Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113951,00.html

[House Passes Indecency Bill]

It baffles me that no one, other than Howard Stern, is speaking up against this. Isn't this what you lefties are supposed to be all about? How the hell are these fines not chilling?



Exactly 19 congressmen voted against this bill. 1 GOP and 18 DEMS.

When you wrap it up in the nice pretty bow of "being against indecency" its hard for politicians to speak against it. What? You're "for indecency"???? For shame!!!!

aV

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by andViolins
When you wrap it up in the nice pretty bow of "being against indecency" its hard for politicians to speak against it. What? You're "for indecency"???? For shame!!!!

aV

Yeah, we have the courts to bail them out.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, we have the courts to bail them out.

If it ever gets there. Big media has not wanted to challenge the FCC in court over this because the FCC threatens them with jamming up approval over acquisitions and licensing issues if they do.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ncs is one of only 2 posters that beat me in a Politics argument.

Hank Chinaski '89 Law '92
19-3

Not that this is particularly relevant to Politics, but how exactly how many degrees do you have, Hank Chinaski, '91 Law '94?

Just curious. Once was enough for me.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It baffles me that no one, other than Howard Stern, is speaking up against this. Isn't this what you lefties are supposed to be all about?

Nifty.

How the hell are these fines not chilling?

I agree with you that this is a colossal waste of energy for Congress. But the FCC already had the power to revoke licenses based on violating the indecency rules. Why are the increased fines more chilling than that? As the co-sponsor of the bill observes, this is really an enforcement issue, because before the FCC didn't do much enforcing. Now (presumably) they will. That seems to be more important than the amount of the fines.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"Isn't this what you lefties are supposed to be all about?"

Speaking on behalf of the lefty caricature this comment was addressed to, we object to government action which curtails the rights of individuals, unless those rights have to do with guns or lots of money, but we have no problem with government action which curtails the rights of large corporations, unless they are providing abortion services.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Nifty.

I agree with you that this is a colossal waste of energy for Congress. But the FCC already had the power to revoke licenses based on violating the indecency rules. Why are the increased fines more chilling than that? As the co-sponsor of the bill observes, this is really an enforcement issue, because before the FCC didn't do much enforcing. Now (presumably) they will. That seems to be more important than the amount of the fines.

Put aside the question of the power to revoke licenses for "indencency" (whatever that means). Do you now see the difference between a $25,000 fine and a $500,000 fine? Do you not see the difference between fining the individual performer $11,000 after the second offense, versus $500,000 after the first offense?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Speaking on behalf of the lefty caricature this comment was addressed to, we object to government action which curtails the rights of individuals, unless those rights have to do with guns or lots of money, but we have no problem with government action which curtails the rights of large corporations, unless they are providing abortion services.

Sounds right to me. Board motto!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the question of the power to revoke licenses for "indencency" (whatever that means). Do you now see the difference between a $25,000 fine and a $500,000 fine? Do you not see the difference between fining the individual performer $11,000 after the second offense, versus $500,000 after the first offense?

It is the license issue Club. Otherwise they'd fight the fines. Stern is forgetting he has been complaining about the FCC since clinton times.

Oh, and the reason Ty and the Dems in Congress aren't objecting is that they know this is an issue to turn you/me types against the third greatest president this country has ever had.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
As the co-sponsor of the bill observes, this is really an enforcement issue, because before the FCC didn't do much enforcing. Now (presumably) they will.

Because the fines are bigger and therefore less likely to be challenged or fought? Please.

IF you want better enforcement, you jawbone and vet the nominees to get their word they will enforce. And stand behind the inevitable legal challenges.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"Isn't this what you lefties are supposed to be all about?"

Speaking on behalf of the lefty caricature this comment was addressed to, we object to government action which curtails the rights of individuals, unless those rights have to do with guns or lots of money, but we have no problem with government action which curtails the rights of large corporations, unless they are providing abortion services.

Funny. I was not directing this to people on this board. I'm just shocked that the civil liberties folks on the left and the liberatarians on the right are not fighting this.

I'm also hyper-excited over the fact that McCain is shocked that his bill is not preventing the political system from being inundated with soft money through the 527s. I was against McCain-Fiengold on 1st amendment principles, but thought it was a completely naieve bill in the first place.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why anyone believes them now is beyond me. But maybe congressional Republicans won't want to be burned again.

The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.

linky

I love the Medicare office director's explanation for what he did too:

"They were trying to be politically cute and get (Foster) to score (estimate the cost of the bill) and put something out publicly so they can walk out on the House floor and cause a political crisis, which is bogus," Scully said.

I guess it's "politically cute" and "bogus" for Congress to request accurate estimates at any time before they've actually approved a massive federal entitlement program.

This guy kind of reminds me of Chalabi in a very vague way. He'll say anything to get the taxpayers to finance his program, and then will jump onto the other side of the equation and reap the benefits of the program once it's put into place.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh, and the reason Ty and the Dems in Congress aren't objecting is that they know this is an issue to turn you/me types against the third greatest president this country has ever had.

It's about time you got over this fetish with Grover Cleveland.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because the fines are bigger and therefore less likely to be challenged or fought? Please.

Uh, not what I said. As you can read above, Club's taking me to task for not caring about how big the fines are.

IF you want better enforcement, you jawbone and vet the nominees to get their word they will enforce. And stand behind the inevitable legal challenges.

But that's so hard to do on a knee-jerk reaction basis.

It's much easier to write tough sounding language like "Mandates FCC to consider revoking license of any broadcaster found with three indecency violations." Mandating consideration....that's the kind of action-oriented politics America needs at this crucial juncture.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh, and the reason Ty and the Dems in Congress aren't objecting is that they know this is an issue to turn you/me types against the third greatest president this country has ever had.

Fillmore's role in all of this is escaping me at the moment.

(ETA: Too slow.)