allows you to use a very limited public-owned
> resource, a piece of the frequency spectrum.
But if the government is going to dictate the nature of the content on
the station covered by that license, why bother with the sham of private
ownership of radio stations? Why not just have the government do the
broadcasting and be done with it?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
David Kaye
> Of course, the general distinction between a newspaper and a radio
> station is that you need a hard-to-obtain government license to run a
> radio station [....]
Wasn't KTHO in South Lake Tahoe recently sold on Ebay?
Phil Kane
<ske...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote:
>But if the government is going to dictate the nature of the content on
>the station covered by that license, why bother with the sham of private
>ownership of radio stations? Why not just have the government do the
>broadcasting and be done with it?
The only content that the gov'mint dictates is the wording of the
station identification announcements, the EAS tests, and the
pre-renewal filing announcements (if they are still required).
Even under the Fairness Doctrine (which is not the same as the Equal
time requirements for qualified candidates for, elective public
office) the content isn't dictated - only the obligation to present
opposing points of view on "controversial issues of public
importance".. How and who and what are left up to the broadcaster,
and the two criteria of what are "controversial issues" and "public
importance" have been the subject of numerous cases to the point that
what you or I or the casual observer may consider a "controversial
issue" or "of public importance" quite often bears no real resemblance
to that the Commission has held. Even them it's not the content, but
the obligation, that is litigated.
To me, in my biased point of view, the only downside is that these
things bring the nutcases out of the woodwork in terms of fighting
over who, how, and what are "opposing viewpoints" - the kind of fight
that has little or no relationship to the issue involved.
But you knew that, right?
Phil Kane
IIRC one can sell the physical assets and can contract to secure the
present licensee's concurrence in an application for assignment of
license for which one can receive compensation/consideration (read:
money) but the FCC is the only one who can assign the license itself.
And IIRC that was the station.
Buck
presidential candidate, because he had had a democrat front runner on before
the democratic convention had been held.
I didn't realize what was going on (or, I should say, WHY it was going on)
until a caller asked him 'is this because you had' so and so?
King answered the three questions with a terse "Yes", and it was back to US
atrocities in Viet Nam.
That's what someone's interpretation of "fairness" gets: The equivalent of
Gus hall meets George Lincoln Rockwell (I think I got the last name right..
I'll take the marketplace of ideas.
Buck
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:gdf2a3dbthfrom1cl...@4ax.com...
Steven
Garcon! Check please.
Phil Kane
<Buck@buckaroovile@Cowtown.net> wrote:
>That's what someone's interpretation of "fairness" gets: The equivalent of
>Gus hall meets George Lincoln Rockwell (I think I got the last name right..
That's not the Fairness Doctrine at work - it's the Equal Time
provisions of the Communications Act, which the FCC has no say over.
markc...@sbcglobal.net
newspapers. Try and look at this way: Compared to the purchase price
and the capitilization it takes to start a daily newspaper, radio
stations are "a dime a dozen". Where there can be dozens of radio
stations in any market, there can usually be only a handful of
newspapers in any one market. There's one daily newspaper in San
Jose, one in Oakland, one in San Francisco, etc. you get the picture.
So when newspapers who have a corner on a market and are the only
editorial voice on public policy in a given market, is it not unfair
to ask" "Why not have a fairness doctrine for newspapers?" The Merc
often editorializes for positions I oppose - how am I to counter
that? Write a letter that's less than 125 words and hope it gets
published? Or should I just try and start my only daily broadsheet and
compete with the Merc that way? On the other hand, if I disagree
with the programming on KSFO, I can listen to KGO or KQKE, KPFA, KNEW,
KQED, etc. Get the picture? There's plenty of diversity of opinion
on the radio dial, there's little diversity of opinion in the
editorial positions of our dailies. So why not a "fairness doctrine"
for newspapers?
While one can assert that newspapers represent no public resource like
the limited number of radio frequencies available, the immense cost of
starting a newspaper is a far greater obstacle than trying to find a
frequency to buy or broadcast over.
Just to be clear - I don't advocate what I'm writing - I'm just
showing another side of the coin that no one has really given much
thought to. However, if the fairness doctrine is ever revived, I
would advocate the same for newspapers. Just to be "fair" you know.
Phil Kane
> However, if the fairness doctrine is ever revived, I
>would advocate the same for newspapers. Just to be "fair" you know.
Fortunately or unfortunately, Amendment I to the Constitution
precludes that. Whether the same provision would have applied to
radio/TV stations had they been known to the Framers is an exercise
kicked around in every Constitutional Law course that I have taken.
Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court of the United States has
upheld the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in several cases.
Steven
Somebody had to give Rupert Murdoch a break...
markc...@sbcglobal.net
> > Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court of the United States has
> > upheld the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in several cases.
> > --
> > Phil Kane
> > Beaverton, OR
Phil,
The SCOTUS that upheld the FD were very liberal courts. If the FD
ever lands in front of the current court, it's easily a 5-4 decision
to declare it an unconstitutional abridgement of Free Speech.
Re: this court on another matter. Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty is
going to take the districts gun ban to SCOTUS. He's lost the case in
two lower courts and thinks he'll get a reversal from SCOTUS. He'll
lose. GWB's SCOTUS will likely vote to strike down the DC gun ban.
When that happens it will define the 2nd Amendment in the way that
most strict constitutionalist' believe the framers intended.
Back to the FD. Let's face it - it's not needed and is an
anarchronism from the era of FDR's paternalistic federal government.
There are thousands more radio stations today, internet, community
newspapers, blogs etc. that a law that tells a broadcaster: "If you
do this, you must do thus...." Really, the Fairness Doctrine is
nothing more than statist, simpleminded drivel.
Stratum
>>.
>>
>>>Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court of the United States has
>>>upheld the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in several cases.
>>>--
>>>Phil Kane
>>>Beaverton, OR
>
>
> Phil,
>
> The SCOTUS that upheld the FD were very liberal courts. If the FD
> ever lands in front of the current court, it's easily a 5-4 decision
> to declare it an unconstitutional abridgement of Free Speech.
>
> Re: this court on another matter. Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty is
> going to take the districts gun ban to SCOTUS. He's lost the case in
> two lower courts and thinks he'll get a reversal from SCOTUS. He'll
> lose. GWB's SCOTUS will likely vote to strike down the DC gun ban.
> When that happens it will define the 2nd Amendment in the way that
> most strict constitutionalist' believe the framers intended.
Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
We have evolved to far different values since the day when
some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons and anyone
could possess the most advanced weapons of the day.
Could the Second Amendment for instance be construed
to allow a wealthy individual to keep his own nuclear
arsenal? If it can be used to allow an undesirable
result like unrestricted handgun ownership then
why not atomic bombs, too?
The immutable part of the Bill of Rights is the concept
that they narrowly define what the all-powerful state can
do to the individual. By implication (and explicitly
by the Tenth Amendment, many will maintain) they
guarantee the right of the individual to do what he
isn't expressly prohibited from doing.
As we now know better than we knew six years ago, the
Constitution is only as valuable as the willingness
of the American population to live by it. In the
short term, a docile Congress is no match for a
determined clique of Texas rubes. The situtation
is not completely unlike civilized Berlin in the
early 1930s being no match for hicks from Bavaria and
the south.
Stratum
> By implication (and explicitly
> by the Tenth Amendment, many will maintain)
The Ninth Amendment should be mentioned, too.
Jonathan Biggar
> Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
> We have evolved to far different values since the day when
> some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons and anyone
> could possess the most advanced weapons of the day.
Sigh. Because otherwise you have rule by judges who can reinterpret the
Constitution on a whim, not a rule by the people. If you don't like
something in the Constitution, there's an amendment process to change
it, like the 3/5 rule, which was made null and void by the 13 through 15
amendments.
Phil Kane
<thisjukebo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Notwithstanding that, the Supreme Court of the United States has
>> upheld the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in several cases.
>Somebody had to give Rupert Murdoch a break...
_Red Lion_ was several decades before Rupert Murdoch came onto the
American broadcast scene.
Phil Kane
>Back to the FD. Let's face it - it's not needed and is an
>anarchronism from the era of FDR's paternalistic federal government.
>There are thousands more radio stations today, internet, community
>newspapers, blogs etc. that a law that tells a broadcaster: "If you
>do this, you must do thus...." Really, the Fairness Doctrine is
>nothing more than statist, simpleminded drivel.
If you haven't figured it out from my previous posts, I am very much
of a New Deal person when it comes to regulatory matters, and spent
the bulk of my professional career at the FCC watching it slowly
corrode.
Of all of the possible formats of "government control of the media",
the FD is the least coercive in that it gives the broadcaster the
choice of WHICH balanced viewpoints will be presented.
"Stewardship of the airwaves" does not mean "ownership of the
airwaves".
markc...@sbcglobal.net
> Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
> We have evolved to far different values since the day when
> some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons
Stratum -
Uh, the 3/5 persons was a compromise to get the southern slave-holding
states to ratify the constitution. Many northern politicians did not
want any slavery and the south was holding out for full recognition of
their slaves - Remember from history, slave owners not only had a vote
for themselves but they possessed "weighted" votes based upon the
numbers of slaves owned. Northern politicos didn't like this because
they felt it vested too much electoral power in the south - hence the
3/5th's provision was the compromise. It had nothing to do with
believing that slaves were 3/5ths of a human being - it had everything
to do with denying the south hegemony over the political power in the
country.
Oh, and it is important to preserve what the framers intended. They
intended for a constitutional republic, not a democracy (because
democracies always devolve into mob rule) - one where the sole purpose
for government was to restrain itself and preserve the rights of the
individual. The framers were learned educated men - far sharper and
more nuanced in nearly every respect than the average "intellectual"
of our modern times.
It's the absolute height of arrogance to think that modern society is
somehow superior (intellectually) to those framed the constitution
over 200 years ago.
They would most certainly be disgusted by this present administration
and would have little use for the various candidates from either party
running for the presidency save the congressman from Texas.
BTW, regarding your comment about how "we've evolved..." Please. Look
around this modern world and see what passes for humanity these days
and then try and tell me "we've evolved". You've got to be kidding,
right? The only thing we evolved from is the primordial swamp we
crawled out of eons ago. Thanks to the efforts of Lincoln, (the
gravedigger of the constitution) as a society we've regressed
tremendously since 1865.*
I could cite chapter and verse to support the above - but I'd just as
soon direct your attention to Jeff Hummel's groundbreaking book:
"Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" or you can read Tom
DiLorenzo's "Lincoln Unmasked".. Those two books will give you a spin
on American history that you'll never hear in your government financed
indoctrination centers (public school).
*-other terrible US Presidents since 1865 include Wilson, Hoover, FDR,
Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush I, & Bush II. Those not
classified as "terrible" are catagorized as merely "mediocre".
Steven
*-other terrible US Presidents since 1865 include Wilson, Hoover, FDR,
Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush I, & Bush II. Those not
classified as "terrible" are catagorized as merely "mediocre".
There goes the entire 20th century...We KNEW it had to suck!
Stratum
>>Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
>>We have evolved to far different values since the day when
>>some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons
markc...@sbcglobal.net replies:
> Uh, the 3/5 persons was a compromise to get the southern slave-holding
> states to ratify the constitution.
Duh.
> Many northern politicians did not
> want any slavery and the south was holding out for full recognition of
> their slaves - Remember from history, slave owners not only had a vote
> for themselves but they possessed "weighted" votes based upon the
> numbers of slaves owned. Northern politicos didn't like this because
> they felt it vested too much electoral power in the south - hence the
> 3/5th's provision was the compromise. It had nothing to do with
> believing that slaves were 3/5ths of a human being - it had everything
> to do with denying the south hegemony over the political power in the
> country.
>
> Oh, and it is important to preserve what the framers intended.
Like the restriction of slavery to the South, in the case
of enlightened northerners. And north or south, the restriction
of the franchise to propertied white males.
Exactly my point. We've progressed far beyond what the framers
believed. To be bound by their intent is ancestor worship. It
is dogma.
What's to argue? If a 21st senator advocated counting
black Americans as 3/5 persons, at the very least he
would face censure and probably become the first member
of Congress to be impeached and removed from office.
Hence, persons whose will must be obeyed long
after they have lived are not even fit to hold office
if they lived in the present.
Steven
Mike Van Pelt
Hey, from the 20th century, he liked TR, Taft, Harding,
Coolidge, Eisenhower, Ford, and Reagan. (Or, at least,
didn't hate them enough to single them out as "terrible".)
--
Mike Van Pelt | Wikipedia. The roulette wheel of knowledge.
mvp at calweb.com | --Blair P. Houghton
KE6BVH
Stratum
> Stratum wrote:
>
>> Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
>> We have evolved to far different values since the day when
>> some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons and anyone
>> could possess the most advanced weapons of the day.
>
>
> Sigh. Because otherwise you have rule by judges who can reinterpret the
> Constitution on a whim, not a rule by the people.
I don't think it is the people's role to interpret law. They
are far more whimsical than the courts. The "peepul" have
a great deal of difficulty with the Bill of Rights beginning
with the First Amendment.
> If you don't like something in the Constitution, there's an amendment process to change
> it, like the 3/5 rule, which was made null and void by the 13 through 15
> amendments.
Actually, those and the Civil War. It can be argued that the
framers set the U.S. on a course which led to the Civil War.
So I repeat the question. Of what use are they other than
their intellectual arguments, e.g., the Federalist Papers?
The intents of an Adams or a Jefferson, aside from
being in opposition to each other, hardly have a right
to impose themselves on our times unless a case can
be made for giving them an immortality no one seriously
believes they have.
There are other legends. Does Frank Lloyd Wright, for
instance, have the last word to say on architecture.
Jonathan Biggar
> Jonathan Biggar wrote:
>> Stratum wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
>>> We have evolved to far different values since the day when
>>> some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons and anyone
>>> could possess the most advanced weapons of the day.
>>
>>
>> Sigh. Because otherwise you have rule by judges who can reinterpret
>> the Constitution on a whim, not a rule by the people.
>
> I don't think it is the people's role to interpret law. They
> are far more whimsical than the courts. The "peepul" have
> a great deal of difficulty with the Bill of Rights beginning
> with the First Amendment.
That's why we are a representative democracy, rather than a direct
democracy.
>> If you don't like something in the Constitution, there's an amendment
>> process to change it, like the 3/5 rule, which was made null and void
>> by the 13 through 15 amendments.
>
> Actually, those and the Civil War. It can be argued that the
> framers set the U.S. on a course which led to the Civil War.
Yes, it can be argued, but it wasn't inevitable. One can also argue
that the framers had a choice of accepting an imperfect union at the
time, or no union at all, which likely would have lead to war *anyway*.
> So I repeat the question. Of what use are they other than
> their intellectual arguments, e.g., the Federalist Papers?
> The intents of an Adams or a Jefferson, aside from
> being in opposition to each other, hardly have a right
> to impose themselves on our times unless a case can
> be made for giving them an immortality no one seriously
> believes they have.
Because there's not a better solution. Nobody claims that the founders
were perfect.
> There are other legends. Does Frank Lloyd Wright, for
> instance, have the last word to say on architecture.
That's an inapt analogy. The founders didn't and don't have the last
word. 27 constitutional amendments prove that.
Jonathan Biggar
>> Oh, and it is important to preserve what the framers intended.
>
> Like the restriction of slavery to the South, in the case
> of enlightened northerners. And north or south, the restriction
> of the franchise to propertied white males.
>
> Exactly my point. We've progressed far beyond what the framers
> believed. To be bound by their intent is ancestor worship. It
> is dogma.
No, your point is self contradictory. We have "progressed" in a
fashion, yes, but only by hard work and struggle that can be undone.
Allowing the Constitution to be interpreted at the whim of the current
times is about the easiest way possible to ensure that the "progress"
that you applaud will eventually be undone.
> What's to argue? If a 21st senator advocated counting
> black Americans as 3/5 persons, at the very least he
> would face censure and probably become the first member
> of Congress to be impeached and removed from office.
How in the world do you know that popular opinion will remain that way
forever? The danger with advocating a easily reinterpreted constitution
to get what you want is that the next guy can just reinterpret it again
to take away what you thought you gained.
Stratum
> Stratum wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Biggar wrote:
>>
>>> Stratum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is it important to preserve "what the framers intended"?
>>>> We have evolved to far different values since the day when
>>>> some human beings counted only as 3/5 persons and anyone
>>>> could possess the most advanced weapons of the day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh. Because otherwise you have rule by judges who can reinterpret
>>> the Constitution on a whim, not a rule by the people.
>>
>>
>> I don't think it is the people's role to interpret law. They
>> are far more whimsical than the courts. The "peepul" have
>> a great deal of difficulty with the Bill of Rights beginning
>> with the First Amendment.
>
>
> That's why we are a representative democracy, rather than a direct
> democracy.
So we elect Federal judges?
I repeat: the interpretation of the law is a judicial matter,
not a matter subject to popular whim or to legislatures whose
members are often more whimsical with respect to the Bill of
Rights than their constituents.
>>> If you don't like something in the Constitution, there's an amendment
>>> process to change it, like the 3/5 rule, which was made null and void
>>> by the 13 through 15 amendments.
>>
>>
>> Actually, those and the Civil War. It can be argued that the
>> framers set the U.S. on a course which led to the Civil War.
>
>
> Yes, it can be argued, but it wasn't inevitable. One can also argue
> that the framers had a choice of accepting an imperfect union at the
> time, or no union at all, which likely would have lead to war *anyway*.
>
>> So I repeat the question. Of what use are they other than
>> their intellectual arguments, e.g., the Federalist Papers?
>> The intents of an Adams or a Jefferson, aside from
>> being in opposition to each other, hardly have a right
>> to impose themselves on our times unless a case can
>> be made for giving them an immortality no one seriously
>> believes they have.
>
>
> Because there's not a better solution. Nobody claims that the founders
> were perfect.
>
>> There are other legends. Does Frank Lloyd Wright, for
>> instance, have the last word to say on architecture.
>
>
> That's an inapt analogy.
Actually, the analogies are nearly identical. Few would
disagree that Wright was an innovative architect, and most
will agree that he was a great architect.
Few will disagree that Jefferson was an innovative
thinker. He rewrote the Christian Bible, for
example. Most will agree that he was a great
thinker. He wrote the Declaration of Independence,
for example. The opening sentences alone justify
the assessment even if the document does turn into a
bit of a rant. But we're not bound to Jefferson's concept
of agrarian democracy (he also hoped for political
cleansing by occasional bloody uprisings) any
more than we're bound to houses with wide horizontal
extent, prominent eaves, and minimal adornment, a look that
Wright championed in the 1910s, and modern --
even radical -- for the time.
> The founders didn't and don't have the last
> word. 27 constitutional amendments prove that.
But the question is: of what use is the argument
that the Constitution in its present state at any
instant has to be interpreted by its framers'
intent?
My answer is: other than a nod to their accomplishments,
what the framers wanted isn't relevant to their
descendants more than two centuries later, and a
good deal of what they wanted is not even
acceptable.
Stratum
[I wrote:]
>> What's to argue? If a 21st [century] senator advocated counting
>> black Americans as 3/5 persons, at the very least he
>> would face censure and probably become the first member
>> of Congress to be impeached and removed from office.
>
>
> How in the world do you know that popular opinion will remain that way
> forever? The danger with advocating a easily reinterpreted constitution
> to get what you want is that the next guy can just reinterpret it again
> to take away what you thought you gained.
I don't know what popular opinion will be in a hundred years.
Judicial intepretation of the Constitution changes slowly,
over the course of a generation or two. In 1896,
citizens who were enfranchised in name only and
their offspring were entitled to separate but equal
access to public facilities. In 1954, the USSC majority
ruled that this concept was transparently racist.
As late as the 1960s, the state of Connecticut, not exactly
in the Bible Belt, could prohibit married couples from
obtaining birth control devices. The states of
California, Nevada and Utah, each with their own
political majorities but far from the
Jim Crow South could take the children of
of racially mixed parents away from them.
Changes in thinking on these issues which
have long since become mainstream opinion required
disregarding what the framers wanted, and also
did not result in amending the Constitution.
In future generations, to speak of "race" may
become politically unacceptable, as two
people of different races merely have
ancestors who lived far apart, which
is irrelevant to their lives in the
present.
(Really, this last point has informed
most American progressives' thinking
for the past 40 years.)
Stratum
> As late as the 1960s, the state of Connecticut, not exactly
> in the Bible Belt, could prohibit married couples from
> obtaining birth control devices. The states of
> California, Nevada and Utah, each with their own
> political majorities but far from the
> Jim Crow South could take the children of
> of racially mixed parents away from them.
(For the record, California's miscegenation
statute was ruled unconstitutional by the
California Supreme Court in 1948.)
Steven
But you exclude I.M. Pei and every other architect, thousands of them
with that notion. Wright did damned few buildings and built none, like
Carl Karcher did designing mall and industrial spaces (and a burger
place or two).
>
> > The founders didn't and don't have the last
> > word. 27 constitutional amendments prove that.
>
But the question is: of what use is the argument
that the Constitution in its present state at any
instant has to be interpreted by its framers'
intent?
It's framers knew that the United States would need to answer problems
unforeseen, and they actually drafted the original amendments in the
FIRST PLACE!
Get the notion that we've somehow fucked the Constitution--it provides
for amendments. Moses didn't give it to George Washington. Please find
enough maturity to see that and move along.
Mike Van Pelt
Stratum <strat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In future generations, to speak of "race" may become
>politically unacceptable, as two people of different
>races merely have ancestors who lived far apart, which is
>irrelevant to their lives in the present.
>
>(Really, this last point has informed most American
>progressives' thinking for the past 40 years.)
Really? What I see from the self-proclaimed "progressives" is
constant agitation for a racial spoils system, quotas, and
set-asides. Not to mention "reparations" for very serious
wrongs done to and by ... not a single person who is alive
today. All too often, what the self-proclaimed "progressives"
demand looks very much like a new sort of segregationism.
It's been a long, tragic fall from Martin Luther King's
dream that "my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character," a goal that
no one whose opinion is worthy of respect disagrees with.
Stratum
> It's been a long, tragic fall from Martin Luther King's
> dream that "my four little children will one day live in a
> nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
> skin but by the content of their character," a goal that
> no one whose opinion is worthy of respect disagrees with.
I'll bet during King's life, you called him a communist
troublemaker.
You were the real problem then, and you're the real
problem now.
Mike Van Pelt
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT Wrong. Thank you for playing
"Amazing Psychic Net Trolls". Don Pardo will hand you
some exciting parting gifts on your way out.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>Really? What I see from the self-proclaimed "progressives" is
>constant agitation for a racial spoils system, quotas, and
>set-asides. Not to mention "reparations" for very serious
>wrongs done to and by ... not a single person who is alive
>today. All too often, what the self-proclaimed "progressives"
>demand looks very much like a new sort of segregationism.
That's not the kind of "progressive" that I signed onto in the
mid-1950's and continued to be today. Ditto for the label "liberal".
The above description would fit the label "radical" which I certainly
am not.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Milepost 755 - Tillamook District
Steven
go vomit in someone else's yard.
Steven
Any specials in the meat dept. while you're there?