For those following the XM-Sirius Merger, comes a request from terrestrial radio competitor, Clear Channel.
‘One of the primary potential dangers to free, over-the-air radio posed by this merger is siphoning popular, including ‘edgy’ content, with consequent loss of advertising revenue,’ Clear Channel wrote to the FCC on March 11th. ‘That potential harm is mitigated if broadcast decency rules were to apply to the merged entity. There is no constitutional bar to such a condition.’
Clear Channel’s request highlights a problem with FCC laws today. Since the FCC governs only public “airwaves”, commercial radio goes uncensored. Clear Channel wants reciprocity so it can remain competitive. I do not agree with Clear Channel’s proposal, however. Commercial radio should not be censored. The same goes for public radio. Government interference with terrestrial radio results in additional expense to consumers who want freedom of listening.
The question for us to ask is this: Is it more beneficial to protect the few with sensitive ears and force the rest of us to pay for the benefit of this liberty, or would we be better off letting advertisers and individuals determine for themselves what is appropriate through listening behavior?
Introduction
With all of the presidential primary commotion in the news each evening, it makes sense for Jarjac to cover certain hot-button issues. Candidates focus on the issue of healthcare in the debates, and considering that about forty-seven million Americans are currently uninsured today, its no wonder this topic receives so much attention.1 The topic of healthcare could easily fill multiple volumes of text. Unfortunately, this complexity makes everyday discussion difficult. Most voters today make decisions about the candidates based off little more than a few media clips and some commentary (which ends up being more opinion than substance). A proper decision requires more information—and you deserve more. In order to engage in an informed democratic discussion on the topic, each of us should at least understand the essentials of the candidates’ policies. This understanding of how healthcare operates has implications based in the current tax code Indeed, healthcare can be complex, but it does not have to be. Read more
A press release from opensecrets.org, a campaign finance tracker, discussing the financial outlook of the current election as of February 4.
Even before a single vote was cast, the candidates running for the White House raised and spent more money in 2007 than in all of seven of the last eight presidential elections, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.
While I may be unpopular in my views, I don’t think anything could be better for democracy than spending increased amounts in personal donations. While I hear comments all of the time suggesting that this money could be better spent, to solve “real problems”, I couldn’t disagree more that the money is ill spent. The first thing one must remember when making such an argument is that such donations are made, personally, by a citizen. If an individual does not wish to support a political candidate with his or her money, they are free to spend it elsewhere.
More importantly, I think many people forget that money is, to some extent, a form of speech. In order to achieve the strongest Republic (by which I mean most favorable to the most people), the discussion needs to welcome as many people as possible. Campaign contributions enable this discussion. Still skeptical? Fringe candidates from both parties, such as Edwards and Paul, promote a message outside of the popular views. Contributions enable such ideas to enter the marketplace, opening debate on these less popular issues. Because a variety of viewpoints are represented in the primaries, more popular candidates are forced to address and adopt some of these issues or face losing votes to other competitors. This notably happened when Edwards dropped out of the Democratic primaries. The remaining candidates, in particular Clinton, directly addressed Edwards’ supporters.
Whenever people make decisions for themselves from their own purse, it cannot be a bad thing. If people want their money to go elsewhere, they would do it.
I don’t use them nor do I condone the use of these artificial sweeteners. The warning label alone is enough to keep me away, natural cane sugar suffices. This scientific study states that “rats that ate food sweetened with saccharin ate more, gained more weight and stored more fat over time than rats that ate regular sugar.” The use of these artificial sweeteners causes a biological change in rats, slowing down their metabolism. This has not been tested in humans, but the research suggests a likely correlative effect in humans. When our body ingests something sweet, it is programmed to speed up our metabolism to burn off the incumbent calories, but when the calories just aren’t there, that metabolic response will not kick in. This is the inherent flaw in these artificial sweeteners, they seem to circumvent our bodies natural ability to metabolize calories because it simply does not recognize them for what they are.
I know many people who swear by the artificial sweeteners and none of them are in their “best” shape. I have always had a bad feeling about these things and always favored the natural alternative and this study definitely supports that. This is often my philosophy but, don’t trust the engineered substitute. Nature was perfect before we intervened. Just be informed on what you ingest in your body folks!