To be fair...

...there are things that Ms. FreeAmerica and I do agree on. I too believe that a fairness doctrine is a bad idea. I, however, don't spend time worrying about it or firing off pointless emails to legislators hoping to squash this threat. Why? Well, first of all, I'm fairly certain that, although some lawmakers may give it lip service, it doesn't stand a chance of getting through both houses. Second, no matter how much she wants us to believe it, President Obama isn't interested in reinstating it.

President Barack Obama, however, isn't lining up with Durbin, Pelosi, et al on this matter. Last June, the press secretary for his Senate office told a reporter for Broadcasting & Cable in an e-mail that Obama "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters." The aide, Michael Ortiz, also wrote:

Ortiz: [Obama] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

All of the other issues mentioned by Ortiz are controversial in their own right, but none of them are functional equivalents of the fairness doctrine from days of yore.

And last month, an Obama spokesman told FoxNews.com that the president wasn't interested in reviving the fairness doctrine. "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,"

You see, it's like this; I'm also opposed to mindlessly investigating legislators or any other US citizens for being "Anti-American". I, however, am not going to start a crusade against the formation of a House Un-American Activities Committee.

Get ready to get your Kevin Bacon on...

Our friend over at Freedom to Speak likes to draw parallels and tie issues, events and people together. In very short order, she's made ACORN responsible for death threats toward AIG execs. She's also made Obama a Nazi.

According to FreeAmerica

• ACORN funds the Working Families Party
• Working Families Party organized the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous" bus tour.
• The tour included the homes of wealthy people
• These wealthy people are receiving death threats
• Therefore, ACORN is delivering killers to the homes of executives.

As if that wasn't funny enough, she decides to use the last resort of political hackery: The Nazi Card.

• Obama gave "billions" to ACORN
• ACORN hates rich people [see above]
  
• Hitler hated rich people...well, the Jewish ones, at least.
• Therefore, Obama is a Nazi [or at least very much like one]

I've got one for you...

• New York Post is publishing pics and names of execs who received bonuses
• New York Post is owned by News Corp.
• News Corp's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founder is Rupert Murdoch
• News Corp also runs Fox News
• Therefore Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and the New York Post are all encouraging violence toward execs.

Ok, I admit it. I could have made just the one connection in one step, but why not bring all of them into the mix...just for fun.

An excellent example:

Although I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure that my comments on this post never got published. From her post "Obama the Monster":

He also signed into law the right of the government to decide whether or not senior citizens will be allowed to have certain health procedures done based on how much longer they may live. A panel will be set up and if you are elderly and say you have cancer and you need chemotherapy or radiation therapy this panel can tell the Dr. that the procedure is too expensive for the amount of life you have left.

First, you'll notice that she offers no source for this information. This is a fairly common occurrence, so let's to a little for her. Actually, this was a fairly easy one. A quick peek at Factcheck.org tells us :

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia says the measure creates "a national health care rationing board." Not true. What it creates is a council to coordinate research into which treatments work best, and are most effective for the money. And in fact, the new law states quite specifically that the council has no power to "mandate coverage" and that its recommendations are not to be construed as "clinical guidelines for ... treatment."

You'll note from my last post that our friend questions my sources. Hey, if factcheck.org is good enough for Cheney, it's good enough for me.

A logical start to the hillarity...

Just to solidify the premise: from "Where's the Change":

Personal to P

Please read my conditions for comments. You don't seem to be able to read as I clearly stated my conditions for publications of comments. Personal attacks are not allowed so I will not publish your comments unless you are able to stick to issues. I am not interested in the places you go to get your information I have found them to be terribly inaccurate and that is the reason for my blog so I can get people to look at what they see around them not the half truths and lies in so many blogs and articles. Stop the personal remarks and if I find your comments interesting whether I agree or not I will post them.

First of all, am I the only one who finds it funny that she isn't posting my comments because, among other reasons, they are personal attacks...right after she questions my ability to read? Since, "FreeAmerica" believes in censoring the comments in her blog, here's the comment I submitted.

Personal attacks? You call questioning your research [or lack thereof] a personal attack? That's just sad. I feel bad that you actually think my comments have been personal "attacks". I can understand taking them personally if you're afraid of being questioned; which, given the fact that you've actually devoted two posts to my comments rather than actually disputing them, it seems that may be true.

Lastly, I find it funny that you would question the nature of my sources when, in 11 posts of this blog you've cited 3 whole sources and two of them our conservative web sites...neither fair, nor balanced...and proud of it. Unfortunately, I get the distinct sense that it's not so much that I'm "attacking" you, it's that you just don't like that there are news sources out there that completely dispute many of the things you've posted.

I don't expect you to publish this, but rest assured, I'm sure you're a fine person. Just because I question your politics, your research, or even your writing skills, doesn't mean I'm personally attacking you. I'd just like to see you use a little more research and occasionally cite it. I don't think that's too much to ask, nor is it a personal attack.

From here on out, I'll try to limit my posts to commenting on the content of these two fine blogs...but I can't make any promises.