The OttO Show

“Ah, I’d love to wear a rainbow everyday,
And tell the world that everything’s OK.”

- The Man In Black, Johnny Cash

Criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. These were the charges filed against five Christian demonstrators (including one teenage girl) jailed after protesting at a homosexual celebration in Philadelphia in 2004 - on public grounds. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania eventually threw out the charges. The demonstrators claimed that their behavior was within the bounds of the law (apparently supported by video evidence) and though they were surrounded and intimidated by a “pink wall” of counter protesters, they were the only ones arrested.

Last December, a British police officer was fired after responding to e-mails sent by his co-workers pushing pro-gay propaganda. His dastardly message? “Love the sinner; hate the deed.”

In New Jersey, in 2007, a church group was sued by a lesbian couple for politely refusing the use of their beach front pavillion for the couple’s wedding ceremony. One of the blushing brides expressed “shock” at the refusal. Her “wife”, apparently a Constitutional scholar who has read - though doesn’t understand - at least the beginning of the First Amendment, commented with, “In an apparent distortion of the First Amendment, they [church] are claiming that they have the right to discriminate against people who do not share their religious tenets.” The state of New Jersey launched an investigation into the church over the complaint of discrimination.

Last month, Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean was verbally accosted by a gay pageant judge after he asked her for her views on marriage. Regardless of the final reasons, there’s little doubt that this exchange hurt her chances of winning the contest.

In Sweden, a Pastor was jailed for a month for preaching on the sin of homosexuality.

Legislators in Canada and France have been fined for making public comments against homosexuality.

In California, November 2009 passing of Proposition Eight which declared marriage as between a man and woman has led to a string of troubling behavior by gay marriage proponents, including the systematic and hostile disruption of church services and the maliciously intended on-line posting of addresses and other personal information of people who supported Prop 8.

These examples represent pickings from several incidents in the US and especially across Europe where homosexual causes have had more luck and have been building a cultural power base that is seeping into politics and law enforcement.

Last week a North Carolina congresswoman was vilified for comments she made in opposition to yet another attempt to pass a federal ‘hate crimes’ bill, named after Matthew Shepard, who was savagely murdered in 1998. And he was gay.

Republican Representative Virginia Foxx stated that, “The hate crimes bill was named for [Shepard], but it’s really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.” Foxx was coming from the reasonable position there were many elements to this tragic story that questioned the general perception that Shepard was targeted because he was gay. ABC’s 20/20 raised the probability that this vicious attack stemmed from a robbery attempt by two men, one at least who had spent the past week on a sleepless drug binge, was coming down and was desperate for some cash to get another fix. There were also claims by some acquaintances of one of the killers that he too was gay.

Foxx apologized for making comments suggesting his murder was a hoax which is interesting since that is not at all what she said. But to give the media it’s dues, ABCNews.com, in a carefully worded caption under a picture of Foxx when the story broke, claimed, “…she called the infamous murder of a gay Wyoming student Matthew Shepard a “hoax” to justify passing hate crimes bills.”

Stating the obvious, Matthew Shepard should be alive today. Whether he was murdered for simply being gay, or for making gay advances at his captors, or because his attackers were rabid drug addicts or because it was a robbery gone horribly wrong…for any of these reasons, he - no one for that matter - should be beaten and left for dead.

The Shepard crime itself raises questions about the ‘hate-crime’ philosophy. Hate crime laws are essentially the criminal-prosecuting wing of political correctness, or as we call it outside of an Orwell novel: thought control.

Supporters of hate crime laws will be quick to point out that it’s not about thought-control - but growing trends and a leftwing power-shift in this country make that claim rather dubious. The New Jersey church pavillion controversy was fueled by New Jersey’s legalization of gay civil unions. Merely by officially recognizing gay relationships, a couple felt empowered to force their views onto a church that wanted no part of it.

Imagine the creative ways a federal hate-crime bill would be used. Internationally, hate crime laws were the basis for some of the above examples of politicians and pastors being punished for their views.

On it’s face, hate-crime laws would be used as a prosecution tool, adding stiffer penalties to criminals who committed a crime based on a bias toward a group of people. I was sympathetic to this position in the past. However, some of what I have witnessed in the past several years has altered my stance. What I have witnessed has been a group of activists who have honed their craft and forged a public perception of homosexuals as gentle victims of hate, a good, rational people with hearts of gold who simply want to live normal lives in an unfair world.

The reality seems more apt to be that homosexual leftists are leading the gay charge with a scorched-earth policy who will mock, lie, slander, attack, intimidate and try to destroy those who don’t embrace their causes. They cherish democracy when it works to their advantage but will opt for undemocratic tactics without any regard for the will of the people if legislation and referendums don’t go their way. And their leftwing supporters won’t blink twice before utilizing the word ‘gay’ as a slur when criticizing any gay person who even hints at being a Republican.

It seems likely that conservatives and religious Americans will need to be included as victims groups in any passing hate crimes legislation just to be protected from rainbow fascists.

Why fascists? Because an underlying theme among fascism is the expectation that everyone will serve your cult because it’s necessary and good and right to do so. And those who refuse are enemies of the cult, a threat to the cult’s purity and security and must be marginalized.

‘Marginalize’ is the name of the game. Virgina Foxx may not survive her comments about the circumstances of Matthew Shepard (a point of view to which a director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force claimed to have never heard before). Radicals will try to make an example out of her, essentially intimidating members of Congress into silence if they fall on the ‘wrong side’ of a homosexuality issue.

Hate crime laws have a catch-22: while the intention would be to protect classes like homosexuals, the real world application would be a mess. Any crime committed by a white person against a minority class would have to be filtered through the prism of hate. Even if Matthew Shepard’s demise was in fact the result of a drug-inspired petty robbery, it would most certainly have been tried as a hate crime. Shepard’s killers each received double life in prison. I’m not sure what additional punishment they would be subjected to under a hate crimes conviction.

The catch is that this law would assign members of protected groups a higher value to their lives. A straight man killed during a robbery by another straight man would be treated differently under the law than a gay man killed during a robbery by a straight man - regardless of evidence of bias. In other words, if you are gay, your murder would be viewed as more tragic and deserving of a higher punishment than if you are straight. It’s never been enough to just hate crime. Real crime involves a victim who can get support from some class-specific rights organization.

It doesn’t end there. Besides the issue of the federal government permeating itself into every level of local law enforcement and sentencing guidelines, religious institutions would be subjected to lawsuits and criminal charges for speaking out against homosexuality, for barring homosexuals from employment, for demonstrating and for even preaching against it. Someone will subjectively deny this but we all know how these things work. Apparently Congress is even debating the inclusion of sexual criminals and other deviants as protected classes: pedophilia, necrophilia, pretty much any “ilia” classified by the APA. Want to prevent that crossdresser or transexual from working as a host in your restaurant? Better tread lightly. The militant left has been trying to destroy the Boy Scouts for years now. Will this legislation affect that effort?

Maybe a compromise is in order. Let’s declare abortion a hate-crime. LBJ’s Great Society initiatives which has led to incalculable damage to black Americans could surely inspire a series of hate-crime designations. Income redistribution? Surely it’s a hate-crime to force a productive person to hand over his or her hard-earned money to people who just might not deserve it.

Yet the same elements who find it important to punish a point of view are often the same elements who will excuse and explain away the apocalyptic and genocidal anti-Semitism expressed by Hamas, Ahmadinejad and others. Those haters need to be rewarded with trust and peace and government funds.

This is a Pandora’s Box of dangerous restructuring of the Constitution. Despite the lack of in-depth coverage and exposure by the mainstream media, this is going to represent the biggest push of leftwing fascism over anything else this congress and this president can muster before their polish wears off. With all of the talk of the last year or so of bringing back some form of a ‘Fairness’ Doctrine for talk radio, it will only be a matter of time before Rush Limbaugh is sued or charged with violating hate-crime laws. There is no logical way that legislation like this will not snowball into a tort orgy and a judicial nightmare.

We don’t need special rules to determine if a crime is committed out of hate. Random acts of violence are done out of hate. What we need to do is agree to punish all violent crimes to the full extent of the law and leave it at that. If a victim deserves special recognition…build them a statue.

Tags: congress, first-amendment, gay, gay-agenda, hate-crimes, homosexuality, matthew-shepard

1 Comment »

MICHAEL MEDVED 04/22/2009: The USA TODAY/Gallup poll cited on April 15th asked respondents: “Do you think President Obama’s economic proposals call for too much government spending, the right amount or not enough?” A solid 55% (more than Obama’s percentage of the November vote) believe the President wants to spend “too much” as opposed to just 9% who feel he’s spending “not enough” – a crushing ration of six-to-one. Even when including the 33% who think the president seeks to appropriate “the right amount,” there’s still a clear majority for those who feel he’s over-spending against the combined total of those who like his spending levels and those who want taxpayers to cough up even more (55% to 42%).

Moreover, the same poll gave people the chance to sound-off on their attitude toward the current balance between governmental activism and private initiative. In answer to the question, “Is the government trying to do many things that should be left to individuals, or should the government do more to solve the country’s problems?” a clear margin emerged for those who believe the bureaucrats already attempt too much — 50% to 42%.

A more recent Gallup Poll (released on April 20th) provided even more unmistakable evidence that big majorities still dread the rampaging expansion of government. The survey asked, “In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future – big business, big labor, or big government?” A sold majority (55%) identified “big government” as their chief worry, while all the horrible publicity on Wall Street and its excesses pushed the terror of “big business” only to 32%. In fact, by taking the logical step of combining those who fear big government with those who fear big labor, that makes 65% — or just under two-thirds—who see our future menaced by institutions (government bureaucracy and major unions) identified unequivocally as liberal.

[CONTINUED AT TOWNHALL.COM...]

Tags: big-government, gallup, michael-medved, polling, usa-today

No Comments »

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER 4/22/2009: The hostility between Fox News Channel and MSNBC reached a fever pitch Wednesday when a Fox producer infiltrated the GE shareholders meeting.

Just before GE re-elected board members, company brass were hit with questions from shareholders critical of an alleged leftward political slant at MSNBC.

But one of those questions came from Jesse Watters, a producer on “The O’Reilly Factor” whose criticisms were cut short when his microphone was cut off, according to several attendees. Watters apparently did not publicly identify himself as a Fox employee.

Watters has built a reputation as an ambush interviewer, specializing in on-the-street confrontations. But this is arguably the boldest move by a Fox newsie to utilize the tactic inside their chief rival’s tent, as it were.

[CONTINUED...]

Tags: bill-oreilly, cnbc, fox, foxnews, ge, general-electric, jessie-watters, media, media-bias, msm, msnbc, nbc, NEWS

No Comments »

GENEVA (Reuters) – A United Nations conference on racism shunned by the United States and many of its allies opens on Monday when a speech by Iran’s president, also regarded with suspicion by the West, will be the focus of attention.

Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Italy are among the countries avoiding the summit because of fears it will be a platform for what U.S. President Barack Obama called “hypocritical and counterproductive” antagonism toward Israel.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only major head of state who accepted a United Nations invitation to take part in the “Durban II” meeting in Geneva, which U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will also address on Monday.

CONTINUE…

Tags: Ahmadinejad, anti-semitism, Ban-Ki-moon, durban, durban-ii, iran, israel, Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad, racism, un, united-nations

No Comments »

1. BHO [Barack Obama] wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.

Stop The ACLU

Tags: barack-obama, captain-phillips, maersk-alabama, obama, pirates, Politics, president-obama, rescue, uss-bainbridge

No Comments »

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago - If a picture is worth a thousand words, then many observers are wondering what’s the political significance of photos capturing President Obama and Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez exchanging friendly greetings and gestures at a regional summit.

Although Venezuela provides about 10 percent of the U.S. oil imports, the OPEC nation was locked in a bitter war of words with the Bush administration — Chavez famously called Bush “the devil” at a meeting of the United Nations.

FOXNews.com:

Tags: americas-summit, barack-obama, chavez, handshake, hugo-chavez, obama, president-obama

No Comments »

…it’s a case of chickens coming home to roost and that the reason why so many people may have appeared gleeful is that the police have for so long looked at various communities as less than human.

- San Francisco BayView 03/25/2009

Upon hearing the gruesome details of last weekends murder spree by Lovelle Mixon where four Oakland, CA police officers were killed in the line of duty, after absorbing the gravity of it all, my first thought was that here was a vile crime committed by a beast of society that would render no sympathy. There won’t be riots, rallies, protests, cheers or admiration for this thug. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Mixon, who by any reasonable standards shouldn’t have even been on the street to commit this crime against humanity, was convicted of a assault with a deadly weapon during an armed robbery and linked to a February rape. As a testimony to California’s parole system, four police officers are dead because a man who shouldn’t have been loose in society was actually armed.

According to Mixon’s grandmother, Mixon was unhappy with his parole officer and was considering returning to prison in the hopes of getting appointed a new parole officer. Apparently Mixon changed his mind and while being stopped in a traffic related situation, opted instead for murder and suicide.

The same mentality that brought us the rhetorical defense of Black Panther and convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal as well as Crips founder and four time murderer Tookie Williams, has reared it’s ugly head again and took to the streets in Oakland to chant against “genocide”, though not the genocide attempted by Mixon. Making a virtual hero out of this sadistic bum, the rationale behind defending him relies on drumming up every high-profile case of a cop killing an African American, with no bearing on circumstances surrounding the confrontations.

By that mentality, supporters of law enforcement should be justified in randomly killing gang members, ex-cons and radicals because apparently the solution to societies ills is senseless revenge and destruction.

There is no justification for what Mixon did last weekend, moral or otherwise. Attempts to defend of glorify this monster are steeped in a warped sense of misplaced outrage and the desire to use victimization as a means to tear down society. Who is served when the lines are blurred between actual acts of police abuse and situations like this where the fault of this tragedy rests 100% on the shoulders of the suspect? Doesn’t it taint any cause for social justice when anti-social thugs like Mixon are put on a pedestal and held to the same standard as true victims of police brutality?

To put it concisely - what the hell is wrong with people? Mixon’s own grandmother offered a prayer for the slain officers and their family while Mixon’s disturbed supporters were out cheering and praising him for his actions. One protester was quoted as saying, “This gives people a chance to speak their minds.” Invading Iraq gave people a chance to speak their minds too, but that didn’t change opponents into supporters.

How does dignifying this inexcusable crime help anyone? Does glorifying Mixon’s murderous rampage make things better for anyone? If you’re a police officer in Oakland and you see people taking to the streets to celebrate the death of four policemen, does that strengthen a relationship between a neighborhood and law enforcement? Does it reduce tensions? Does it reduce the chance of another tragic encounter? Will it make life better for those citizens?

What is the benefit? What is the end goal? It certainly can’t be narrowed down to an effort to improve anything. It’s embarrassing, it’s troubling, it’s destructive, it’s pathetic…but it’s not beneficial to anyone with the exception of attention-seekers, demagogues and tragedy profiteers.

People who validate this crime and mourn for Mixon shouldn’t be surprised when they are scorned, mocked, ridiculed and marginalized from society.

2 Comments »

[Woodrow] Wilson’s empire has no borders because He does not govern territories. Rather He interprets the needs, the hopes, the faith of the human spirit, which has no spatial or temporal limits.”

- Benito Mussolini, 1919

We’ve heard President Barack Obama be compared to Lincoln, FDR and JFK, much of it between election day and his inauguration. I don’t recall hearing him compared to Woodrow Wilson though he is as much attempting to replicate the Woodrow presidency as he is Franklin Roosevelt’s.

Wilson was hardly a man we would hope our children aspire to today. In some circles he is listed as one of America’s great presidents, which is fine if you find a need to pay tribute to the progressive income tax, nationalization of private industry, the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations, anti-immigrant hostility and institutionalized racial segregation.

Sure, there were obvious differences - President Obama is not expected to officially enact segregation in the federal government anytime soon - but some of the similarities center around government expansion and a political spiritual-ness that elevated both men to more than just men. While the reasons behind Obama’s almost Holy existence has constantly escaped me, Wilson, as the son of a Presbyterian Minister, invoked sweeping religious overtones to his political rhetoric in speeches, essays and books. He painted government as a religious cause and “a mighty force in furthering God’s kingdom,” almost defining himself as an instrument of God (and in the above quote from a young Mussolini, it’s no accident that Wilson is referred to as ‘He’ in the proper sense). Both Obama and Wilson have been known for their superior oratory skills.

President Obama seems to be concocting a recipe blending in the pioneering big-government initiatives of Wilson, the subsequent New Deal presidency of FDR and the inflated legacy of John Kennedy who’s greatest accomplishment as president was the posthumous symbolism that spurred in LBJ’s Great Society. Jonah Goldberg refers to these three 20th century events as a trifecta of soft American fascism where general freedom was subjugated for a larger purpose; where government took on a larger and larger role as income redistributor, financier of the downtrodden, enforcer of narrowed patriotism, usurper of parental authority and religious faith, expander of global authority over national sovereignty and all around thought police.

“Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

This quote by Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, about sums it up. In this regard, Democrats should be thanking George W. Bush, rather than just blaming him for the current economic situation. Whereas a leader might see a crisis as a task to fix a crisis, the Obama Administration has gone into full crisis mode. Six months ago, when candidate John McCain claimed that the fundamentals of the US economy were sound, he was written off by Obama as out of touch. Obama, as President-Elect and then as President, made sure to scare investors at every turn. The bigger the crisis, the bigger the opportunity. Only recently has Obama begun to speak like a president who’s every word has the potential to sway the markets in one direction or another, and despite higher unemployment and a much lower stock market, has managed to now adopt McCain’s perspective as his own.

Opportunity is certainly knocking in what is amounting to the biggest expansion of government since World War II. This leads me to witness two fundamentally tragic observations about huge government: (1) so many are unaware, ignorant or oblivious to the ramifications of big government and (2) others are champions of and purveyors of it. Whether they recognize the negative residuals of big government remains to be determined.

The fight between small government conservatism and big-government leftism represents the most fundamental political divide in this country, over-shadowing most topics. I’m hoping for an opportunity for both sides to better understand the other.

Conservatives are described as lacking compassion and being indifferent if not hostile to people’s suffering. This is emphasized if the people suffering are of a minority class. Conservatives and particularly religious conservatives lead the country in charitable endeavors - they are more than willing to sacrifice their own time and resources for social welfare. It’s a genuine compassion when compared to the notion that supporting the forced seizure of people’s resources to divide between those who may need it more is in itself the greater compassion.

Conservatives see personal charity as noble, a virtue; leftists seek to achieve that same virtue through the vice of unrestricted government. The question that arises from this (among other things): does big government exist and grow to support the legions of hurt and struggling people in this country…or do hurt and struggling people need to exist to support the goal of big government?

We all want better for our fellow citizens. So then what’s the problem? The problem lies in the fact that government is the divide. Some think that something, everything, must be fixed with government involvement and then more government involvement to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. Do I think that they are wrong? Absolutely.

I’m not a purist when it comes to being anti-government. I believe there are things that can be mandated only to the federal government. I understand that state, city and county governments are obligated to respond to their regional needs. But I also see government for what it is - the single biggest threat to a people, their families, their faith, their prosperity, their freedoms…anywhere on the planet. What is special about the United States is that we are a nation who’s form of government was specifically designed to be as minimal a threat to liberty as any government can be and still functionally govern.

There is nothing in human existence that has the capability to do more damage to humanity than government. It is government that causes oppression; poverty; mass starvation; enslavement; genocide and war, almost exclusively over any other entity on the face of the earth. All it takes is a corrupt bureaucracy, a lazy people, a charismatic leader and a crisis to lead a country into the abyss with trains of people following, singing spirituals and dreaming of things that might be.

One of the key questions this raises is: why would any American trust the federal bureaucracy more than their own state and local government? The benefit of sending dollars and decision making to Washington DC over your own state or local government escapes me. The further you have to go from your own neighborhood to be governed, the more difficult it is to control and influence. You can often schedule a meeting with your mayor or city/county board; you can talk to someone in the office of your governor or your state legislative body; you can support referendums in your state elections; you can voice your concerns much more effectively on the local level; you can hold people more accountable when their office is a drive away versus across the country; you can have a direct say in what goes on in your back yard rather than turning the matter over to a barely accountable, bloated national government that may pit your interests against the interests of unlimited scores of others across the country.

There has been criticism recently of a few courageous governors who refused parts of the federal stimulus give-away. These are governors who feel that their states should have the freedom and ability to deal with their own problems and are leery of the attached strings that always come with federal involvement. Critics of these governors (such as Alaska’s Sarah Palin and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal) have no respect for states that opt out and they come across as emotional and seething in their criticism.

I have to ask - why? If you aren’t a citizen of Alaska (a state that has the benefit of oil revenues) then why is it so tragic to you if the governor of that state says, ‘we can do without’? Is the idea to spend federal money where there is a crisis and the money is truly needed…or is the idea to simply spend federal money?

I can support these governors because their reactions support my philosophy on the role and the dangers of big government. This makes me wonder - what is the philosophy in play here on the part of their critics, particularly those who don’t stand to personally gain from Alaska accepting federal handouts?

Which leads to the biggest question of all - what do you hope to personally gain from this current whirlwind of federal spending? Are you personally looking for a handout? Free various services that are more rewarding if someone else pays for them?

What the last few months have taught us is that in a crisis, anything can be deemed an emergency or as in dire need for help. What I wonder is if this current atmosphere represents a climax in runaway government expansion or is this just a prelude?

No Comments »

In the Land of 10,000 Laws (MN), we can’t balance a budget or elect a US Senator, but we certainly have our priorities. The shame is that something like a cigarette is becoming an unspoken symbol of freedom.

After MN legislators decided that they could tell bar owners which kinds of customers they could and couldn’t cater to, the next baby-step toward an all-out ban on cigarettes arrives, supported by the nanny-village lobby: prohibiting smoking in the presence of children in an automobile.

Sounds reasonable in its premise but raises many questions. It’s being presented as a secondary violation, meaning that a cop can’t ticket you (upwards of a $100) just because he sees you smoking a cigarette with a child in the backseat. But if he pulls you over for a traffic violation, he can fine you for smoking.

We have the same approach with our seat belt laws. Currently, there is a legislative battle to make not wearing a seat belt a primary offense. ‘Secondary’ is a temporary introduction for controversial laws. Democrat Paul Thisen summarized it effectively, pointing out that it’s already required by law - what sense is there to not make it primary?

The concern of course is more government intrusion. Some of the natural questions legislation like this raises:

What about third-hand smoke? If I can get ticketed for smoking with children in my vehicle, what about smoking with evidence of children? Surely I can’t smoke with car seats in the back. Smoking leaves toxic residue and lingering pollutants in the air, right?

Won’t someone please think about the adults? Why stop at children? Do we not care about adult passengers? Perhaps a law against smoking with a passenger, or at least without clear authorization from the passenger to light up? But that might reduce the number car poolers…hmm…

Just ban it already! The only sensible thing to do is legislate a total ban on smoking in automobiles. After all, it’s a distraction anyway. So a ban on smoking, eating, drinking, playing with the radio, adjusting the heat, using a BlueTooth, conversing with someone in the back seat would make the most sense.

But it’s for the children! Which means that government has a duty for total intervention between a parent and their children. You can’t protect children from their parents harmful smoking if you limit it to just automobiles. Naturally, smoking in homes with children should be a crime. Heck, carry it to the third and make smoking in any home that may be visited later by children prohibited. I guess we’ll just ban smoking in homes altogether.

Food Patrol? Since we’re going to have government controlling what parents expose their kids to, then it’s seems obvious that big-government intrusion wouldn’t be complete without controlling what we feed our kids. Perhaps a bureaucrat at every fast food place to hand out citations for people who bring their kids there more than once a month; cholesterol and body-fat tests on children using a scale system to slap fines on their parents; government planned meal schedules; subsidies for fruit and vegetable purchases; a program for kids to tell their school administrators when their parents feed them a pizza with extra-cheese. We could call it The HeartStoppers Initiative - because we (heart) your kids!

Are their even laws on the books against pregnant women smoking? A pregnant women will legally be able to smoke with her child inside her but not in a minivan with her child in the backseat and the windows down. This cannot stand. Of course, we have to be realists and appreciate the gravity of a law that places more value on a fetus - it sounds an awful lot like a threat to a woman’s right to her own body. This kind of legislation would have to include a loophole exempting any woman who tells the officer she is planning on having an abortion - after all, then what does it matter? Let’s all support choice!

As I told a co-worker who was excited upon learning of this new ban, be careful of what precedents you are willing to let your government set. The next thing may be something that you enjoy.

Meanwhile, smokers: you should accept and pay whatever tax increases the government slaps on your cigarettes. It’s that revenue that is keeping government from doing all of the above…at least all at once.

Tags: big-government, minnesota, mn, nanny-state, smoking-ban

No Comments »

Couch potato’s represent the latest victim’s group to require being propped up by your federal tax dollars.

Amid the fear tactics displayed by Democrats in Congress and President Obama about the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, our leaders have found a way to bilk more money out of our pockets for a cause that couldn’t be any more worthless. While I can think of more reprehensible ways for the Obamacrats to spend our money (the presidents authorization to federally fund overseas abortions comes to mind), the governments handling of the impending digital TV broadcast conversion is one of the most senseless boondoggles to come out of DC in some time.

I’m pretty sure that spending another $200,000,000 on coupons is going to do nothing for jobs in this country or the economy for that matter. That’s on top of the $1,340,000,000 (that’s 1.34 billion) already allocated for this disastrous coupon program.

The cause of the additional costs is mind boggling. It’s going to cost the taxpayers (and broadcasters) hundreds of millions of dollars more because Congress feels it vital to ensure that people are ready for the switch. That’s after a decade of preparation, a three year old deadline that was set for next week and a coupon program that’s been going on for a year. Government, in similar fashion to most things it handles, has completely botched the program. As always with the federal government, the costs are more than estimated and the execution of the plan flawed and cumbersome.

Many years back I managed a Radio Shack store. Even being in the inner city in 1996, I probably spent more time trying to help people tune in local broadcast channels than on any other electronics issue that we handled (and we handled a wide spectrum). I can’t imagine what those stores are going to be dealing with when the deadline, which is now being extended to June 12, comes to pass.

Point being that people are never going to be ready for this switch. They could postpone it until Christmas and it’s not going to change that.

The extension is going to cost PBS alone an estimated $22 million. Smaller, rural stations are finding it tough to maintain their analog equipment while dealing with the costs of switching and in many cases, running dual broadcasts. This is when ad revenues are down and people in broadcasting are already facing lay-offs. A tube going out on an old transmitter could cost as much as one employee’s annual salary which will force smaller stations to make tough choices (no choice really, a transmitter is more important than any employee) and for what? For technology that will be outdated in four months anyway. Stations have not been maintaining their old equipment because next week it was going to be obsolete. Now some may have to. (and I haven’t seen numbers showing how much it is costing to upgrade televisions in public schools and other government buildings - the next time your school district threatens to lay off teachers if you don’t give them more money, ask them how much has been invested in the schools so they can still get broadcast channels)

So the crux of my beef is why is it so important to ensure that as many people as possible receive television signals? When has television become a necessity? What would be so awful for some people to wake up on February 17th and not be able to receive the truly wonderful programming that TV has to offer?

Personally, I can’t stand 95% of today’s television. The “reality TV” craze went right over my head and it’s tough to be interested in today’s sitcoms and dramas because so many are gone as fast as they arrive. Not to mention the quality of TV shows today. Prime time used to be family time but it’s almost impossible to watch today’s shows with the kids in the room. Dramas are pushing the envelope on nudity and sexual content (because it’s really, really fascinating), comedy sitcoms don’t even hide their sexual humor in clever innuendos anymore and it’s almost a challenge to find a show that doesn’t highlight or glorify homosexuality. Prime time TV in front of the kids means having to explain to your four year old why those two guys are kissing each other.

Even the shows that are ‘good’ are awful. I’ve dutifully watched some of my wife’s shows in the past but I can’t sit through Grey’s Anatomy. I usually leave the room within the first half. It’s one of the dumbest, most predictable train wrecks I have ever seen, full of obnoxious, almost unlikable people, following the same theme week after week.

That last sentence could apply to local newscasts as well. I watch and read my share of news and information - but local news in a joke. These programs spend about five minutes covering local news, five minutes covering national news, segments devoted to weather analysis and predictions that fail to be accurate almost as much as it succeeds and sports news because nothing is more important than broadcasting the score from last nights volleyball game and the salary negotiations of the latest future ex-convict. And then of course, the most infuriating segment of all: the human-interest stories where every reporter goes for the Pulitzer Prize in schlock, where victims and left wing causes get their stories told amid violins playing for silhouettes of people against a setting sun, with their voice-over reflecting on or preparing for some awful event in their lives. Ugh…

So what exactly do people lose by not having broadcast TV? Maybe more people would pick up a book or spend time with their families or get some work done or volunteer. Some might just go rent DVDs for a while. Of course, most people who found their TVs dead would then scramble to get that resolved, whether it happens in February or June, whether they opt for the conversion or go cable/satellite.

Besides, what do those people with old analog sets gain anyway? If you haven’t experienced digital broadcasting yet, you may be in for a letdown. The picture is slightly crisper (right now, with dual broadcasting you can compare them), sure. But on an analog broadcast, a weak signal or less than ample antenna meant some snow or fuzz. If that bothers you than be aware that on a digital broadcast, a weak signal means no TV. Instead of snow, you get blackouts, screen freezing and chopped up digital patterns wreaking havoc on your screen. On the old system, you could get away with an ordinary indoor antenna so long as you were willing to sacrifice some quality. On the new system, most people who don’t already have top of the line antennas or roof antennas will be forced to upgrade. Funny that we’re not considering funding that as well.

To clarify, I’m not opposed to spending money to get the transition done. I think the reasoning behind the switch is a sound one (freeing up more and better frequencies for emergency services) and it will mean noticeable improvements for people who are willing to invest in it. I think it’s appropriate to apply some subsidies for broadcasters who are struggling to make the transition. But that’s where it ends. I don’t think taxpayers should pay $1.5 billion so their neighbors can watch American Idol and be subjected to tortilla chip commercials.

Subsidizing television watching may not be the worst thing our federal government has ever spent money on but it’s up there as one of the most pathetic.

Tags: analog, broadcast, congress, converter-boxes, digital, digital-conversion, GOVERNMENT, high-definition, television, tv

No Comments »