Friday, February 27, 2004

THE CENSORSHIP MOOD

Today's show will come to you from The Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C.  I'm here in this frightening place (DC, not The Heritage Foundation) to attend the annual Radio & Records Talk Radio convention. 

This year's convention buzz?  Government ... the FCC ... censorship .... fines ..... fired disk jockeys.

The mood in Washington is ugly.  It's an election year.  The full House and one-third of the Senate are up for reelection ... as is the president.  These politicians want to get themselves on record for "protecting family values" and a making sure that your precious children never, ever get to see Janet Jackson's breast again as long as they draw breath.  The FCC, obviously feeling heat from somewhere,  levying three-quarters of a million dollar fines against radio stations for material that was broadcast two years ago.  Jocks with number-one ratings in their markets are being offered up as sacrificial lambs to the DC censorship mood.

This situation reached its boiling point, of course, with that now-notorious Super Bowl halftime show.  Yes, the show was tacky.  But what in the hell did you expect when the entire production was turned over to MTV?  Barry Manilow?  So ... Nelly grabbed his crotch.  We all have them.  And Janet Jackson's right breast made it's TV debut ... seen two, you seen them all.  That was on a Sunday.  The first day of the week.  By Saturday night of that same week Americans (and that includes children) had the opportunity to watch hundreds of murders, beatings, rapes and hints at gratuitous sex on television.  The news, though, continued to be about Janet's jug.

This has to be said here.  Americans are prudes.  We are probably the only industrialized country in the world that goes into a national state of shock when a breast appears on broadcast television.  Spend a bit of time in Europe.  There you're as likely to see a breast on a television commercial as you are to see the word "sale."  As a result European children grow up with a much more healthy view vis--vis the human body.  Why, some Europeans might actually think that there is something more discomforting about seeing one person murder another on television than watching one person loved by another.

Back, though, to Washington.  What we're seeing in those congressional hearings, and in the moods of our august legislators, is nothing short of a burgeoning censorship movement.  Today it's breasts, vague descriptions of sexual situations, and the fearsome "F" word.  Tomorrow?  

Let me make my position clear here from the beginning.  I'm against government censorship of the airwaves.  The FCC should have only one role ... and that is to protect a broadcaster's property right in their broadcast frequency.  Nothing more.  The FCC should not be the national censorship arm of the Imperial Federal Government.

There is no doubt in my mind that if broadcasting had been around when Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the rest of our founding fathers (PC="Framers") wrote our Constitution,  broadcasting would have been included in the First Amendment.  The purpose of that little "freedom of the press" bit in our Constitution was to make sure that the government could exercise no control over the means of the dissemination of information in America.  Information was to flow freely .. and that included information about the comings and goings and various shenanigans of politicians. 

Today the vast majority of Americans get their daily dose of news and information from the broadcast media.  In the mornings we listen to radio for news, weather and traffic.  In the midday period Americans turn to talk radio to keep up.  In the evenings we go to the television news programs.  A minority of Americans read daily newspapers.  A smaller number read news magazines.  We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans get their news and information about what is going on with their government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very government.  Nobody can truly believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind.

Now don't even try to tell me that the government would never try to regulate the political and news content of the broadcast media.  Michael Medved tried that stunt with me last night as we went chin-to-chin on MSNBC.  Yes, my friends, the government will try to control the political content of broadcast media.  The government has tried it.  And the government succeeded. Have you heard of the Campaign Finance Reform Act?  Did you know that our illustrious Supreme Court has just ruled that the government can, indeed, control what can and cannot be said about politicians on radio and TV stations in the final days of a political campaign?  Not newspapers.  Not news magazines. Oh no!  They have First Amendment protections.  Broadcasting? Different story.

Public Ownership of the Airwaves?  Give me a break!

When broadcasting came into its own in this country politicians became eager to exercise control.  They couldn't do a thing about what newspapers printed ... but they were determined not to make the same mistake with the new wonderful world of broadcast media.  So ... they came up with this idiotic little fiction that "the public owns the airwaves."  That became their excuse for government licensing and regulation.

A question:  If the public owns the airwaves, why doesn't the public also own all the real estate?  We get this song and dance about the public owning the airwaves because there are only a limited number of broadcast frequencies available, and they need to be allocated and controlled "in the public interest."   Well, the last time I checked there was only a limited amount of real estate around.  Why, then, aren't politicians preaching about the "public ownership of the land" and taking measures to make sure that all real estate is used "in the public interest?"  Instead of owning the land upon which our homes sit, why aren't we leasing that land from some government entity called the FREC ... the Federal Real Estate Commission.  Hey!  Maybe that would be a good idea!  Every five years or so we could submit an application to the FREC explaining how we're using our particular piece of real estate in the public interest.  Neighbors and community activists could submit filings to the FREC stating that we are not, in fact, using our real estate in the public interest and demanding that the FREC revoke our licenses! 

Wow!  I really think I'm onto something here. 

Let's say that we have an unmarried couple living in a house down the street.  You're upset because you are teaching your children that a man and a woman should get married before they move in together and start to raise a family.  You want that unmarried couple out of the neighborhood.  So, the next time they apply to the FREC for a renewal of their license to occupy that particular piece of "publicly owned" real estate you file to have their license revoked.  Gay couple down the street?  Same thing.

Or let's say that there's a convenience store in town that actually sells (gasp!) copies of Playboy.  You have it on good authority that someone can actually open the pages of one of those magazines and see parts of the female anatomy.   You get a little group together and prepare to oppose their license renewal when it comes up next year.

Just yesterday you were walking down the street in your neighborhood and you heard sounds representative of domestic intranquility coming from that house on the corner.  The words were unmistakable.  "F___ you!  I'll mow the f___ing yard when game is over."  Why, you're not going to allow that language to be used in your neighborhood, are you?  After all, your child could have been walking by that house and heard those words.  You go to the FREC and ask for a heavy fine to be assessed against the neighborhood sports fan for his indecency.

But what about community standards?

Now there's a dangerous little term.  Community standards.  First ... you do realize that the very phrase has an anti-individualistic tone, don't you?  Shouldn't we be talking here about "individual" standards?  Individuals have moral standards.  As long as a community is made of individuals with individual likes, dislikes, wants and needs you cannot truly say that there is one standard that fits and applies to the whole community. 

There is, though, a way that people can express their individual standards in such a way that something approximating a "community standard" can be arrived at.  The most common way is voting.  Now there's more than one type of voting out there.  Individuals can vote with ballots to chose a politician to serve the community.  You might say that this politician is representing a "community standard" because he came away from the election with more individual votes than anyone else.

Individuals can also vote with dollars.  In the free market every dollar is a vote.  Each dollar spent is a vote cast for a particular product or merchant.  The products or merchants with the most votes win.  The products or merchants with few votes eventually fade away.  Individuals, voting with dollars, eventually establish  a "community standard" in products, services and merchants.  Imagine the chaos if there was some sort of a government agency that was assigned the task of trying to figure out just what the "community standard" in flower shops or restaurants was.  Would that government agency then try to force all flower shops and restaurants to adhere to that standard, or face fines?  Maybe license revocation?

And as for broadcasting?  There, again, individuals vote.  There are two knobs on your radio.  Cast your vote by turning either one.  As individuals across the community cast their votes over a period of time, a community standard is established.  Those who meet the standard survive.  Those who don't fail.  When you allow the individuals to create that standard through the exercise of their free choice with one of those two knobs ... freedom and the free market prevail.  Politicians, though, want to establish that standard through highly-publicized hearings and government rules.  Freedom plays no role.

Next up ... political free speech.

One last thing.  Today it's sexually explicit material the politicians are getting all lathered-up about.  What is it going to be tomorrow? 

Think about this.   What phrase do many leftist politicians use to describe the expression of conservative ideas and concepts.   You've heard them.  It's "hate speech."  On many college campuses around the nation there are active movements to have the expression of conservative ideas branded as "hate speech" and banned on campus.  Expressing opposition to that government-enforced program of systematic racial discrimination known as "affirmative action" is condemned as "racism."  A whacko Hispanic activist in Atlanta is pushing the idea that using the phrase "illegal alien" is comparable to using the "N" word.  How long before pressure is brought to bear on the FCC to have these elements included in the definition of "community standards" that the FCC tries to enforce through fines and license revocation?

I understand, my friends.  There are many things that both you and I hear on radio shows and see on television shows that offend our sensibilities.  Once, though, you start using the government as an agent of censorship it's hard to stop.  One group wants sexually explicit material banned.  Then another wants "hate speech" banned.  With the demands of each group ...and those that follow ... the noose of government censorship on the our number one method of sharing information is tightened.

Let's recognize and accept our individual responsibility for what we watch and what we listen to, and let's tell our politicians to stop using the heavy hand of government regulation as a method of pandering for votes.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES SQUARE OFF AT "DEBATE"

10 states go to the polls on Tuesday for the "Super Tuesday" primary, and so that means we got treated to yet another debate last night. In addition to it just being the same old same old, it was outright boring. The Democrats really need to do a better job keeping their audiences awake.

John Edwards made his pitch that he was the better candidate because of his blue-collar roots. Apparently only he can know the pain of poor people. Yeah --- right.

John Kerry?  He seems is running for the President of Vietnam.  Kerry tells us that he has the background to serve in office because--why else, you guessed it--he served in Vietnam.  Kerry is also running ads in Tuesday's primary states that start out with a picture of a young Lt. Kerry in Vietnam. I guess he's hoping people will forget his 20-year voting record afterward.

Edwards again said that he would not go negative in the debate, but there was an interesting moment when the candidates were pressed on the issue of the death penalty. Kerry said that he opposed the death penalty except for terrorists, then went on to say that the death penalty has compromised America's civility as a nation. That's interesting...will we be compromising our civility when we execute Osama Bin Laden? Nobody asked that one. Edwards supports the death penalty.

Kerry was asked why he now says that gay marriage should be up to the states, but voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage act that would have done that very thing. He said his views on the law's constitutionality were "incorrect." This is an interesting new tactic we'll probably hear more about as Kerry's record is examined. Essentially he is saying "I was wrong then, but I'm right now." He really could debate himself.

Oh..and no Democratic debate would be complete without a funny line from Al Sharpton...so here it is. About gay marriage, Sharpton said: "The issue is not who you go to bed with.  The issue is whether either of you have a job when you get up in the morning." 

The next debate is Sunday night in New York.  

CONGRESSWOMAN CORRINE BROWN HAS RACIST MELTDOWN

Now before you read this, think back to when Trent Lott was fired as Senate Majority leader and nearly run out of town for saying the country would have been better off with Strom Thurmond as president.  Earlier this week Democratic Representative Corrine Brown of Florida attended a briefing on the situation in Haiti with Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, a Mexican-American. Why does that matter? More on that in a moment.

At this meeting were about 30 people, and right across the table from Noriega, Brown launched into a diatribe about how the Bush administration's policy toward Haiti was racist and she called the president's representatives "a bunch of white men."  Noriega shot back that he would pass along her comments to Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, both high-level African-Americans in the Bush administration.  Noriega also pointed out a member of delegation, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who was born in Cuba. It was then that Corrine Brown said "you all look alike to me." Imagine if a Republican had said that. The media would be demanding they be fired. Corrine Brown, a liberal Democrat, will get a free pass.

She did apologize, saying she did not mean to offend, then rambled on about how the Bush administration has no right to tell another nation that their elections were not fair when President Bush was selected by the Supreme Court.

So really, it comes down to Bush-hating. At least we know where she's coming from. 

AIRTRAN AIRWAYS GRAND BAHAMA GOLF CLASSIC, MAY 21-23, 2004

Join Neal on Grand Bahama Island for the AirTran Caribbean Classic Golf Tournament. Golf, beach party, casinos and more all to benefit Prevent Child Abuse Georgia. Find out more.

ILLEGAL ALIENS OBJECT TO BEING CALLED ILLEGAL ALIENS

Since I briefly mentioned this in my censorship bit above, I thought I would tell you the rest of the story here.  It's getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser.  Illegal aliens have their thongs in a bunch.  Not only do we have the people who live here complaining about insensitivity and wanting politically correct labels for themselves, the illegal immigrants are getting in on the action. Their complaint? The phrase "illegal aliens" is the moral equivalent of a racial slur. You've got to be kidding me.

The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials says "we do find that term very offensive and liken it to the 'n' word as well."  This group is urging the use of the phrase "undocumented workers." Have we reached a point in society where if we don't like the truth, we simply choose a less offensive way to express it?

They are illegal aliens. They're here illegally, and they're aliens. How about this for a new term: law-breakers. 

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS 

Remember the Frontline documentary the Lost Children of Rockdale County about a syphilis outbreak among teens there? Well, I'm glad Rockdale County Government Schools are continuing to take steps to combat this sort of behavior.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

An interesting look at the outsourcing of jobs to India. Thomas Friedman writes that what comes around, goes around, and it ultimately benefits Americans.

Michael Barone says that President Bush has officially started his campaign for re-election. The gloves are now off.

Will Kerry's radical anti-Vietnam stances upon returning from the war matter in the election? Hugh Hewitt attempts to find out.

The media continues to twist Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress.  Read it for yourself here, without all the selective sound bites.

Newsmax reports that Perky Katie Couric is melting down at the Today show over sagging ratings. They're calling her "the new Rosie O'Donnell." It's an interesting report that just proves that things aren't always what they seem.

What a difference $26.6 million makes. Critics of 'The Passion of the Christ' are retracting their reviews now that the movie is turning out to be a blockbuster. What a bunch of bandwagon-jumpers.

Brace yourself for liberal hysteria: the Bush administration has reversed the Clinton administration policy and decided not to ban all anti-personnel land mines by 2006.  How long before the media accuses President Bush of killing children?

Sorry ladies....she's taken. Rosie O'Donnell married her long-time girlfriend in San Francisco yesterday.  Maybe now she'll stay off my TV set forever.

Jonah Goldberg writes that "Let them eat cake" economics distorts the free market. Something to think about the next time you hear some liberal talking head bring this up.

Oliver North writes that it's been a good week...which means an absolutely terrible week for the Democrats.

Rich Lowry gives more statistics about the rebounding economy. Don't believe the doom and gloom from the liberals running for president. The sky is not falling.

In case you were doing something more productive, like maybe watching paint dry and missed last night's Democratic debate, here is a complete transcript in all its glory.

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

Neal's Fans Get Together
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:

• Talkmaster Yahoo Group
• Meet Boortz fans in your area
• alt.fan.neal.boortz newsgroup (note, you're going to have to figure out newsgroups all on your own)

Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!