Some people think that Democrats have become too statist. How could they possibly have come to that conclusion?
I guess Democrats were worried that Republicans had already gotten too much mileage out of “you didn’t build that,” so they helpfully offered up another tasty soundbite that Republicans will be able to use in ads for the next nine weeks.
It’s shaping up to be a fine convention as Democrats let go of any pretension of not being governed by the far left of the party. Don’s already highlighted one odious aspect of their platform, and Ace details some more juicy nuggets.
Small businesses employ half of all working Americans, and, over the last two decades, have created two out of three net new jobs. Democrats believe that small businesses are the engine of job growth in America. President Obama signed 18 small-business tax cuts to encourage with a tax credit to help pay for the cost of coverage. In 2014, the tax credit will grow and small businesses will be able to pool their purchasing power together to get affordable coverage.
We recognize the importance of small business to women, people of color, tribes, and rural America and will work to help nurture entrepreneurship.
It’s very helpful that the Democrats emphasized the importance of small business to people of color and tribes, though they left out several other key interest groups. I really wish someone had filmed the meeting or meetings where the platform was put together. They could have captured a great debate over which special interest groups to cover in that sentence.
“It should say we recognize the importance of small business to women, people of color, recovering meth addicts, and violinists.”
“That’s absurd. We need to mention gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, transmutated, and former NFL players diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome.”
“I agree that we should include the transmutated, but what about urban hipsters and people who still use Myspace?”
“I think it goes without saying that Democrats recognize the importance of small businesses for people who still use Myspace, but we risk alienating space aliens.”
“That’s offensive! You know that we are not permitted to use that word.”
“Oh. Right. Sorry. Undocumented interstellar travelers.”
Break out the beer and popcorn, because this is going to be an entertaining couple of days.
Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have written an op-ed in which they call upon the FCC to revoke the licences of radio stations that carry the Rush Limbaugh show.
That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh’s program, has defended his recent comments.
If Clear Channel won’t clean up its airways, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “in the public interest?”
Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.
In the course of an op-ed calling upon the government to restrict free speech rights, the authors compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels.
I know that Wikipedia is not the greatest source of information, but it usually gets the basics correct. From the article on Goebbels:
Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany.
From Webster’s dictionary:
Irony : 3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity
Fonda, Morgan, and Steinem might want to have a look at this book before taking to the keyboard again.