One America, Two Languages: Obama's Backdoor Bilingualism

Ira Stoll notices the backdoor bilingualism in the conditions imposed by the FCC on the Comcast-NBC merger:

The Federal Communications Commission's press release approving ... Comcast's acquisition/merger of NBC Universal is worth a look for the conditions it imposes ... "Comcast will make available to approximately 2.5 million low income households: (i) high-speed Internet access service for less than $10 per month; (ii) personal computers, netbooks, or other computer equipment at a purchase price below $150" and "we require Comcast-NBCU to increase programming diversity by expanding its over the-air programming to the Spanish language-speaking community, and by making NBCU's Spanish-language broadcast programming available via Comcast's on demand and online platforms."
 
The Obama administration couldn't get an immigration reform through when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, but its FCC is sure ready to require more Spanish-language programming on American television. Nothing against Spanish, which I took in high school and is a fine language, but why not Chinese-language programming? Why not Yiddish? [Emphasis added]

There are lots of Spanish-language stations. It's a big market. Broadcasters want to serve it. Why would the government require Spanish-language broadcasts beyond what that market would ordinarily produce? If we actually want to have "One America," you would think the government wouldn't want to artificially encourage linguistic separation—unless, say, one political party has a vested interest in maintaining Latinos as a distinct, isolated voting bloc to which it can appeal (with hollow promises about immigration amnesty) around election time ...

P.S.: Bilingualism is one thing. But if you are running Univision, do you have any interest in Spanish speakers ever learning English? If English becomes the language of Latino households, Univision dies, no? ...

P.P.S.: As Stoll notes, legislation that did what the FCC just did would never pass Congress. I don't even think it would have passed last year's Congress. But don't lawmakers have the power to reverse the FCC? ... 2:42 a.m.

___________________________

Promise? UAW President Bob King says that if his union doesn't organize foreign automakers' U.S. factories, it will wither away.
 

"If we don't organize the transnationals, I don't think there is a long-term future for the UAW," King said.

I'm not sure the non-union U.S. workers who've seen what the UAW did to their Detroit competitors will be moved to vote "yes" by the argument that otherwise this great American institution might die ...

P.S.: Here's one of those scary articles about the potential for Putinesque administration pressure for unionization. Without more evidence, it's hard to tell if Obama's bureaucracy really is effectively tipping the scales on behalf of organized labor or if it's just doing the things it has to do to keep its labor allies on board (given that Obama failed to deliver in the big "card check" fight). What is certain is that the damage the administration is doing to itself by encouraging paranoid speculation about bullying, pro-labor favoritism far exceeds whatever help it is providing for the unions ...

P.P.S.: There is at least one promising organizing opportunity on the horizon: someone could organize the new $14/hour UAW workers at GM who will now be busting a hump to pay for the $28/hour senior UAW members working alongside them—because the UAW decided to milk the newcomers in order to protect current members ... 2:40 a.m.

___________________________

Those people at The Awl will do anything for hits ...  2:35 a.m.

___________________________