Fairness Doctrine a Real Danger to Free Speech

With Democrats taking control, one of the biggest fears starting to emerge is that the Fairness Doctrine could be crammed down our throats in an effort to "balance" free speech. At the center of the debate is our own Senator Jeff Bingaman, a major proponent for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine:



I can't imagine a worse idea. Let's reflect on this for a moment. We just had a tremendous Democratic sweep in New Mexico and throughout the country. That sweep occurred without any mandate dictating the content of conversation on a given station. People on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree that our current system works. If it's not broken, why fix it?

Now consider the problems with a mandate of "fair and balanced" programming. In a nutshell, such a dictate is subjective, not objective. Worse, it is a subjective measure to be determined by the government. Remember my warning that control of government swings like a pendulum from the right to the left, and eventually back again.

I do not want extremes on either side (or moderates for that matter) dictating what I can and should be listening to... or reading... or watching. I can make that decision on my own, thank you very much. And based on the number of comments left on this blog by those who disagree with me, you can as well.

We should never give up the right to think for ourselves.

Valencia County Sheriff Endorses Martin Heinrich

The Democratic candidate for New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, Martin Heinrich, proudly exclaims on his website that he has garnered the support of three of the four sheriff's that make up the district - the fourth being his opponent, Sheriff Darren White.

I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at why these particular sheriffs might choose to support Martin Heinrich over Darren White. Today, we'll start with Valencia County Sheriff, Rene Rivera, and Rivera's stated reason for supporting Martin Heinrich:

Valencia County Sheriff Rene Rivera appeared Saturday at a Valencia County welcoming event for Martin Heinrich. In his endorsement, Sheriff Rivera said, "I've been in law enforcement for over 19 years fighting against crime and drugs. Martin Heinrich was tough on crime on the Council, and I know he's the right partner in Congress to help keep our streets safe. That's why I'm endorsing him."

Since I'm not a Valencia County resident, I don't know much about Sheriff Rivera's crime fighting record over the last 19 years, but when it comes to being tough on DWI's, his record is, well, less than impressive:

[Valencia County sheriff's deputy] Duran has been arrested on DWI charges twice before, according to Belen Magistrate Court records. In 2003, Duran was charged with DWI and speeding but pleaded guilty to resisting an officer and reckless driving, and the other charges were dismissed. In 2004, he was charged with aggravated DWI causing bodily injury, and the charge was dismissed without prejudice.

[Valencia County Sheriff] Rivera said he knew when he hired Duran, a former State Police and Socorro police officer, that he had a prior DWI charge. However, he said Duran was hired because he had never been convicted.

One thing most voters can agree on is that number of repeat DWI offenders allowed on our roads has got to stop. Yet, Sheriff Rivera, not only doesn't seem to be bothered by the problem, he is willing to look the other way and give a two time offender a badge. And, apparently, Martin Heinrich must agree with him because Heinrich's proud to accept Sheriff Rivera's endorsement.

It is worth noting Sheriff Darren White's record on DWI enforcement:

Sheriff White has also made preventing and reducing DWI a top priority in Bernalillo County. In addition to being an outspoken advocate for harsher penalties, under his leadership, the Department has undertaken aggressive DWI enforcement operations.

So, on the one hand we have a law and order candidate for Congress, Sheriff Darren White, an on the other, we have a candidate, Martin Heinrich, who happily accepts the endorsement of a Sheriff who seems to believe that the solution to the DWI problem is to give repeat offenders a job as a deputy.

Tomorrow, we'll look at another one of the Sheriff's who supports Heinrich.

It's Clearly About the Money

My wife is 5'1".... and a half. Why is that important? Wait, I'll get to it. First, let's look at this huge fine a working Mom in Rio Rancho (subscription) got hit with:

When Tammi Nidever moved to the City of Vision from Albuquerque last year, she didn't know it was against the law for her 10-year-old daughter to ride in the front seat of their Explorer.

She soon found out.

And she was given the choice of paying $138 or performing 40 hours of community service.

Now nowhere in the article written by D'Val Westphal does it state that she was driving recklessly. Nor, does it indicate her daughter wasn't in a seatbelt. What was this "terrible woman" doing when she was pulled over? She was taking her daughter to school.

But wait, this is about safety, right? After all, she was endangering the life of the child. Well, apparently in Rio Rancho not all children are created equal:

Then Tammi learned that in Rio Rancho, a city ordinance makes it illegal for a child under age 13 to ride in the front seat of a vehicle unless there is no back seat. And if the passenger seats are all taken up by kids, the oldest kid has to ride shotgun.

So, let me get this straight. This is a terrible crime that warrants a big ticket or 40 hours of community service - that's a full work week folks! Unless, you just don't happen to have a back seat. Then, no worries, your kid is okay in the front. Or, if you have four kids, and only room for three in the back, go ahead and toss the fourth one up front - I guess if you've got that many the City of Rio Rancho has decided that child is expendable.

This is a perfect example of an absurd law. Don't get me wrong - 95% of the time my kids (10 and 8) sit in the backseat. I don't live in Rio Rancho, and rarely drive through it. So, I do it because I've read or heard it was safer - not because of a law that pretends to protect some kids, but not others. Now, I did say 95% of time. Sometimes, as a parent, I take into consideration where I'm going, and if I feel it is safe for my child to ride up front with me, I let them do it.

So, is society better off because of Rio Rancho's law? I don't think so. I think this law has one purpose and one purpose only - to fill the city coffers. Remember there are generations of us that grew up in a time without these ridiculous laws on the books, and guess what? We survived.

Oh right, I almost forgot. My wife is 5'1" and sits in the front seat all the time. The little girl who was riding in the front seat next to her mother on the way to school is 5'2".