The new Puritans

Among the earliest pioneers in this country were the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who set out to create a theocracy – a Bible-thumping commonwealth as it were.

In fact, until as late as 1664, citizenship in the new colony was restricted to church members and religious dissent was not tolerated. (The nation's earliest religious dissenters, most notably Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams, were actually banished from the colony.)

The seeds sown by those Puritans have persisted through American history, albeit with the normal ebb and flow of society. The roaring '20s and psychedelic '60s are, to my way of thinking, more representative of why America is great than the societies of the Pilgrims and the Puritans.

The puritanical weed appears to be coming back into full bloom, what with the smirking chimp and the thought-police cracking down on "immorality" in all its many guises. Taking the ball from Janet Jackson's Super Bowl breast exposure, the Federal Communications Commission is running down the field knocking over anyone that it, in its wisdom, considers to be eroding the public morality.

TRENDING: WATCH: Students support voting bill, then blow a gasket when they learn it's actually Georgia's law

Like scores of millions of other Americans (and I believe even more Chinese, but that's another story) I, too, watched the Super Bowl in January. It was a hell of a game. When Janet's breast made its appearance, I didn't really know what to make of it, but, as a fan of much in popular culture, from "South Park" to Madonna videos, I simply assumed it was part of the show.

It must be an indicator of how open-minded I am, or easily amused, or jaded, or maybe just out of touch with the strain of Puritanism that continues to flow in the veins of Boobus americanus, that I gave it no more thought. Until apparently scandalized reporters filled the media with reports of how outraged the country was. That got my attention a lot more than Justin and Janet.

I've come to accept the fact that my political, economic, religious, military, ethical, social and – need I add – investment views, are somewhat out of the norm in the United States. But I still shake my head in disbelief (even though, intellectually, I suspect it's true) that people actually become so exercised over things of this nature.

Then the self-righteous bluenoses at the FCC weighed in with threats to fine CBS, and possibly its executives, millions of dollars. They theoretically have the right to revoke CBS' broadcast licenses, effectively bankrupting the entity.

Since that incident, the FCC has pressured Clear Channel to drop, among others, Howard Stern, the poster child for "bad" media.

But I always try to look at the bright side. Now that the FCC has crawled out from under its rock, in time more people will begin to take a closer look at this singularly useless corner of bureaucracy. Howard Stern, for one, is using his widely heard bully pulpit to fight back against the agency, which he accuses of going after him because of his outspoken views on Baby Bush and not for his supposed outrages against society.

It is worth noting that since Clear Channel caved in to the pressure, Stern's ratings have gone up to where he has regained the top slot in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, the three biggest radio markets in the United States.

It's not as if the agency hasn't been very good to me, and International Speculator subscribers. In the early '80s, when the FCC was having lotteries to assign frequencies for cellular telephones, among numerous other technologies, I urged readers to apply for the giveaways. I personally won several million dollars on them and know that some subscribers did even better.

Hey, the redistribution of wealth is actually the main purpose of government. It's just that the FCC never does anything productive, unless it usurps that function from the market. Certainly things like assigning frequencies, call letters and such are market functions, as are "decency standards" – if a broadcaster doesn't give the public what it wants, it won't get advertisers and /or subscribers, and will put itself out of business.

What the FCC's 2,000 employees mainly do, at a direct cost of $280 million a year – and an indirect cost that must be many billions – is protect the politically well-connected, mainly by slowing the spread of technology. Examples?

 

• The FCC (aided and abetted by local regulators) delayed cable TV for years at the urging of traditional broadcasters.

   

• It's solely responsible for keeping telephone costs way up and innovation way down by protecting AT&T's monopoly for decades before reality finally overcame it.

   

• Cellular phones were delayed for years.

   

The FCC is basically a vehicle for restricting entry of newcomers into the electronic media, much to the benefit of those who have already jumped over the expensive hurdles required to get its licenses.

The whole episode that started this latest wave of attempted control by the latter-day Puritans is disgusting, from Janet's phony claim that it was an "accident," to the FCC's grandstanding, to talk of putting in five-second delays on live performances that may serve to outrage the booboisie.

What might the 200 million mainland Chinese watchers have thought of the Super Bowl incident? My guess is: "What a great, free, easygoing country America is! We should make China more like it!" If only they knew the rest of the story.