Tom Ridge to Run the FCC?

Here's a head-scratching one-liner from a William Safire column begging for media re-regulation.

There may be some serious homeland-security angles to communications legislation that would be of interest to House conservatives and could form the basis of House-Senate cooperation.

The hell's he talking about? I'd guess it may have something vaguely to do with concentrated ownership being vulnerable to sabotage; Arthur Silber has a less-charitable interpretation.

Comments

[Sean]

Homeland security? Terrorists!?! Why are you wasting time questioning this? Re-regulate NOW! It's for the children!!!

[Warren]

Absolutely if 9/11 taught us anything, it's that freedom and security don't mix.

[James Merritt]

The "spectrum as scarce commons" argument ran out of gas years ago, so it is only natural that the authoritarians shift gears from depression-era "loathing" (of fat-cat spectrum wasters) to post-9/11 era "fear" (of national security vulnerabilities caused by free-enterprise). I wonder what argument they'll use when the pendulum swings back to "loathing" again.

Amazing that Safire once declared himself as a "libertarian." Perhaps his was an early attempt to hijack the term for conservatives.

Why should the government control usage of the electromagnetic spectrum? Why should the government control the usage of communications CABLES or satellite transmission? The only REAL reason is to consolidate political power. All of the OSTENSIBLE reasons (as WMDs were the ostensible reasons -- but not the REAL reasons -- for the Iraq War) have been shown to be false or irrelevant as technology has evolved and the economic environment has changed.

The calls for media re-regulation ring as hollow as the calls for escalation of the War on Drugs: "This time, for sure! Presto!" Both are lost causes. The government needs to pack it in, declare peace with honor, and move on.