Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Advertisements

Zapple Doctrine

50 Comments


Last week I posted two responses to a blog at the Daily Kos done by Sue Wilson. Where she stated that;

Next Tuesday, we will have a press conference to announce the results of our monitoring of WISN and WTMJ talk radio shows. I can’t give you details until then, but suffice it to say those stations think they don’t have to give comparable time when they really do.

Well they released the results I will not get into the results because they do not matter, that’s right Sue THEY DO NOT MATTER! Here is the intro;

Starting May 9th, the first day of what has become known as the Scott Walker recall campaign, members of the Media Action Center Wisconsin monitored the five “Conservative” Talk Radio programs aired in prime dayparts in the Milwaukee radio market. The shows include those hosted by Mark Belling, Vicki McKenna, and Jay Weber on WISN, the 50,000 watt radio station licensed to Clear Channel, and Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner on WTMJ, the 50,000 watt radio station licensed to Journal Communications. Both stations are called “News Talk” by their corporate owners. Both reach far beyond the city of their license, into most of the state of Wisconsin and beyond.

At the end she gets to the point of this whole exercise.

3) Determine whether the talk programs qualify as “bonafide news” per FCC requirements for exemptions for comparable time under Section 315(a) of the Communications Act or under the FCC’s “Quasi-Equal Opportunities” rule, known as the Zapple Doctrine.
Section 315 (a) of the Communications Act imposes Equal Opportunities for candidates on broadcast stations. It says that (a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station. If a program is considered “bonafide news” they are exempt from this rule.
I highlighted the pertinent section in red, neither she or her group is a candidate so she does not qualify for equal time, free or otherwise even if her complaints were valid. But then here complaints are not valid. this is from a broadcasting guide done by an award winning FCC attorney.

What is a “bona fide news or news interview program”?
Obviously, news programs and news interview programs, like “Meet the Press” or “Face the Nation,” are bona fide news interview programs. But, in recent years, the FCC has liberalized the definition of a news
interview program to include programs that may be primarily entertainment, but which regularly feature
discussions with newsmakers. The Howard Stern program and that of Don Imus, have both been declared by the FCC to be bona fide news interview programs when there was an interview with a candidate,
controlled and directed by the station.

But then again only the candidate can demand equal time!
On to her main complaint about partisanship she herself called both stations “Conservative Talk radio “ and that is exactly what they are, they don’t hide their bias as a matter of fact if you click on the bio’s of the first three people that she named they proudly advertise that fact, that is why people tune in! Are they violating the law by doing this, hell no! again from a renowned FCC Attorney.

How is it that these programs can take political positions without triggering requirements that opposing candidates get equal time? Under FCC rules, unless a candidate’ recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities. In the past, until the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by declaring it to be unconstitutional, even without a candidate appearance, the station would have had an obligation to give both sides of a controversial issue of public importance, such as an election, free time to respond to on-air statements by an announcer. When the doctrine was abolished, stations were free to air pointed programs taking positions on issues, giving rise initially principally to the conservative commentators, and more recently to their more liberal counterparts such as those heard on Air America radio.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do. Similarly, a station can take a position on a ballot issue, or on another controversial issue of public importance in their communities without having to provide time to those with opposing viewpoints – allowing stations to fully participate in their communities political life. Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations even had to give time to those with viewpoints opposed to parties who bought time on a controversial issue if the opponents could not themselves afford to buy time. The occasional discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine ignores these issues.

So no they are not violating the law or the FCC rules. People tune in to “Conservative Talk Radio” for exactly that reason, to get it from a Conservative viewpoint just as the Progressives tune in to the “Ed Shultz Show” which I might add are bound by the same FCC rules, yet she failed to study or show the obvious bias of that show.

She also claims to have made a formal complaint to the FCC the link to the formal complaint is broken so here is what I could get from her site.

Minutes ago, I filed a formal complaint on behalf of citizens of Wisconsin with the FCC concerning Milwaukee’s WTMJ and WISN radio.

Both stations are violating the FCC’s Quasi-Equal Opportunities Doctrine (Zapple Doctrine) which provides that if a radio station gives free airtime to supporters of one major political party candidate, it must provide comparable time to supporters of the other major political party candidate.

Supporters of Tom Barrett are demanding their rights in the remaining days of the Scott Walker recall election, and we have asked the FCC to intervene immediately.

Get real Sue, you can stomp your feet and hold your breath but the First Amendment still stands.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press . . . which is why the “Fairness doctrine was shot down it’s un-Constitutional, period. But these little crybabies don’t want equal speech otherwise they would buy their own radio station. That is what the Zapple Doctrine was about, buying time on stations but these little crybabies want it free as can be seen from their video.

Again the Zapple Doctrine is about buying time on a station period as FCC attorney David Oxenford writes.

The Zapple case, as we wrote here and here, held that where supporters of a candidate are allowed to buy time on a station, supporters of the opposing candidate should also be allowed to buy roughly equivalent amounts of time.

Here is yet another source on the Zapple Doctrine.

C. The Zapple Doctrine
The Zapple Doctrine, named for a case brought by Nicholas Zapple, then-Chief Counsel for the Senate Communications Subcommittee, is a principle describing what has been termed a ―quasi equal opportunity‖ for third party supporters of a political candidate.61 The Commission created this doctrine to deal with potential political imbalances that could be brought about by the influence of third party supporters of candidates seeking to enhance a candidate‘s campaign but seeking to avoid triggering the equal opportunities provided to opposing candidates by Section 315.62 The Zapple Doctrine does not entitle supporters of a candidate to buy the same amount of air time as opposing third parties, but rather entitles a supporter of a candidate an opportunity to buy comparable air time.63 The anti-censorship provisions of Section 315 do not apply in this context.64 Similarly, the immunities granted to broadcasters of defamatory political speech do not appear to extend to third party advertisements aired pursuant to the Zapple Doctrine, as access to the station would not be pursuant to either Section 312 or Section 315.65

So no matter how they try to spin it, the Zapple Doctrine applies to buying time on a station. the equal access rules apply to candidates only!

This is nothing more than a feeble attempt to backdoor the unconstitutional “fairness doctrine” and silence speech they find objectionable.

I also see Sue that your site says that the FCC acknowleges this!

Surprisingly, given the general lack of response by the FCC to the general public, the federal agency instantly responded to a March 10th letter from Roger Smith, of the broadcast watchdog Sacramento Media Group. Smith complained about the gross imbalance of political viewpoints on the public airwaves in Sacramento, citing a study that Clear Channel stations in Sacramento devote 190 hours per week to Right Wing talk, while devoting not a single minute to any other viewpoint (a model perpetuated throughout 90% of the country.)
.
The FCC responded with the following: “…broadcast stations enjoy freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and the FCC is prohibited by statute from censoring or dictating program content. The result is that stations are free to air pretty much whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency) – even if the material is false, misleading, or slanted

.”

Standing Up For Our Rights In RADIO?

2 Comments


Sue Wilson over at DAILY KOS shows ignorance of both broadcasting and the law.

She writes;

But what Holden may or may not have known is that, in the 60 days prior to an election, if broadcasters sell or give time to one major political party candidate or its supporters, they must, by law, offer comparable time to the opposing major political party candidate or its supporters. (See Section 315a of the Communications Act and the Zapple Doctrine.)

I am a life long broadcaster who has held just about every position in the industry save GM. I am very acquainted with the FCC rules. For one thing yes there are equal time rules under certain circumstances, talk radio is not one of those circumstances an that time is granted to its supporters. Need proof, well here are those instances where equal time is afforded.

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events
So newsflash Sue, talkshow hosts are NOT candidates and do NOT constitute time given to a political canadate.

There was a parallel provision that was repealed in the 80’s called the “fairness doctrine” but as Dan Fletcher at Time magazine points out, that did not apply to talk show hosts either!

The act is rooted in the media world of 1949, when lawmakers became concerned that by virtue of their near-stranglehold on nationwide TV broadcasting, the three main television networks — NBC, ABC and CBS — could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda. . . .
Both sides are likely overstating the doctrine’s import. Even if it were to return, liberals would have a hard time co-opting the Fairness Doctrine to limit conservative talk radio to the degree they might like. The FCC has never applied the Fairness Doctrine to a talk radio host, nor does the regulation force stations to give equal time for every perspective.



Of course people vote every day by engaging the RF filter in the first stage of their radio receiver (commonly known as the tuner) These votes are regularly recorded and published in what we in the business affectionately call “the book” which the public knows as the Arbitron. That vote even took place in your beloved “Peoples Republic of Madison” where you were soundly trounced.

By electing to tune into a conservative talk station I choose to hear views from that perspective. I choose who enters my home by virtue of that choice. What Mz Wilson proposes is that she has the right to force me to listen to her views.

Of course logic and reason escape these people, the people who elect to listen to conservative talk radio have already made up their mind. You people have already shown up at TEA Party events with your noisemakers and megaphones, how’s that working for you, get many converts. As my seventh grade science teacher use to say, “The empty barrel makes the most noise.” And what noise you people make. You remind me of the spoiled little kid in the store having a tantrum because mommy won’t buy you that toy. You think that if you get on a conservative talk show and you whine enough and make enough noise that you will make converts?

Of course your hypocracy is amazing. You make the claim of scarcity and that you lack an outlet to be heard.. Your words.

Broadcasting also differs from newspapers and cable in that the number of frequencies available in one community are few, so only a limited number of local stations are possible. Physical scarcity is the foundation of all broadcast law.

  1. In case you didn’t know it there are approximately 14,000 stations in the United States as opposed to how many cable stations? You see Mz Wilson all cable is provided via satellite delivery and that bandwidth is even more limited. So when you get your talking heads at MSNBC to give equal time and access to liberty minded TEA Party Libertarians such as myself, then and only then will I believe that you believe in equal access. When you demand that the likes of Mr Ed (the horses . . . Well you know) Shultz give equal time to the likes of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, then and only then will you have any credibility.. When you get the Main Stream Media to treat us TEA party patriots with the same reverence as they do you Fleabaggers in the Occupy movement, well then and only then will you have any credibility. Until then you will come across as the spoiled little brats that you are, those that demand access to someone else’s time on someone else’s dime. And that your true goal is not the promotion of free speech, but to stifle opposing speech, but then we know your kind.

z

UPDATE

Why Scott Walker is Right!

1 Comment


The recent activity in Madison is creating conflict even amongst friends. The pro union people see this as an assault on unions in general. I come from a family that had people on opposite sides of the issue. One grandfather was a Union organizer for the International Association of Machinists who espoused why the unions were necessary and why they came about. The other worked in Management who constantly complained that the unions obstructed him from hiring the best person for the job and how it was almost impossible to get the job done on time because of the unions.

The entire concept of unions was the workers fighting against oppressive employers. If the state or the Federal government is oppressive it is time to replace the government not have a union that protects just a minority of the population.

This is not an attack on unions in general, just public sector unions. Most people don’t realize the lobbying power of labor unions. They also don’t realizes that while the teachers union alone only 45% of the teachers are Democrats yet the teachers yet the union gave 94% of their donations to the Democrats.

 

This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to comprehend. For starters these donations don’t politically represent the due paying members. They are paid by the taxpayers and therefore the dues are paid by the taxpayers. So in essence taxpayers are paying for lobbying efforts that may not be in the taxpayers interest.

Worse yet, collective bargaining is suppose to be an adversarial process. How often do the employees get to vote on who the opposing negotiator will be. If public sector workers were independent contractors hired by the government and competing for the job they would have a legitimate argument but they are not, they are part of the government as government employees so if they strike it is the government striking against the taxpayer.

Even FDR (the patron saint of unions) saw the conflict of interest with public sector unions.

For example, although he had a lock on labor’s vote, he expressed caution about public sector unions. In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

This is not about workers working in a sweat shop here, we are talking about the government and the right of the government to Unionize against the taxpayers.

AGAIN’ IF YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!

A Wisconsin Patriot, lets hear it for property rights.

Leave a comment


A local bar owner has received three recent citations for failing to comply with the state’s smoking ban by aShoot’s Bar and Grill owner Steve Schuette received three citations in November and December for allowing bar patrons to enter a back room in the empty residence connected to the bar to smoke, sheriff’s department records said.

According to one of the related reports, Schuette told officers that he knew using the area for smoking is illegal but that building owner Bill Symes wants to challenge the state smoking ban in court.

Schuette is due in Suamico Municipal Court Jan. 19. He did not return calls for comment on Friday.llowing patrons to smoke in a nearby room, according to Brown County Sheriff’s Department records.

A few questions for the Brown Shirts

1) This was a private residence attached to the bar?

2) Was business conducted in this residence?

3) Was admittance by invite only?

Wisconsin Constitution

Private property for public use. SECTION 13. The property
of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation
therefor.

______________________________________________________________________________

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Why We Can’t Wait, 1963

Smoking ban impacts businesses

1 Comment


NORTHEAST WISCONSIN – It’s been six months since a statewide smoking ban took effect in Wisconsin.

On July 5th, 2010 – bars, restaurants and workplaces were required to go smoke free. So if you wanted to light up, you had to take it outdoors.

That’s had quite an impact on some area taverns, like Jerry’s Bar in Oshkosh

“I’ve seen a slight drop in business, and I compare it with other businesses in town,” explained owner Scott Engel.

He says other businesses and bar owners he’s talked with have seen about a 20% drop in business since the ban took effect.

Surgeon General Blows Smoke Up Our . . .

7 Comments


Michael J McFadden writes

The problem lies in the mixing up of science, idealism, activism, and politics. The resulting brew would make Mickey run out of the room faster than a Dormouse could scream “Fantasia!” as it was being swallowed by the Cheshire Cat. I won’t try to claim that I’ve read the whole 700 pages or even a good bit of it, but I’m familiar enough with the science to know where some of the dirty laundry might be hidden and poked around in those corners to find things like the Otsuka study highlighted last week.

Is this misuse of science something that ONLY occurs with Antismokers though? Maybe not. Here are two articles dealing with our climate. They’re ten years apart. One is dealing with the sort of fantasyland predictions we’ve seen with the WHO proclaiming 600,000 deaths a year due to “passive smoking” while the other has a base a bit more firmly rooted in reality.

He then goes on to say.

Why? Simple: The Report, despite its 700 pages of largely well-done science, takes that science and then distorts it to support two ulterior goals:

1) Instilling an unreasonable fear of a practice that has become more popular in recent years than in past times, namely “social smoking” where people who do not normally smoke will join friends who have been exiled to smoking areas and light up with those friends to make them feel more comfortable. And,

2) Basically fabricating a fear from the almost completely non-existent evidence that there could be any significant level of harm from occasional or mild exposures to the smoke of others.

I couldn’t agree with him more. There is far to much science by political agenda, it’s almost enough to make one question the integrity of scientist in general. First to the point of the video. A lot has been said about sticky platlets by anti-smoking activist like Stanton Glantz.

On this Subject Dr Michael Siegel points out.

The truth is that brief secondhand smoke exposure is likely to trigger a heart attack only in people with severe existing coronary artery disease. And for such individuals, there are so fragile that any exposure which increases platelet aggregation and causes endothelial dysfunction — is also likely to trigger a heart attack. There is no mechanism I know of by which secondhand smoke is the only exposure that can trigger a heart attack in some who is brittle enough so that a mere 20 minute exposure to tobacco smoke is going to trigger a heart attack. The same hypercoagulability and endothelial dysfunction is also caused by eating high-fat foods and even by mental stress. It doesn’t follow that you are going to prevent this person from having a heart attack merely by asking them to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke. Moreover, there is simply no scientific evidence to support the assertion that by avoiding secondhand smoke exposure, we will prevent heart attacks among individuals with severe coronary artery disease.

Now in full disclosure Dr Siegel believes the science justifies smoking bans but he will be the first to tell you that many experts disagree with his conclusions, he is no absolutist but an honest scientist who refuses to use junk science to defend his position. Before I get into the DNA change claims I want to get into the no safe level claimed by the 2006 SG report. This is actually the highly controversial Linear No-Threshold Theory. Which means that for radiation the dose response curve is not a curve but is linear. many of us fighting smoking ban have been critical of the American Cancer Society because they are more interest in wealth rather then curing cancer and as Dr Siegel points out it is all about political agenda and wealth. This is the first time I have seen the good Dr do this.

If it were only science, and not politics, that were dictating policy, the FDA would have removed the X-ray scanners from public use long ago, and would have demanded that adequate data be presented to demonstrate the safety of these devices among vulnerable population groups. The FDA would have demanded to see the type of data that the UCSF researchers have called for.

If it were only science, and not politics, that were dictating policy, the American Cancer Society would have called for the removal of these X-ray scanners from the market – along with electronic cigarettes (or it would not have called for a ban on either product).

For the ACS – at least – money is also an apparent factor. The ACS receives money from Big Pharma companies that manufacture smoking cessation drugs and stand to lose substantial sales if electronic cigarettes become popular.

The approval of whole body X-ray scanners for use on nearly a million people a day in the United States, coupled with the ban on electronic cigarettes – which save tens of thousands of people a day from exposure to the carcinogens in tobacco smoke – represents one of the largest inconsistencies in federal public health policy of which I am aware.

It is only January 3, but the FDA and the American Cancer Society are well on their way to putting themselves into contention for the Tobacco Control Hypocrisy Award of 2011. . . Also in line for the hypocrisy award is the office of the United States Surgeon General, which has warned that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke because even minute exposure to a potential carcinogen is dangerous.

This is relevant because because in theory the dose response for radiation is linear (no safe level) now the dose response curve has never been shown to be linear for active smokers much less then for second hand smoke As I said this theory is highly controversial for radiation (which it was based on) and has never been proven as scientific fact for any chemical substance, dose makes the poison.

FIRST PLACE: United States Surgeon General’s Office

The Lie: (1) “Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack.”; (2) “Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.”

When it comes to the DNA damage tie SG acts like there is something uniquely magical about ETS. I found what Dr Siegel posted in the comment section of this article significant.

Michael Siegel
In response to my statement that: “While the Surgeon General is correct in asserting that the tiniest amount of tobacco smoke can damage your DNA…,” Harry asked:

“The question then becomes, doctor, is tobacco smoke somehow unique, and that the tiniest amount of candle smoke, fireplace smoke, pellet stove smoke, car and diesel exhaust, polluted city air, etc. etc. can NOT damage a person’s DNA?”

My answer, Harry, is that tobacco smoke is not unique and that you are right – one could also assert that the tiniest amount of any carcinogenic exposure, including diesel exhaust, polluted air, and fireplace smoke, can damage a person’s DNA. This is precisely why the Surgeon General’s statement is so meaningless.

And how many of the so called deaths by second hand smoke can be caused by the persistent free radicals we breath in every day? In highly polluted areas you could be inhaling a weeks worth of cigarettes each and every day.

Louisiana scientists are reporting in a study scheduled for presentation today at the 236th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. Inhaling those pollutants exposes the average person up to 300 times more free radicals daily than from smoking one cigarette, they added.

The discovery could help explain the long-standing medical mystery of why non-smokers develop tobacco-related diseases like lung cancer, said H. Barry Dellinger, Ph.D., the Patrick F. Taylor Chair of Environmental Chemistry at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. 

This could explain why parts of California who has the second lowest smoking rate and yet there are parts that have extremely high lung cancer rates.  As a matter of fact it appears to be clustered in certain areas.  So it is not as simple as tobacco smoke. Not to mention that some reports claim that Radon is the no 1 cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, but then again there always is HPV. There is a reason that risk ratios as low as 1.3 are not widely accepted as proof of anything.

Older Entries