Doctrine Air

Thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine from Adam Reilly in the Boston Phoenix.

For most of the second half of the 20th century, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asserted that the right to broadcast — on scarce, publicly owned frequencies — came with civic responsibility. Broadcasters, the FCC held, should devote some of their programming to controversial matters of public interest. They should also allow divergent points of view to be presented on their stations. That's the Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell. (In one famous case, the Supreme Court ruled that the author of a critical biography of Barry Goldwater had the right to respond to a torrent of criticism directed at him from a Christian broadcaster in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.)

The doctrine's intentions were commendable. But it was vague, and spottily applied, and co-existed uneasily with the First Amendment's right to free speech. And in 1987 — at the height of Reagan-era deregulation — it was voluntarily abolished by the FCC. The FCC's decision was upheld on appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1989, and subsequent congressional efforts to restore it have failed.

Many observers believe that's for the best. "The Fairness Doctrine had this perverse result," says Jane Kirtley, director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. "The way some broadcasters chose to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints to be heard was to say that they just weren't going to cover controversial issues. I have no reason to think that would change in 2008 or 2009." Factor in the rise of cable news and the Web, adds Kirtley, and the Fairness Doctrine's original rationale doesn't make sense anymore.

Media critic Rory O'Connor, who discusses the subject in Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio (AlterNet), agrees. "The Fairness Doctrine is a 20th-century response to 21st-century problems," he says. "It didn't work so well in the first place. It was misused and abused by political operatives in both parties." There is, O'Connor claims, "no way in Hell" that the Fairness Doctrine's going to be reinstated. Conservatives are only milking the subject to "excite the base, create outrage, and drive up ratings."

No question, the right's treatment of the subject is irresponsible. A restored Fairness Doctrine wouldn't "kill" the conservative-friendly medium of talk radio, or mandate "equal time" for the presentation of liberal and conservative perspectives. Instead, it would simply require conservative broadcast outlets to allow the occasional liberal voice, and vice versa.

To be fair, though, conservative fears aren't entirely unfounded. While Obama seems to favor regulating broadcasters to achieve specific aims, including increased minority ownership, he's indicated he doesn't want to restore the Fairness Doctrine. But other prominent Democrats disagree. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently told the conservative magazine Human Events that she supports the Fairness Doctrine. On Election Day, Democratic New York senator Chuck Schumer told Fox News you couldn't oppose the Fairness Doctrine while supporting government regulation of obscenity, as many conservatives do. And other Dems — including Massachusetts senator John Kerry, the subject of an attack documentary broadcast on Sinclair Broadcasting's 62 (conservative) stations during his 2004 presidential run — have made similar remarks.

Time for restraint
That some Democrats might relish the idea of punishing Limbaugh and his compadres is understandable. But there are strong arguments for restraint. The first is constitutional: the Fairness Doctrine would exist, yet again, in tension with the First Amendment. The second is strategic: the inchoate sense of grievance that currently animates the right has slim political potential — but that could change if Republicans can style themselves as free-speech defenders.

The most important reason for caution, though, is the nascent effort to link the Fairness Doctrine with Net Neutrality. Without Net Neutrality, the telecom industry will almost certainly create a two-tiered system that privileges some content, while consigning the rest — created, presumably, by those who lack big bucks — to a sort of virtual ghetto.

Thus far, Net Neutrality hasn't been a partisan issue. Obama supports it; so does NARAL Pro-Choice America; so does the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association.

But efforts to fragment the broad, pro–Net Neutrality alliance are already underway — and the Fairness Doctrine seems destined for a starring role. In an October 2007 paper titled "Net Neutrality: A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet," Adam Thierer of the Progress & Freedom Foundation — a think tank funded by, among others, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable — suggested that Net Neutrality was actually a partisan ploy aimed at crippling the right. Groups such as the Christian Coalition, Thierer suggested, should reconsider their support.

Then, this past August, Republican FCC commissioner Robert McDowell made a similar argument at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Regarding Net Neutrality, McDowell asked, "Will Web sites — will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views, rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"

This is a stupid question. The Fairness Doctrine involved government mandating, in certain cases, that specific content be added to a particular media entity. In contrast, Net Neutrality doesn't involve intrusion into content; it only dictates absolute freedom of (virtual) movement. It's the opposite of what McDowell seems to think.

But as Joe Campbell, author of the blog 2parse.com, recently noted in a post linking Thierer's paper and McDowell's remarks, this is about tactics, not logic. If conservative Net Neutrality supporters come to see it as the Fairness Doctrine 2.0 — something that's more easily done if the Fairness Doctrine is already on everyone's brain, as it is today — they might rethink their support. Given Democratic gains in Congress and Obama's support for Net Neutrality, Campbell argues, "This is the big corporations' only chance to squash Net Neutrality."

Now that's a scary prospect. The Web is the future of news media. (It's also a battleground where, at the moment, Democrats are totally dominating Republicans.) Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is a dubious proposition, period. But if doing so could jeopardize the success of Net Neutrality, it's downright reckless.

Instead of reliving an old-media battle that's run its course, Democrats should focus instead on making Net Neutrality a reality. And Obama should help them by stating that he'll veto any legislation aimed at restoring the Fairness Doctrine that crosses his desk. Let the right worry about something else.

To read the "Don't Quote Me" blog, go to thePhoenix.com/medialog. Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly@phx.com.

Gut-Check

One of the blessings accompanying the shame of Barack's victory is the timing. This is not a moment for pushing measures that are bad economic policy, so the Obama administration will have to kick obviously destructive political payoff policy proposals down the road.

Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which is also called the “card check” bill. The measure would allow workers to join a union when a majority of them sign authorization cards. Industry groups are strongly opposed to the bill, which is a top priority for unions. Republicans and business groups say the bill would compromise a worker’s right to cast a private ballot on whether to join a union.

Is card-check a good idea? Former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern says:

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

Nancy Pelosi has tried to temper expectations of "change" as the change candidate claims victory - cognisant of the fact that even in good times, much of what liberals want is just not doable.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday called on President-elect Barack Obama to govern from the middle, as her party sat poised to gain its widest House majority in 15 years.

And the auto manufacturers, suffering from the bad deals they were intimidated into making with unions through the years, are looking for a government payout. Is this a time to give more power to the unions when we're paying for their destructive impact?

Is this a time to bail out the unions, who have done so much damage? Hopefully, Barack will realize we can't afford it.

Left Ugly

Cindy Sheehan, the ultimate lefty, believes she's being harassed by the ugly left. This is just the latest of signs that Democrats are guilty of everything they parade around pretending to be against.

I'm still waiting for Dems to get upset about the racism of Reverends Pfleger, Meeks and Wright. There is no outrage over racial divisiveness when it's done by the home team.

Where is the furry over the constant ageism displayed by the Obama campaign? There is none. Instead, they join in. John Kerry, expressing his frustration over the stupid questions asked of presidential nominees during the last few weeks of the campaign said this:

"I don't know if any of you know what it's like. I do, obviously," Kerry told the crowd. "I've been asked all of those brilliant questions that were repeated this year...Barack got asked the famous boxers or briefs question. Then they asked McCain and McCain said, ‘Depends,'" Kerry said.

Is Congressman John Murtha facing the wrath of the God of Liberalism for being bigoted and offensive?

U.S. Rep. John Murtha is calling many of the people who put him in office "rednecks."

The news comes one week after Murtha claimed the area is racist, then apologized for that comment.In explaining his comments about racism, Murtha told WTAE it's difficult for many in the area to change. Murtha said that just five to 10 years ago the entire area was "redneck." Now Murtha said only certain segments of the population are holding on to those racist feelings.

Just days after classifying western Pennsylvania as racist, Murtha took a step back from those comments, albeit a small one."What I said, that indicted everybody, that's not what I meant at all. What I mean is there's still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black," Murtha said.

Nah. The Liberal God only cares when the insults go in the other direction. Back to Cindy Sheehan. She's a radical who is offended by the faux anti-war stance of the liberal elite. So she's running against Nancy Pelosi in California. She thinks that her liberal bretheren are out to get her.

Starting with the necessity of "changing a light bulb" (bugging my phone) in my hotel phone at the DNC (brought to you by AT&T) while I was out of the room, Cindy for Congress has had an increasing number of attacks. Two weeks ago, we were begged by organizers of a "radical" music festival called "We the People(Sheeple)" forbade me from speaking after having begged me to be there. An article in LA Beat said that the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigoso was involved in the decision to silence my voice. Not only did we go down to L.A. at our own expense, but also we took an entire day of valuable campaign time to do so.

The past week, though, has been incredibly trying. First of all we had to file a restraining order against a former volunteer whom, with hindsight, we now know was probably spying on us for the Pelosi camp. After we let this person go, his emails to us became increasingly hostile and threatening. After that happened, the tail lights in our campaign-mobile were busted out (the campaign mobile that has Cindy for Congress signs all over it and pictures of it were in an AP story.

Towards the end of the week, four young men walked into our office and they were acting quite suspiciously as they pretended to be registering to vote. One of our interns was helping them when I heard her yell: "No! Stop!" I heard an awful noise and ran out of my office to see the young men run off. They had grabbed one of our computers (leaving a jar of donations on the front desk) and beat our intern over the head when she tried to stop them. Our front windows are almost totally covered with signs and posters and it would be hard to see what we have from the street…we did, thankfully, recover the computer which has sensitive material on it and we are even more thankful that Somer is okay. (She's tough like her boss).

What did she think was going to happen when she messed with the liberal power brokers - did she think they were going to be compassionate?

Frank Armstrong was preparing to go for a jog this morning when he noticed his Lexus – adorned with a McCain-Palin sticker - had been vandalized with obscenities and a burned American flag.

Armstrong discovered the damage to his 2006 Lexus about 8:30 a.m. at his Sand Key condominium at 1400 Gulf Blvd. Clearwater police and Armstrong said someone etched obscenities and "KKK" into the paint, burned several areas of the car with cigarettes, set the flag on fire on his hood and may have urinated on the vehicle. Officers and Armstrong think the car was singled out because of its political stickers, including one reading "Nobama."

Liberals, who have their own, state supported radio and tv network, are nevertheless furious that the right, unprotected from the leftist bent of the commercial news media, has the niche of talk radio to voice it's opinions.

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Meanwhile, the haters of religion feel no hesitation in hijacking religion's most powerful symbols to help ordain their savior.

The left obviously cares about nothing but getting power. They'll stop at nothing. Which makes them exactly what they claim to hate.

Where Was McCain?

Should John McCain have been leading the mutiny?

The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive into recession without it.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

If it's really about pandering for McCain, this would have been a beautiful opportunity to separate himself once and for all from the President. Instead, Nancy Pelosi is taking the heat for the defeat of the bailout, as a result of a nasty, partisan speech she gave in advance of the vote.

Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.

Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."

Putnam said lawmakers were working "to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse."

But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., scoffed at the explanation.

"Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them," he said. "If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough."

More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.

The Spirit of Unity

It's over. Time to let go of the fantasies of Democrats suddenly reversing themselves and nominating Hillary.

Hillary has just moved to suspend the rules of the convention, and to nominate by acclamation, Barack Obama. With Nancy Pelosi at the podium, and the crowd chanting, "Hill-a-ry, Hill-a-ry," she took a voice vote and the convention nominated Barack.

The historic moment has happened.

The Pelosi Effect

We've been hearing forever about the Bradley Effect - the theory that black candidates don't do as well on election day as polls predict because people don't give pollsters their true opinions. If you look at the statistical dead heat of this race, plug in the Bradley effect, you figure McCain's leading by 6 or 7 points.

Nancy Pelosi has come with an opposing theory, available on Politico.com - she says that Barack's voters are so unique and so new that traditional polling methods fail to pick them up.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told convention-goers Tuesday morning that polls are underestimating the strength of Barack Obama, contending he will defeat John McCain with the support of new or intermittent voters, who are not generally polled.

Intermittent voters might not make the cut in polls of likely voters, but they would presumably be included in polls of registered voters.

“I’m very comfortable with those polls,” Pelosi said at a rooftop breakfast panel near the Democratic National Convention. “I think he is trouncing him. I want more of a spread, of course — I want it all.”

If you buy into Pelosi's theory, and you believe in the Bradley effect, they would cancel each other out, wouldn't they?

“Many of them are not even reachable by these pollsters,” Pelosi said. “These are polls of likely voters. Likely voters are people who have voted in the last two elections, and they are likely to vote again. They are not the universe of people who will vote on Nov. 4.”

Of course, the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, which today finds McCain in the lead for the first time since Barack wrapped things up in June, is a poll of registered voters. So much for Nancy's theory.

“We will own the ground Election Day,” she said.

Edwards Refresher

In case there's an Edwards surprise, here's my post on the Texas congressman when Nancy Pelosi first floated his name as a potential VP three weeks ago.

THE TEXAS OPTION
Reports this weekend indicate there's an unnoticed contender to be Barack's VP pick - Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas.

Edwards, 56, has been pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats who cite his work on veterans' affairs and nuclear nonproliferation, as well as his potential to attract Southern white blue-collar voters. Pelosi has called Edwards "one of the finest people I've ever served with." His stock rose further, one source said, after a meeting with Obama, though his low national profile remains a hurdle.

Scary, isn't it, to think that Pelosi might have that sort of swagger with Barack? But he does have a profile, after 18 years in Congress, that is unusual for a Democrat.

Congressman Edwards is known as a fiscal conservative who believes massive federal deficits and the $9 trillion national debt are harmful to our economy and morally wrong to pass on to our children and grand children. The non-partisan Concord Coalition has given him its "Deficit Hawk" Award.

As a lifelong person of faith, Chet has been honored by the Baptist Joint Committee and earned the Walter Cronkite Award from the Interfaith Alliance for his principled stand to keep government regulations out of our churches and houses of worship. Congressman Edwards has also been honored with the T.B. Maston Christian Ethics Award.

Newsweek reports that the campaign wanted to announce Barack's running mate before the Olympics, but has been unable to narrow things down. They're unhappy, apparently, with their options.

In fact, Obama aides have identified potential drawbacks to all the front runners. Biden brings foreign-policy expertise, but there are lingering concerns that his garrulous tendencies might knock the campaign off message. Bayh, who the sources say has been lobbying hard for the nod, brings solid centrist credentials. (An aide says Bayh is not "actively" pursuing the job.) But his wife serves on numerous corporate boards, and she also previously worked as a lawyer for drug giant Eli Lilly—an inconvenient link for a party committed to health-care reform. Kaine is seen as a "change" candidate, but he has no national-security experience. Clinton remains a possibility, but her chances are seen as remote, if only because of the near impossibility of vetting her husband's business affairs.

Barack Interrupted

How badly do Democrats want to win the hearts of religious voters? Nancy Pelosi, raising money with Barack on Sunday:

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

How concerned is the Obama campaign that ground was lost, and that confidence waned, during Barack's vacation in Hawaii?

“I will win. Don’t worry about that,” he said to the crowd of about 1,300 at his third event of the evening, according to the pool report.

How sure is Barack that he'd be winning if there weren't so many bitter, racist Americans?

Obama says white people are bigots.
by RevSpitz

"The fact of the matter is, at a certain point, when government has not been serving the people for this long, people get cynical. They tune out. And they start saying to themselves, a plague on both your houses. They are willing to consume negative information more frequently than positive information, for good reason. They’ve seen how promises haven’t been kept," he said.

Pelosi Talks

What exactly is Nancy Pelosi talking about?




Such silliness. Thanks to Cooksey at Flowers and Cages for grabbing the sound.

Drilled on Oil

Nancy Pelosi is joining Barack in caving in on offshore drilling.

"There are things that Congress can do" to alleviate the energy crisis, Pelosi
said, "but the Republicans and the president have resisted. Instead, they have
this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas. Well, we can do
that. We can have a vote on that. But it has to be part of something that says
we want to bring immediate relief to the public and not just a hoax on them."

On Larry King Live last night, Pelosi reinforced that the only principle Democrats actually adhere to is doing anything to win.

Asked if she would support an energy package that includes drilling, Pelosi said
she would not, then added: "It depends how the drilling is put forth. But I
don't -- that is not excluded, let me say it that way. It depends how that is
proposed, if the safeguards are there."

Why are the highly principled Democrats taking this tack? Public opinion has them down.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now put a priority on "finding new sources of energy" over improving conservation -- a significant shift since 2001 -- and majorities support all of the five potential federal initiatives tested in a new ABC News poll.

An Honest Democrat

One of the challenges facing Barack is the fact that he's never fought for the causes which gained him the support of Democrats. He never put himself out in an attempt to end the war, for example, to impeach President Bush, or to push Global Warming.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan qualified Friday for a November showdown with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, collecting the signatures needed to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress.

This is in keeping with the leaders of his party. They have not wanted to fight the Bush administration, as they expected that the GOP would crumble under its own weight. Their strategy has been proven correct.

"We're very excited," said Sheehan, 51, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who is well-known for her protest outside President Bush's Texas ranch. "Now we have to get organized and regroup."

A thorn in the side of this failure of leadership would be a truth-teller. A real activist, willing to remind voters that Democrats have offered no leadership.

With her ballot spot guaranteed, Sheehan can focus on the fall campaign, where she will challenge Pelosi from the left, slamming the speaker for refusing to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush and not taking a stronger stance against the war in Iraq.

Could Cindy Sheehan be just what the doctor ordered to put Barack/Pelosi style fraud on the front burner?

"The next part is going to be exciting," she said. "I want at least one debate with all four candidates so that Nancy Pelosi has to answer for her record."

If there really is pent up demand for an end to business as usual in Washington, a real desire for change in America, isn't Barack at risk of becoming the symbol of what's wrong with Washington?

While Sheehan said Friday that she has raised more than $300,000 for the race, Pelosi had collected more than $2.3 million by the end of June and had $455,138 in the bank.

While 300K might not be enough money to run a strong traditional race against Pelosi, it's plenty of seed money to gain visibility enough for Sheehan to catch on - like Barack did - as an antidote to business as usual in Washington.

Cindy's access to November's ballot is evidence of growing discontent among San Francisco voters with the Democratically lead U.S. congress and its inability to end the war, hold the Bush administration accountable for unconstitutional acts, stimulate the economy, reform healthcare, reconsider trade agreements that harm American workers and the environment and cut ties to corporate lobbyists. The Sheehan campaign is offering a new vision for San Francisco and the nation.

It's fun to fantasize about. While Sheehan may be a nut, she's an honest ideologue, willing to put herself on the line for her liberal dogma. And there's a chance that a true agent of change could resonate with voters, and the media, and reveal Barack and Pelosi and the rest of the gang for the poseurs that they are.

Pelosi's Game

Turns out Barack's slippery game on oil matches up with Nancy Pelosi's.

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet — but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.

Barack amongst them.

But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.

Ah, now we get it. They're so confident that they're going to win the election that they feel comfortable gaming the American people on a highly emotional, very expensive, issue.

Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling.

Republicans should be focusing their anger on Barack, not on Pelosi.

Democratic insiders said that Pelosi and other party leaders were “not rattled” by the GOP floor rebellion, and at this point, it’s not clear if the Democrats will even pay a price on energy. State-level polling conducted by Democrats suggests that voters still view President Bush and the GOP as the incumbent power in Washington, and Democratic strategists believe any anti-incumbent wave would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

The Texas Option

Reports this weekend indicate there's an unnoticed contender to be Barack's VP pick - Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas.

Edwards, 56, has been pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats who cite his work on veterans' affairs and nuclear nonproliferation, as well as his potential to attract Southern white blue-collar voters. Pelosi has called Edwards "one of the finest people I've ever served with." His stock rose further, one source said, after a meeting with Obama, though his low national profile remains a hurdle.

Scary, isn't it, to think that Pelosi might have that sort of swagger with Barack? But he does have a profile, after 18 years in Congress, that is unusual for a Democrat.

Congressman Edwards is known as a fiscal conservative who believes massive federal deficits and the $9 trillion national debt are harmful to our economy and morally wrong to pass on to our children and grand children. The non-partisan Concord Coalition has given him its "Deficit Hawk" Award.

As a lifelong person of faith, Chet has been honored by the Baptist Joint Committee and earned the Walter Cronkite Award from the Interfaith Alliance for his principled stand to keep government regulations out of our churches and houses of worship. Congressman Edwards has also been honored with the T.B. Maston Christian Ethics Award.

Newsweek reports that the campaign wanted to announce Barack's running mate before the Olympics, but has been unable to narrow things down. They're unhappy, apparently, with their options.

In fact, Obama aides have identified potential drawbacks to all the front runners. Biden brings foreign-policy expertise, but there are lingering concerns that his garrulous tendencies might knock the campaign off message. Bayh, who the sources say has been lobbying hard for the nod, brings solid centrist credentials. (An aide says Bayh is not "actively" pursuing the job.) But his wife serves on numerous corporate boards, and she also previously worked as a lawyer for drug giant Eli Lilly—an inconvenient link for a party committed to health-care reform. Kaine is seen as a "change" candidate, but he has no national-security experience. Clinton remains a possibility, but her chances are seen as remote, if only because of the near impossibility of vetting her husband's business affairs.