(A Short) Eulogy For A Statesman

This morning, I found myself witnessing a somber affair; the funeral of former US Senator Joseph Lieberman, who died this past Wednesday at the age of eighty-two. It's not often that I give out high praise for Democrats, but by way of eulogy, I will do so here (1).    

When thinking of the deceased, the first word that comes to my mind is "decent".    

Joe Lieberman was a man of common decency, the qualities of which are sadly uncommon today. He may or may not have gotten my vote; I didn't always agree with his positions. However, he met with my admiration because he was always willing to stand up for his own principles, even when doing so meant he had to go it alone.

As a public servant, Lieberman was a person of great candor (see definition); a straight-shooter with, dare I say, refreshing honesty. And as an everyday citizen, the Stamford resident seemed to approach life with good humor, and a smile.

Joseph Lieberman served his state, country, and God with honor and distinction. He was a friend to many, and a political role model for some. I regard him as one of the last "good Democrats".  

Ultimately, Lieberman was an intelligent and sensible voice; one of reason and humility. In this world that seems to have turned upside down, he will be greatly missed (2).

My Thoughts On The FCC

For the past few days, I’ve been reading about how small microbroadcasters are routinely harassed by the“powers that be”. One such story of interest has greatly grabbed my attention. 

In May of 1998, a low-power outlet known as “Steal This Radio” brought an action against the FCC in federal court for the Southern District of New York. The operators claimed laws against unlicensed broadcasting to be unconstitutional, and requested that the Commission be legally barred (through injunction) from seizing the station and its equipment (1).

On March 16 1999, after a contentious ten months of argument on the matter, judge Michael Mukasey decided in favor of the government, denying the station’s request (2).

Again mentioning the disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer, here’s why I think the Court got this one wrong.

First off, the judge discusses the topic of jurisdiction, holding by implication that the Court is not the proper venue for a challenge to Commission regulations; the Commission itself is.

I find a good deal of fault with this; the judge is basically saying that the Commission is “judge, jury, and executioner” on all matters regarding licensing. To me, that idea seems to fly in the face of “redress of grievances”, and is thus misguided (3).

Also, if the FCC is the sole arbiter of its own rulings, how can one effectively challenge such decisions? In such cases, hoping that a judgment against you will be overturned is an exercise in futility and false hope; for the “big boys” will always look after their own. It’s a bit like a prisoner getting to decide his own punishment.

Second, the defense asserted that “there is no First Amendment right to broadcast”. I think this argument is fallacious (see definitions) in its nature.

Let’s take a quick look at the Amendment in question. It says,“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Now, past precedence notwithstanding, I don’t recall seeing anything there to the effect of “except on the airwaves”. Maybe I missed it, but it doesn’t appear that such a phrase is included among the right to free press and free speech.

Having discussed the “Steal This Radio” case, let’s examine some statements that the Commission has made in defense of its enforcement tactics.

1: “Broadcasting isn’t a public forum. We can’t allow everyone to broadcast: there would be anarchy!"

Somehow, I don’t think everybody and their brother are clamoring to get on the air. People have other hobbies...like stamp collecting. And the airwaves don’t belong to Washington.

2: “Unlicensed broadcasters are a danger to the public, because they interfere with emergency services.”

It could just be me not paying attention, but I haven’t heard of even one station that has intentionally done this (have you?).

3: “Low-power stations interfere with full-power stations.”

In my experience, many such stations take great pains not to do this. By the way, how is a dinky five watt station in the middle of nowhere going to interfere with a fifty thousand watt powerhouse? Scientifically speaking, this makes no sense at all!

4: “Some people don’t cooperate with us.”

Constitutionally speaking, people don’t have to. See the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, right not to engage in self-incrimination, and right to refuse to speak unless accompanied by an attorney. And in the event that you want to inspect, get a warrant, flat-foot!

5: “Well, the rights cited in Point 4 only apply to those accused of a crime.”

Oh, pardon me then. As similarly explained before, I must’ve missed the part of the Fourth Amendment that says, “except in cases where no crime has been alleged”. 

Here’s the bottom line; the FCC seems to be nothing but a big bunch of bullies. Since when do I need to ask the government for permission to speak? And since when does the government, if it doesn’t like what I’m saying, get to deny me that permission?

That’s not what “a free country” is all about!

Considerations (And Commentary)

Some thoughts on the ongoing saga that is professional wrestling. I will preface this by saying I have absolutely no involvement with World Wrestling Entertainment/the TKO Group; what follows is simply one fan's opinion.  

If you haven't heard, the somewhat checkered coat of Vince McMahon just got a little more colorful. A former WWE employee has accused him of sexual assault, as well as other crimes that are of a similar nature (1). 

Everyone's been talking about these claims; for one, the press seems all too eager to proclaim the fall of the House of McMahon. That said, before we throw "Vinny Mac" into the slammer (and slam the door shut), let's go over a few things.  

First, let's consider the idea of due process. 

Right now, the whole "dogpile on Vince" thing seems to be the cool path to follow. The problem with this is that McMahon has not yet had his day in court. 

Like any other American so charged, the accused has a right to defend himself before judge and jury. Why so many people are willing to declare McMahon guilty, even though he has not yet been proven to be so, is beyond me. That's not exactly the way it works. 

Second, let's talk motive. 

Even with all the talk of what McMahon might or might not have done, there's a possibility that this is simply a power play of sorts; a false narrative concocted by those scheming to control a vast business empire. 

That wouldn't completely surprise me. After all, the allure of power and money can be very intoxicating, and you don't get to the top without making a few enemies along the way. 

It is also within the realm of possibility that this controversy is merely part of a wrestling storyline, or "work". Traditionally, WWE has done a very good job of "blurring the lines"; perhaps this instance is yet another example of the time-honored art of "kayfabe" (2).

Finally, let's review the historical legacy of WWE.  

From its earliest days, the company has always been run by McMahons, having been founded by Vince's grandfather (as the "Capitol Wrestling Corporation") in 1953. The fact that multiple generations have played a part in its success should be a point of pride for the family; at least, it would be in mine (3).

 

And love him or hate him, nobody can deny that Vince McMahon has created a product that is enjoyed by millions of people throughout the world. It's not right to try to destroy a family legacy based solely on a "he said, she said" affair. 

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that this is what's happening. Nevertheless, I think we should take a step back before jumping to conclusions. Let us not determine a man's guilt before that man has had his say. 

And as always, if you don't like what you see on television, stop watching it. You have freedom of choice, which includes the choice to turn the TV off.  

Most Attractive Female Reporter In CT

 

Create your own user feedback survey

Encouraging Discussion And Discourse

This was supposed to be a big, long essay. However, I find that sometimes, simplicity is the name of the game.

"Anywho..."

...here's a novel concept for you to consider; a new idea is much like a plant. You see, in order for a plant to grow, it must first be rooted in fertile soil. So too must a worthy idea take root in the human mind.

To this, I believe that open and honest discussion is vital to the interests of quality education, not to mention a functioning society.

Nevertheless, and all too often, trying to talk about the important issues in Fairfield's educational system is an exercise in futility. Those in supervisory roles don't want to have frank discussions pertaining to relative concerns; at least, they seem quite unwilling to do so. 

I personally know that any attempt to speak with school officials results in one getting the run-around, or even the silent treatment.

Yet the arrival of new leadership in Town Hall represents a chance for beneficial changes, and a new, open approach to civil discussion (at least on educational issues).

It is my personal hope that this opportunity will not be taken for granted by educational officials at our schools. Let's make it a point to work with each other, not against one another.

Mixed Emotions

For those of you that may have missed it, Fairfield has a new First Selectman. Democrat Bill Gerber was sworn into office last night, having defeated incumbent Republican Brenda Kupchick by just thirty-seven votes (1). 

I suppose the Democrats are hailing this as a major victory, as well they should. To this, I find myself feeling quite conflicted. 

On the one hand, I am very sorry that I couldn't do anything to help the Republicans. I am acutely aware that my volunteer efforts could have swung some votes to their candidates' favor, and made a difference in that respect.

Nevertheless, on that subject, respect is what my inactivity was all about. 

Personally speaking, the climate that top party officials fostered this year was abundant with disrespect, as well as a general "we can't do anything" attitude. This made the donation of my time and efforts impossible; at least, that's the way I see it.

In any event, and at the risk of sounding "holier-than-thou", I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned from what has just occurred. It is this: sometimes, it's wise to consider the possible repercussions of one's actions or inactions.

Experience has taught me that everything you do comes back to you, whether for good or bad. It's karma; "you reap what you sow". If you treat people with disregard and disrespect, don't be surprised if they want nothing to do with you.

Now, I don't claim to be the world's wisest man; I'm not a guru or a sage. And I would've preferred not to be the teacher, so to speak, of this lesson. 

Notwithstanding this, life's nature is that on occasion, we all have to do things that we don't really want to do. I guess this was one of these non-preferable occasions.

That said, let me address another issue, prefacing it by saying that I apologize if my assessment is incorrect.

This is just an observation, but could it be that I'm getting a little behind-the-back trash talk from personal friends within the town Republicans? As of late, they have been giving me the silent treatment, or so it seems. I understand this, but being as respect is the name of the game, perhaps they should reconsider their attitude.

My final thoughts on this year's races are, again, filled with mixed emotions. 

Obviously, a changing of the guard has taken place in Fairfield. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I see this moment as a sort of refresh; a chance to hit the reset button. Perhaps the incoming administration will bring with it a new willingness for dialogue, and a show of mutual respect; that is my hope.

Yet, even with these hopeful feelings, I must quote David Byrne and the Talking Heads:

"...and you may say to yourself, 'my God, what have I done?" (2)

Controversy In College Football: My Opinion

The latest news in the wild world of sports comes out of the state of Michigan, where the University of Michigan's football team has been accused of cheating. 

An official investigation into this matter is now underway, seemingly prompted by the University of Central Michigan. Their own football team claims that earlier this season, a man resembling former Michigan assistant Connor Stalions was on their sidelines (assumedly engaged in scouting operations, and in violation of NCAA rules) (1).

For their part, the Big Ten Conference has come down hard on the Wolverines, suspending coach Jim Harbaugh (due to "ample evidence" against the program). Nevertheless, even with this suspension, some say the NCAA has not gone far enough (2). 

On Monday morning, the crew from the ESPN show "Get Up" tackled the situation, and the question of whether Michigan should be allowed to participate in the College Football Playoff. 

My take on the subject is contrary to the opinion of reporter Stephen A. Smith, who said this:

"This is about the fact that (Michigan) allegedly...according to the Big Ten...acquired an unfair advantage. Why are you being allowed in if it comes down to that?" (3)

First off, let's understand the key word in the phrase, which is "allegedly". It is alleged, perhaps reasonably, that cheating and violations have taken place. 

Nevertheless, these are allegations, not conclusively proven actions. 

Appearances can be deceiving, and just because someone bought tickets to a lot of games, that in itself isn't enough to substantiate certain charges. The presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" applies here, as it indeed should. 

On a second point, Smith makes the point that, if Michigan is allowed to play, other teams will "miss out" on opportunities:

"What about the kids at Texas? What about the kids at Alabama? Somebody is going to miss out, in favor of those kids that play at Michigan".

In case Mr. Smith didn't notice, Michigan is 10-0; the Wolverines are unquestionably one of the top teams in major college football. As such, they should have a chance to play for a championship; this shouldn't be denied on the basis of as of yet unproven claims (4). 

I don't think this idea is too complicated, or difficult to understand. Winners get championship opportunities; others don't.

And until the case against Michigan is definitively proven, the Wolverines should get their title shot.