Letters to the Editor
-
jayackroyd
About whether these public airways rules apply to cable stations, or networks. The underlying reason for the public airways rule applying to broadcast is that spectrum is both scarce and a commons. With essentially unlimited capacity to provide additional transmissions, the need on a cable network would not seem as compelling. Kucinich could, in principle, obtain time, or an entire channel, on Nevada cable networks. He cannot do so on some unused bit of spectrum.
As I indicated, that's one of the issues that one would need to resolve -- does Section 315 apply to cable channels, rather than networks? In its brief, NBC argued that it doesn't, and cited a case that pretty clearly seems to so hold, but I don't know.
-
Exactly
I read Morrissey's post, hit the "Interstate Commerce" bit, and just gave up. He's a nice man, but literally hasn't a clue what the hell he is talking about in terms of the law and what courts are supposed to do.
Certainly I am not saying (and Glenn hasn't either), that only lawyers are qualified to make such assessments. But if one doesn't have a JD, one ought to be an educated layperson in such topics before one goes off on such entirely erroneous rants, and thus makes a fool of oneself -- however well received his post is among the equally ingerant right-wing blogs linking to him.
-
Typical behavior
The shouting heads of the right have only one real goal : to maintain the abysmal level of informedness of their listeners ("the base"), and they succeed easily by endlessly repeating the same shtick. Their listeners/devotees/supporters are, as a rule, incurious, easily duped, and receptive only to ideas that they already believe, so the shouting heads have no reason to be reasoned, analytical, or even to be correct - it makes no difference, since their audience already knows what it wants to hear. It just likes hearing and seeing confirmation on the airwaves, TV, and in print. I don't really see what is so mystifying about it, or why it is worth so much time and energy to gripe about it. The people Glen is trying to educate/inform would never be caught dead on Salon.com, so what exactly is the point?
-
Lawyerin'
He's been watching too many lawyer shows on TV!
-
@Glenn
does Section 315 apply to cable channels, rather than networks? In its brief, NBC argued that it doesn't, and cited a case that pretty clearly seems to so hold, but I don't know.
But of course, the breach of K complaint could be dispositive. Not having read any of the pleadings, or the holding, I am not, however, claiming to know.
-
I am not a lawyer.
I vote you good lawyers to get a Grammy.
The gangstas make me angry and speechless.
It's over a giraffe's head, and too complicated for laypeople. I'll vow celibacy and solitude. I'll stay outta public view.
Just to remain stupid, I'll repeat what I heard a Lady judge Judy ask, "You are pulling My leg?" huh.
I'm a Methodist? A Buddhist? I 'm not sure.
I am a believer in plutocrats are Idiocy? Sure.
I heard a Sunday TV preacher say, "Amen."
I promise to keep the mouth-trap shut-up?
It's time for me to convert to quietude.
My ideas are only, ideally, 'go get the GOPS!'
(*i-dee-fixe?) Thanks for law bulldogs. Green.
Go. Growl like a junkyard dog and protect, and the natural frogs croak, and flop to sit on a Lily pad to ponder and think. Listen.
O, hush. okay. Nope? Moan? Mop the gops up. It's too far beyond a earthen tiller expertise. Time to shush. Me? Yep.
-
The Noxious Fruits
Ok, I have to admit that I'm extremely happy that this new subject has been raised.
I spent the entire day, yesterday, reading a thread which constantly made me think of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Bop, glad to see you back.
-
"New Jersey's refusal to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples."
Not exactly. The NJ case was about the previous enactment of NJ state laws which extended SOME BUT NOT ALL marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
I don't remember the exact language in the NJ decisions, but I remember that there was at least a very strong implication that it would have been legal and constitutional (under the NJ state constitution) if the NJ state legislature had simply refused to extend ANY marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
That wasn't the case. What happened in NJ is that the legislature established "civil unions" as a form of second-class marriage for same sex couples, and subsequently the courts held that IF the legislature creates a form of marriage for same-sex couples, THEN those same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection (roughly equivalent to 14th amendment equal protection in a federal case).
Anyway, whatever the NJ courts might have ruled if the legislature hadn't already created an unequal form of marriage, the facts of the case were that the legislature had done so.
-
It's not just "systematic erosion of the rule of law"
The attack on law is merely part of the conservative War on Fact.
"The liberal media" and "far-left academe" are other charges deployed whenever facts get inconvenient.
Remember Stanley Kurtz's admission around 2005 that maybe things in Iraq weren't going so well after all, despite Fox, NRO, et al insisting otherwise? It was something like, "well, yeah, maybe the news reports have been right, but if they didn't always hate America so much, we maybe would have believed them sooner."
Just about every expert on the Middle East warned about the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq. Pointy-headed liberal academics, all.
Plus, the EPA and NASA have been working to hide or distort scientific conclusions that they don't like.
It is, for lack of a better term, Conservative Stalinism: every fact, argument, and source is evaluated for political correctness, not accuracy.
-
@ bebop-o
Whenever I'm baffled by the first line of a letter, I know it's a bebop-o letter :)
Wherever you are, may your meds be soothing and plentiful!
-
It's not a coincidence
that its the left which has taken up the mantle of the "Reality based community" It's self-selection in action. People who value rationality and evidence based thinking are not the sort who gravitate to the far reaches of the wingnut-o-sphere. Unfortunately, as a general rule Judges (even Conservative ones) tend to be the sort of people who value rationality and evidence based thinking as well. Self-selection again. So its completely unsurprising that people who's political identity is based on wishful thinking would have a problem with judges.