Reflections From a Murky Pond

B-B! …. B-B! …. B-B! Mmm, Mmm, Mmm! B-B! …. B-B! …. B-B!

Yes. I can easily picture Obama wanting to take over the airwaves and leading his faithful cultists in “Two Minutes Hate.” The boy does bear a resemblance to George Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984, though I suppose, in Obama’s case, we’d have to call him Big Brutha. What I couldn’t picture was his being able to do so…until now.

Now, Obama’s appointees in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to overhaul the Emergency Alert System so the POTUS can speak to the country at a mere flip of a switch if he feels it’s a national emergency. And, as this is regulation not law, in approximately 30 days this overhaul will happen since the Obama Regime is not known for its bowing to public pressure or comments.

At first glance this seems to be an innocuous addition to Presidential powers. It even, if one doesn’t think too much about it, seems wise and practical to set things up so that, with a push of a button, the POTUS can takeover all of the nations broadcast media in order to speak to the people in the event of any emergency. But what possible emergency could develop that necessitated the POTUS addressing the entirety of the nation with such urgency that he couldn’t abide by- and stay within the normal channels and procedures for doing so? We have successfully navigated two world wars, numerous other armed conflicts, Muslim terrorist attacks, and countless natural disasters and disruptions without any POTUS having to coop the airways by fiat.

And just what would Obama consider a national emergency? As is always the case with any regulations put forth by his appointees in the Executive, it’s left to his discretion. Does the RNC qualify? The Tea Party? Rush Limbaugh? Yet another SCOTUS ruling on Obama’s criminality? Too many States opting out of ObamaCare? Something that Fox News broadcast that Obama doesn’t like and wants to rebut? Will it just be a “comforting” message that he and his are OK in the event of some disaster?

And, what would some future POTUS consider such an emergency to be? Even if Obama doesn’t abuse and misuse this privilege that he’s claiming for himself, it seems far too likely that a future POTUS, possibly as soon as 2016 depending upon who is elected or installed, will do exactly that. Do we, the People really want Big Brother or Big Sister on every TV and radio in the land?

Tags: 1984 | 2014 Elections | 2016 Elections | America | Big Brother | FCC | Media | Obama | Orwell | Politics | Radio | Television | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 19th, 2014 at 7:25 am and is filed under 2014 Election, 2016 Election, Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Bias is natural and inherent in just about anything and everything. It’s natural; as natural of a law as the General Law of Relativity and quite related to it in point of odd fact. In anything approaching science, however, it is inconvenient at best…if one actually wants accurate results. This is because observer bias can color and cloud the results.

It needs to be noted and remembered, however, that those who conduct such research or contract others to conduct it on their behalf are only inconvenienced by such bias if and when they desire truthful, accurate, and objective results. This is far from the norm, especially when the government with its many and diverse perceived vested interests is performing or paying for the research in question.

A Case In Point

The FCC’s recently suspended – not cancelled – hunt for “station bias” and for television news teams not meeting the “Critical Information Needs” of specially protected demographics was based upon methodology and metrics developed for them under contract by Social Solutions International, which is a “minority owned” firm enjoying the pecuniary advantages of their 8(a) status.

In and of itself, SSi’s 8(a) status is just barely the appearance of bias. What is telling is their self-identification and mission statement.

About Us

Social Solutions is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world.

Company Overview

Social Solutions International, Inc. (Social Solutions) is a Hispanic and woman owned 8(a) and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB). Social Solutions emphasis is on quality research and evaluation, development of evidence-based education materials, and cultural adaptation and translation.

Mission Statement

Social Solutions International, Inc. is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of social and health solutions to improve the welfare of underserved populations worldwide.

It is ludicrous at best to even entertain the thought that a company describing itself as a “Small Disadvantaged Business” which is “mission-driven” to “improve the welfare of underserved populations” is capable of- much less willing to deliver objective testing methodologies in any context involving what they consider underserved populations.

The only plausible reason why the FCC would have awarded them the contract was that the FCC didn’t want to be inconvenienced by objectivity. No, instead they were seeking agenda-driven junk science because there was a specific result that they wanted from the study.

And that, my fellow Americans, could be a very inconvenient bias for we, the People.

Tags: America | Bias | FCC | Junk Science | Observer Bias | Politics | Science | Social Solutions | SSi

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 27th, 2014 at 5:30 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in yet another of their attempts to “back door” a reprise of the Fairness Doctrine, enacted a program which they carefully named the, “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.” This would allow the FCC to destroy any that didn’t meet the government’s approval.

It was meant to hunt out “station bias” and to ensure that the desires and interests of special interest minority subcultures were being fully met by television news programing. Such aims were to be accomplished through a combination of interrogating station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and reporters, and by placing government monitors in stations’ news rooms.

The program was scheduled to begin this spring in the “problematic,” Southern market of Columbia, SC., possibly to influence the coverage of 2014 election campaigns.

We Want To Ask You About Your Station Bias

But this has been put “on hold” due to the outrage over it expressed by the American people.

To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters.

— FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

This sounds both reasonably good and like it’s another victory for we, the People over government tyranny. But, while this is an important victory for the First Amendment, it’s only a partial victory in one small battle in the war we must wage to keep the government from controlling all the information we are allowed access to.

Tags: America | Fairness Doctrine | FCC | Free Press | Free Speech | Information Warfare | Media | News | Politics | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 22nd, 2014 at 12:50 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Back in 2003 ABC aired an episode of NYPD Blue that “featured” a seven-second shot of Charlotte Ross’ naked butt and the side of one of her breasts as she prepared to take a shower.

The always eager censors at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stridently screamed foul and hit the network with a $1.2 million fine for indecency in 2008.

Sadly for the FCC, on Tuesday, January 4, 2010 a federal appeals court in New York struck down the fine.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan decided Tuesday to nullify a $27,500 penalty that the FCC imposed on ABC and 45 of its affiliate stations after the image was broadcast on the police drama for less than seven seconds in February 2003. The combined fine was greater than $1.2 million.

The appeals court said its finding was consistent with its decision last year that TV stations can no longer be fined for fleeting, unscripted profanities uttered during live broadcasts.

Of course the FCC should have, and probably did, expect this ruling. It is completely consistent in findings and reasons with the Court’s earlier rulings on “fleeting obscenity” and “transient nudity,” rendered on July 13, 2010 and July 21, 2008 respectively.

Getting To The Bottom Of The FCC’s Complaint

It also falls perfectly in line with other, lower court decisions regarding indecency and obscenity.

I’d like to think that the FCC and other Federal Agencies, especially those solely appointed by the Executive, would sooner rather than later, understand that their inappropriately and unconstitutionally vague mandates and regulations are antithetical to everything that is truly American and an abomination to we, the People.

I rarely say, “There aught to be a law,” because that’s how agencies like the FCC got out of hand in the first place, but perhaps this should be the exception that proves the rule.

Perhaps they should make a law that makes it a federal felony for any member of- or employee of the federal government to knowingly violate the US Constitution. Preferably it would be a capital crime punishable by death and only punishable by death – specifically, hanged by the neck until dead and their corpses left to rot at the foot of the Capitol steps as a warning.

It would certainly save a lot of taxpayers’ money if they weren’t consistently in expensive and losing litigation trying to defend their wrongdoing.

I’m not going to expect it though. Such agencies do not willingly relinquish any form or level of power; it must be taken from by force, either of fiat by the Courts or of arms by we, the People.

~*~

And for those people who just love side views of women’s breast – called “sideboobs” or “sidebreasts” – here’s a gallery you might enjoy. I know I enjoyed creating it. 😛

I’m also sure that many of you will find Reflections From A Murky Pond by accident while searching for such images as those depicted above. I’m a little sorry to disappoint you insofar as the overall content of this blog is concerned, but please do read a post or two; you might find them interesting, if often less than prurient.

Tags: ABC | Babes | Breasts | Butts | Charlotte Ross | Courts | FCC | Federal Courts | New York | Nudes | Sideboobs | Sidebreasts | Television | Women

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 9th, 2011 at 3:01 pm and is filed under Politics, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The seven dirty words are seven words in the English language that were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves – television or radio – in the United States. Comedian George Carlin first listed them in 1972 in his monologue “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television”.  The words were avoided in scripted material, and”bleeped out”  in those rare instances in which they were used.

That sort of censorship was true then in 1972, and it remained largely true throughout the intervening years, but it looks like it has now changed, possibly dramatically.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 a federal appellate court threw out the FCC’s rules on indecent speech. This is a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government’s power to control what is said on television and radio. For now, the court’s ruling will likely end the commission’s campaign to keep the airwaves clean of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of punitively large fines.

From the Wall Street Journal:

A federal appeals court threw out the FCC’s rules on indecent speech Tuesday, in a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government’s power to control what is said on television and radio.

A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policies violate the First Amendment and are “unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here.”

The decision doesn’t mean broadcast TV and radio shows will now be littered with profanity, because advertisers and viewers would likely complain. But the ruling will likely end, for now, the commission’s campaign to cleanse the airwaves of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of hefty fines.

“I think the notion that broadcasters are going to be dropping f-bombs in prime time is ludicrous,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. “If we wanted to do that we could do that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.,” when FCC indecency standards don’t apply.

Ashby Jones and Joe White discuss the ruling by a federal appeals court that struck down the FCC’s indecency policy. The court said the agency’s efforts to punish broadcasters for allowing “fleeting” expletives was “unconstitutionally vague.”

The judges found that the agency’s decision to sanction broadcasters’ airing of one-time or “fleeting” expletives is unconstitutional, and suggested the FCC’s broader indecency enforcement efforts are unconstitutional as well.

Fox along with other broadcasters sued the FCC in 2006 after the agency said the networks had violated indecency rules when airing “un-bleeped” profanities of celebrities during live televised events and levied heavy fines and penalties against them. Since the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed the broadcasters’ lawsuit President Obama’s FCC will have to take this the US Supreme Court if they wish to continue continue to police the language used in broadcast media as they have been doing.

Tags: 1st Amendment | America | CBS | Courts | FCC | Fox | Freedom | Janet Jackson | Law | Media | Obama | Obscenity | Politics | Radio | Television | The Constitution | US Supreme Court

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 17th, 2010 at 9:21 am and is filed under Politics, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.