Paul Harvey died today at the age of 90.  I’ve been listening to Paul Harvey on and off since high school.  Here was a guy who was entertaining to listen to, even while he was telling me the news.  He made it interesting.  His broadcasts were "visits" rather than "programs", and Saturday was all about human interest stories.

And you gotta’ hand it to him; he at least had the intellectual honesty to call his program "Paul Harvey News and Comment".  These days, comment is passed off as news.  Would that today’s broadcasters held to that same standard and had that same transparency.

My favorite recurring line of his was "Self-government without self-discipline is self-defeating."  This would be the lead-in to some story about a government somewhere either behaving badly or reaping the consequences thereof.  These days, the government of the Palestinians seems to be a daily confirmation of that line, but perhaps the United States today, throwing out fiscal discipline, will also find that to be self-defeating.

I absolutely loved his "The Rest of the Story" feature, even if some of the items were, indeed, urban legends.  Most were not, and they gave us a look at the people and events of the news in a different light, and they always ended with, "And now you know the rest of the story".  In college, during my show on the radio station, I’d read from one of his books that had collections of them.  I even wrote a "Rest of the Story" story of my own.  Once, I recorded a number of his segments off the radio and made my own cassette tape full of them.  And to give you an idea of his tenure, I also did that years later, recording off the Internet and making a CD.  Sometime I read books to my kids, but before the evening’s chapter, I’ll pick up one of those collections and read something from there first.  That is how my children knew Paul Harvey, and why even my thirteen-year-old was a little saddened when he heard of his passing.

My dad introduced me to this fine broadcaster, and my kids knew something of him.  Thus was the staying power of the man, who ended every broadcast with, "Paul Harvey…Good day!"

And now we know the end of the story.

…for weaker and weaker definitions of "hate", notes Eugene Volokh.

From a UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center study titled Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio:

Types of Hate Speech

We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice: (1) false facts [including "simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading"], (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors (table 1).

What a definition!

The example they give should give you pause.  If "exaggerated statements" will get you thrown in jail, we’ll all be either imprisoned or silenced. 

And note that this particular study only looked at "Commercial Talk Radio".  Obama may have come out against the "Fairness Doctrine", but if we get a back-door version of that, this may be how it happens.

Some good news from this administration:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine — a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is really just targeted at radio, where conservative voices dominate.  You typically don’t hear those promoting it complaining that there’s too much liberal bias in this newspaper or that TV network; it’s always a complaint about conservative opinions and ideas.  So the idea that this is about "fairness" is just a smokescreen.

Blogger Dan Riehl is skeptical, though.

Instapundit posts word that Obama does not want the Fairness Doctrine back. Great.

That makes him look like quite the moderate. But the actual doctrine was always a stretch. Get back to me in 3-6 months after we see what his FCC does in terms of "localism."

That’s always been the play more likely to get done. Until I hear something from the FCC, the WH release is what I’m growing accustomed to with Obama: just words.

It is possible to have the effect of a "Fairness Doctrine" without the name, so indeed we’ll see.  But it is nice to get the word from the President.  We’ll hold you to that, sir.

The media has, once again, set up 2 different standards for Republicans and Democrats, this time regarding the spending on inaugurations.

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

For the (unsurprising) answer, read the whole thing.

Shire Network News #153 has been released. Well, it was released on December 21st, I just didn’t post my commentary here.  It’s a look back at the funniest items from Blog News, and a look back at the year 2009.  Yes, that’s 2009.  Meryl and I do a retrospective of the coming year.  Really.   Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News asking you to "Consider This!"

Well, what a year this has been!  Let’s look back and see what 2009 has brought us.

Cooler temperatures:  President Obama, while not having actually had any law enacted or treaty signed regarding global warming, managed to make this year cooler than last year.  Must have been sheer force of will.  And all the papers and news organizations credit him with doing it, so it must be true.  While this year’s temperatures follow the cooling trend that has been going on for the previous 10 years, it’s clearly all a matter of intent.  And speeches; lots of fine-sounding speeches.  So thank you, Mr. President.  Your oratory has saved us.

The Iraqi Olympic Shoe-Throwing Team:  On the one-year anniversary of the day the Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at, um, the previous President (whoever he was), the first team dedicated to this newly-popular sport takes it international.  While not technically an Olympic sport (yet), the Arab countries of the Middle East have come together to promote it to the IOC, and in a mass show of support of the new US President, they have made the shoe target an effigy of that…you know, the guy who was President before…recently.  This is one illustration of the next item:

The world now loves us:  They really love us, ever since we elected a Democrat.  Iraq even allows US troops to be stationed there, thanks to the splendid outcome of "Obama’s Terrorist Intervention" in that country, which began on January 20th of this year.  What more could you ask for?  And Al Qaeda?  Who are they?  Heh heh.  They have gone so far underground that they’re about as active now as they were in, say, 2001, when most Americans had never even heard their name.  Peace on earth has come.

And finally…

Universal Agreement:  Both sides of the political aisle have finally come together to speak with one voice.  No longer is there any disagreement, harsh criticism or mean-spirited arguing.  The recently-passed bill, entitled "The Pelosi/Reid Equal Opportunity in Talk Radio and Radical Right-Wing Internet Commentary Act" (otherwise known as the PREOITRARRWICA), has gone a long way to make sure that the voice of the people is heard loud and clear.  What a joy that blogs and podcasts are now required to give opposing viewpoints; indeed, presenting them positively and in the best possible light. 

So overall, except for perhaps the first 20 days, this year has shown us that America’s best days are ahead of her, if we can just pass that new $2.5 trillion spending bill.  And I’m sure we will.  Consider that!

(This podcast was produced pursuant to the provisions provided in the PREOITRARRWICA.)

NewsBusters is getting the word out, even before Obama is inaugurated, that his choice for Veterans Affairs was not thrown under the bus by the Bush administration.  The myth, which lingered for years, is being given new life, most recently by the Associated Press "news" organization.

Obama also spoke about his latest Cabinet selection, retired Gen. Eric Shinseki to head the Veterans Affairs Department. Shinseki was forced into retirement by the Bush administration after he said the original invasion plan for Iraq did not include enough troops.

His retirement had been announced nearly a year before his testimony.  They also note that FactCheck.org debunked this when it started making the rounds over 4 years ago.

The "narrative" or the news?  The AP has decided which side to err on.

CNN makes an astounding discovery.  Many people are comparing Barack Obama to famous presidents of the past, but the news organization is urging caution.

But will Obama be a great one? Even a good one?

The Americans who are comparing him to those remarkable predecessors are putting a lot of faith in a man they barely know.

In the words of Warner Todd Hudson (to whom the hat tip goes):

And why do we "barely know" Barack Obama, CNN? Is it perhaps because the American media never took the time to vet this man? Is it because all we’ve gotten is hero worship from the media?

The man’s been campaigning for 2 years; the media should have made sure we had more than just bare knowledge of the candidate, but his background, his associates, and even his middle name were considered taboo topics.  But now they tell us we don’t know enough about him.  Thanks.

In what’s sure to be a common theme in the mainstream media in the coming months, the LA Times is just now really investigating Barack Obama’s background.  In this article, it notices that his resume is quite thin.

In his books, speeches and campaign commercials, Sen. Barack Obama has harked back to his days as a civil-rights attorney.

It is fundamental to his autobiography and was displayed on his campaign Web site and woven into his appeals for votes. In one of his television ads leading up to the South Carolina primary, Obama recalled "working as a civil-rights attorney to make sure that everybody’s vote counted."

Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases before entering politics.

Hat tip: NewsBusters.

Of course, this information was available for the past 2 years, and yet only today does it get reported.  How…interesting.

This web site hosts a poll of Obama voters who were asked questions about the US government and the presidential candidates in particular.  The level of non- or mis-information is truly amazing.  There is an accompanying video of 12 of those respondents showing how little they knew about Obama or Biden, but how much they did know about negative reports on Sarah Palin (or mistook what Tina Fey said as a Palin quote). 

While the general lack of knowledge about who Barney Frank is, or who controls the US Congress, may indeed cross political boundaries, what I found interesting is that, of the Obama voters asked, 86% did know that the RNC paid $150,000 for Sarah Palin’s clothes, 93.8% knew she had a pregnant teenage daughter, but only 43.9% knew in who’s home Obama kicked off his political career.  Only 1 of the 12 highlighted in the video even knew the name Bill Ayers.  And yet we were told that the public had heard the Ayers/Weather Underground connection and, based on the continued Obama advantage in the polls, must have considered it uninteresting.

Well perhaps they never heard the information in the first place.  Watch the video and find out where these folks gets their news, and that’ll go a long way to answering that question.

For this who may need a refresher, a tip from LaShawn Barber.

Reading this Newsweek story for a Pajamas Media TV segment I’m taping in an hour tomorrow, one paragraph stopped me cold (emphasis added):

“If this week’s exit polls tell us anything about religion, they remind us that there are tens of millions of voters in this country who believe in God, read their Scripture, pray, regularly attend a house of worship—and do not consider themselves born-again Christians.”

OK. For the record, there is no such thing as a Christian who has not been born again. To say you believe in God, go to church every Sunday, etc., doesn’t mean you’re a Christian. People worship all kind of gods and go to church for various reasons. The questions is, is Christ your Lord and Savior? If someone has been forgiven, he has been born again, no matter what cultural or social connotations the term born again (white fundamentalist Bible-thumpers?) has been burdened with. Those saved by grace through faith in Christ understand what the term means biblically.

Born again or rebirth in Christ refers to the process that takes place when Christ saves/forgives someone. Here’s the imagery: the former man was crucified with Christ, and the new man was resurrected with Christ when he rose from the dead. The new man is renewed, regenerated…re-born. Day by day, God guides us, chastises us, and loves us, molding and shaping us into the image of his Son.

If you believe the Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died for your sins, and you trust in this sacrifice alone for the forgiveness of your sins, born again applies to you, whether you’re white, black, blue, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, or whatever else they’ve got.

I’m not quite sure what Newsweek writers think the term means.  Perhaps this usage of it shows how many people in church go through all the motions, but don’t see themselves as born-again.  (Although the usual case is that it’s the other way around; they go through the motions, never have a relationship with Jesus, and do consider themselves born-again.)  Perhaps this is the media adding its own connotations to the term.

Whatever the case, LaShawn gets it right.