Subsidizing TV

I haven't seen much in the way of the DTV 2009 deal. Basically, everyone is going to be forced to get digital TV. Fret not though! The government will give you up to $80! That's right, it's basically the community paying for people to get their entertainment. People with compatible TVs and and digital cable are paying anyway. People without TV are paying. Sounds fair? Of course not! Here's a gem.

Broadcasters are transitioning to digital to provide important benefits to consumers. Because digital broadcasting is more efficient, broadcasters require less of the airwaves to provide a better television viewing experience. Once the DTV transition is completed, some television channels will be turned over to fire and police departments for emergency communication and others will be auctioned to companies to provide new wireless services.

Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia

Similarly, video recorders for analog signals (including both tape-based VCRs and hard-drive-based DVRs) will not be able to select channels, limiting their ability to automatically record programs via a timer or based on downloaded program information.

Also, older handheld televisions, which rely primarily on over-the-air signals and battery operation, will be rendered impractical since the proposed converter boxes are not portable nor powered with batteries.

This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.

Portable radios which feature the ability to listen to television audio on VHF channels 2-13 would also lose this ability, while television stations which formerly broadcast on Channel 6 (with analog FM audio on 87.75 MHz) would no longer be heard on standard FM broadcast band radios. These stations would lose the ability for commuters to listen to their broadcasts.

I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.

Were any new TVs to contain only an ATSC tuner, this could prevent older devices such as VCRs and video game consoles with only an analog RF output from connecting to the TV. Connection would require an analog to digital converter box, which is the opposite as what is currently being sold. Such a box would also likely introduce additional delay into the video signal. Fortunately, analog inputs suitable for connection to VCRs have remained available on all current digital-capable TV's.

Changes in signal reception from factors such as degrading antenna connections or worsening weather conditions may gradually reduce the quality of analog TV. The nature of digital TV results in a perfect picture initially, until the receiving equipment starts picking up noise or losing signal. Some equipment will show a picture even with significant damage, while other devices may go directly from perfect to no picture at all (and thus not show even a slightly damaged picture).

Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.

Some signals carry encryption and specify use conditions (such as "may not be recorded" or "may not be viewed on displays larger than 1 m in diagonal measure") backed up with the force of law under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and national legislation implementing it, such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

DEA

So, I was up kind of late last night and decided to watch some TV before I went to sleep. Should I watch Rock of Love II? Some news show? Whatever was on Nick at Night? The Universe on the History Channel? Nah, I decided to watch DEA, a show about the drug war!
Hoo boy, was I in for a surprise! Star Wars Ep. III was going a bit too long, and the ending symboized a lot for me. Those of you that can't remember, the last scene shows how Luke and Obi Wan got to Tattooine. There was also a beautiful sunset. What made this scene so awesome? Well, it symbolized a beautiful transition from those horrid new movies to the rockin' original three.
It also symbolized how I felt about the upcoming show. The Sun setting was beautiful, but you don't want to be out in the wilderness at night. Yep, DEA was like the night.
The opening minutes mentioned how heroic they were and how they could get killed. Well, people could get killed on that logger show on History, right?
I imagine the idea of the show is to muster up support for that endless war (as well as entertainment). Hopefully it'll do the opposite. I highly doubt it though.
I did realize three things though.
First, if the drug war ended, they would be out of a job. One guy said they wanted to end the sale of drugs (or something), but that's like saying you want to stop murder. Nice, but nothing you could do about it.
Second, I'm incredibly afraid of needles. I mean, the very thought of them unnerve me.
Third, I would get killed if my house was raided. I'm too snarky and sarcastic I suppose.
The show itself was alright. Just a lot of whining followed by innapropriate jokes and some door shmashing.




Dear Lord there was a lot of whining...

Alf!

Alf is going to be on Billo's show. Might be the most worthwhile thing he aired.
Or maybe I just really like Alf...

The History Channel

It's a bit like a newspaper. Some shows are done well, some are absolutely horrid.
I saw a show on General Sherman today. It wasn't that bad, but there was an apologist. I don't care if "foraging" is a part of war. In reality, it's a glorified word for sacking. Somehow the CS was bad worse for killing Union soldiers according to one of the presenters. It still wasn't a bad show, though.

Fox pimps war with Russia, Rudy, and Hillary

Good ol' fox. Earlier on The Live Desk they had former Ambassador John Bolton on to talk about the tension with Russia. There's a simple solution-work with the Russians to build the missile defense sites, or better yet, let the countries do it themselves! Of course, the neocons don't want to lower themselves to negotiate and compomise a bit with those dirty Russians, right? The US is the best and we ought to act like it and never humble ourselves to their level. Unfortunately, we tend to meet the people we stepped on to get to the top on the way down.
Bolton also mentioned a cold war mentality. Neocons have it, Putin doesn't. Isn't that right, Fred?
They also did a segment where they asked people who they're going to vote for. It was all Rudy, Hillary, or "Obama though I think Hillary is going to win". One guy implied that Rudy Giuliani is Italian, ergo, I will vote for the paesan. I know quite a few Italians that think like that, including some in my own family. I wouldn't vote for a guy just because he's Italian, French, and/or Albanian. It's pretty obvious that they're pimping those two to the candidacy.
God Willing, we'll give them a surprise. God Willing, it'll be the man with an army of amazing supporters. God Willing, it'll be the only candidate that totally views abortion as murder (murder laws should be at the state level, and there's a better chance of banning it state-by-state than by taking it to the courts). God Willing, it'll be the man representing traditional Conservatism, the man who will be the glimmer of hope for the Republican Party, the man who will take care of our nation and not some "'liberated" foreign nation.
By the way, it's too late to register or switch parties and vote in the primaries for two states (my state is one). Time for me to focus on registered Republicans.
Give 'em hell from the Fightin' 14th, Ron!

Fred Thompson and the media reinforces my political ideology

I saw a poll about the economy, and Fred Thompson was in second. This is before yesterday's debate. How can a guy who made a few speeches, raised a bit of money, and smoked cigars while rebutting his critics come in second? I think it's because the average voter is somewhat apathetic and very uninformed.
I'm usually not against the media, and one of a tiny minority of trads that doesn't have a problem with TV. I'm starting to become anti-TV because adults are fusing information and entertainment. The real world and the world of mediocre TV shows is not the same thing. The show 24 is universally loved by neocons and justify themselves by implying "It's just like in 24, guys!".
So, do people trust Fred because they know what he believes, or because of his character on Law & Order? Thanks to him, they're referring to candidates as "Law and Order candidates", which is another word for totalitarian. I don't believe that the media is controlled by some shadowy conspirators trying to bring in a new world order one world government; but if there's such a conspiracy, they're foolish (perhaps aloof?) enough to help usher it in.
I honestly believe that most people are incredibly uninformed. Neocons and nationalists be damned, I'm saying it. They're too ignorant to vote and until a majority of Americans become uninformed I will be absolutely entrenched in my monarchism. Once they do, I'll still be a monarchist, but I'll have more respect for the American system.
People shouldn't skip debates and hear the recap, because plenty of times they end up spinning it to make a frontrunner look good. I remember this happened when they cut Ron Paul's rebuttal to Giuliani's rebuttal. It looked like Rudy won, but watching the actual thing shocked me. He put Rudy to shame.

Fox News takes on Chris Matthews and bias

I love Fox and Friends. I'm going to watch it instead of Morning Joe from now on. They were talking about Chris Matthew's remarks about the Bush Administration and they said he shouldn't co-moderate the debate tomorrow. Of course, the some say is thrown in. In fact, some say has been inserted into things at random (here's lookin' at you Julie Banderas).
Anyway, the ubiquitous immodestly dressed woman said that it would be like Shawn Hannity moderating a debate. She also said the Fox News debates are moderated by their "...political team that are not biased...."
Not biased? The same neocon team that ridiculed Ron Paul? The same one that belittled small government? The same one that said that he's going to take his marching orders from al-Qaeda? The same one that didn't tell whoever was laughing at the most recent debate to stop? The same one moderated by arch-neocon Brit Hume?
When are they going to drop this fair and balanced stuff? When pigs fly? Well, I guess I'm off to buy a cannon, a pig, a glider, and plenty of duct tape.
The Democrats refused to debate on Fox, and the neocons don't have to debate on MSNBC.
Edit: It's stupid to point this out, and I probably shouldn't, but in the promo for their story the lady said "a event"

Ron Paul on Good Morning America and Rudy hates Ferrets

It wasn't too bad. I'm happy that they called him the darkhorse candidate. If I remember correctly, John Kerry was too. We might have Giuliani's Howard Dean moment-a tirade against ferret people. Incredibly, this might be even more entertaining than Dean's moment.
There were two things that almost had me yell at my TV. The first was about Ron Paul's military contributors. They said he had the most, but implied that he barely beat John McCain. Well, last quarter, he beat him pretty well. In fact, Obama was the closest to him. I haven't seen anything on this quarter's numbers so far.
The second was the interviewer's chuckle when Paul told him how he would pay for everything. It was a pretty good answer too-spend less by cutting unnecessary departments.
Even if we don't win, I'd love to see him beat one of the frontrunners. I wonder how the neocons are going to spin that?
Edit-Here's the transcript
Rudy: It's my show, I have the right to talk over you.
David: But-Here's the thing
Rudy:The fact is
David: I called in last time, and-
Rudy: And the fact-and the fact-
David: and we're trying to get
Rudy: DAVID!
David: an important issue taken care of where the city is violating state laws.
Rudy: David-
David:And I asked you last week if you cared about the law.
Rudy: Yes, I do care about the law I think you have
David: So why-(?)
Rudy: TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY misinterpreted the law because there's something deranged about you.
David: No there isn't, sir
Rudy: You-
David: The law states
Rudy: ...the excessive
David: The law states
Rudy: ...concern that you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist.
David: Sir, understand that-well, first of all
Rudy: Inaudible
David: There you go insulting me again.
Rudy: I'm not insulting you, I'm being honest with you. Maybe nobody in your life has ever been honest with you. But this excessive-
David: I happen to be more sane than you!
Rudy: David...
David: First of all-
Rudy: There is something-
David: let me explain something to you something about the law (?)
Rudy: there is a serious...
David: Mr. Giuliani-
Rudy: David.
David: Rudy-
Rudy: This conversation is over, David. Thank you. There is something really, really very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness. I'm sorry, that's my opinion. You don't have to accept it, there's probably very few people that will be honest as honest with you about that, but you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist and they can help you with this excessive concern that you are devoting your life to weasels. There are people in this city, and in this world, that need a lot of help. There's something that has gone wrong with you. Your compulsion about it, your excessive concern with it, is the sign of something wrong in your personality. I do not mean to be insulting, I'm trying to be honest with you and I'm trying to give you advice for your own good. You have a sickness and I know it's hard for you to accept that because you hang onto this sickness and it's your shield-it's your whatever, I don't, you know. You gotta go to somebody who understands this a lot better than I do. And I know you're real angry at me and you're going to attack me, but actually you're angry at yourself. And what you're-you're-you're afraid of what I'm raising with you. And, you need help. And...please get it.

Commentary on his trade to come. The obvious question is why did he insult him? Just write him off as a nut? It's an issue, debate it, Rudy. If you're so sure it's the right thing, then debate it. It should be easy to argue.