Brains: Gotta remember to update the title!

[elfs]

The Ultimate Guide to Conquering Your Clutter

Monks keep it simple, and get a lot done. Why can't you?

Seth: How To Make Money on the Internet

Just plain goodness. Enjoy.

Republicans: Dying from the Head Down

The Economist explains the death of the Republican party:

Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantanamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.

Conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives–particularly lower-income ones–are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin's apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today's pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

Andrew Sullivan says the "ruled by dynasties" bit is "a nice touch." Oh, if only that were true. National Review could have done will with Chris Buckley at the helm. I don't think he wants the job.

Crippled Dogs and One Trick Ponies: The Texas State Board of Education's Science Hearings

Apparently, the pro-science faction had to deal with state board member Terri Leo, who railed against "militant Darwinism" and tried, as creationists will, to use science when it benefitted her, and dismiss it when it didn't. A long, personal account of yesterday's meeting, in all its sick glory.

Obama's secret plan to muzzle talk radio. Very, very secret.

Marin Cogan at The New Republic does some actual journalism and fails to find a single person in congress who thinks the Fairness Doctrine will return. Obama is opposed to it. Those members of Congress most interested in media oppose it. Last year, when Democrats were in charge of Congress, the House voted 3-to-1 on a resolution discouraging the FCC from re-instating it.

I suspect that it's more than mere paranoia. In order to be effective, right-wing radio must be in opposition. They must appear to be the scrappy revolutionary upstart. It can't be the idea in ascendency. But they clearly are: in Seattle we have one "pretending to be neutral" station, one Air America outlet, three evangelical channels, one Catholic, and three rabidly right-wing. "Conservative" ideas own the airwaves. The only way to look as if they're under seige is to create this phony controversy. (via Steve Benen)

Comments

[fallenpegasus]

Ok then, educate me on "The Fairness Doctrine".

Explain to me why it was considered acceptable to require someone to get a revokable license from the the government to regularly speak into a microphone.

(This was a *different* license than the ones required to own a transmitter and the ones required to operate a transmitter.)

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Umm, that's asking me to explain the FCC to you - I imagine Google's up to the challenge.

On the Fairness Doctrine, try this: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

We can discuss it when you're done.

[fallenpegasus]

Fail.

I understand the original history and the paperwork operation procedures of the Fairness Doctrine quite well already, thank you.

I was hoping for a principled and coherent defense of the Fairness Doctrine. A vain hope, I know, but isn't this supposed to be a era of new hopes?

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Sez you. I'm sure that's why you led off with a remark about licensing requirements - 'cause of course, the Fairness Doctrine was ALL ABOUT the licensure....

Not germane to the issues involved IMO (not that they're *completely* unrelated, it's just that talk-radio "style" of yours)...and asserting knowledge without demonstrating any makes the fail all your own. Though, to paraphrase Will Rogers, 'it ain't what you don't know...it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.'

For an extra dash of truth, you indeed hoped in vain to think I was planning on *defending* it. If it's "new hopes" you're after, you're on the wrong track!

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

fallen, you seem extra cranky these days... what's up?