/|\

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”


Tuesday, March 8, 2004

So Much for Cable

According to the WaPo, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) wants to put on cable the same restrictions put on broadcast television:

The government has resisted policing cable in the past, citing First Amendment hurdles to governing content that consumers pay for rather than receive free. But Stevens said he thought the Supreme Court, which ruled that cable systems must carry local television station signals, would also require cable to hew to broadcast decency standards.

The cable industry, wary of regulation, said its self-policing is sufficient.

"Cable technology already provides families the tools to block unwanted channels from entering the home, and leading cable companies will provide this technology at no additional charge to customers who don't have the means to block unwanted programming," Brian Dietz, vice president of communications for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said in a written statement.

In the House, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he supported equal treatment of cable networks and would talk to Stevens about possible legislation.

So let me get this straight. The FCC originally existed to regulate what was seen as a limited, naturally recurring resource--namely, the airwaves. They are limited in the EM spectrum, and yes, someone has to make sure radio and television stations don't broadcast over each other. As for regulating what is on television, while deep down I don't agree, I understand it, as the airwaves were considered a public trust. Of course, that also goes back to time when television (and radio) had to allot a certain amount of time a week to public issues (usually ending up on a Sunday morning).

Times have changed. Public programming is rare. And frankly, folks have overwhelmingly turned to cable, a system where you now have to pay for television programs. Of course, these programs are also making money by selling ad time, as well as getting you to pay to see it--something which doesn't happen with broadcast television.

My point is that people elect to have cable. It isn't a limited resource (not in the same sense that the naturally-occuring broadcasting waves are limited), and it isn't considered a public trust. It's ruled by the market. For that reason, the FCC hasn't had jurisdiction over cable--it's not public.

What I'm getting at is this--cable stations regulate to some extent, based on what they think their viewers will pay to see. Sometimes a station will push the envelope, like South Park's use of "shit" some 300 times in one episode, with the intent of proving against using shock-value words. Or even more, think of the pay channels, HBO and Showtime, where nudity, drug use, homosexuality, and expletives are used freely. They can do this, because people are paying to see it. If you don't want to see it, you don't pay to see it.

Me, I don't have cable. It's expensive, and I'd only sit around and watch cartoons all day if I did have it.

Anyway, so how to take this new legislation? Well, obviously it's an attack on free speech; it's the same impulse of Carry Nation and Comstock. It's the same prudery of spirit that can't stand the idea that someone likes something that the prude hates.

What to do? Well, these days, I'm not sure. It's not like the FCC listens to folks like us. I'm not sure that our congressmen or senators will listen.

OK, a downer. But give your own suggestions.

|

12:30 PM

Monday, March 7, 2004

Er, not exactly comforting

Via the Poor Man, there's this little bit of worry outta Mother Russia:

Putin sets up youth brigade to tighten grip

With President Putin's popularity in sharp decline, the Kremlin has set up a new Russian youth movement to ensure its control of the streets in the event of mass anti-government protests.

Hundreds of youths, many belonging to the president's cultural society "Walking Together", held a meeting in a house owned by the Kremlin Property Department to launch the group at the weekend. The organisation, which leaders hope will attract 300,000 members, was christened "Nashi" [Ours], a word which in Russian has chilling nationalist overtones.

[snip]

In the eyes of many, the tactics are more reminiscent of the Hitler Youth of pre-war Germany than of the supposed democracy in Russia whose health Mr Putin indignantly defended when he met President George W Bush last week. Andrei Pointkowsky, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies, said: "Putin is behind this. Scared by the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Kremlin is trying to form a Putin Jugend to suppress future opposition.

And as Poor Man points out, Nashi is also slang for "National Socialist." Yep. For all the jokes on lefty blogs about brownshirts, this here is the real thing. Yeah--Bush's buddy "Pooty" is setting up his own Putin Youth.

|

2:10 PM

The Problem with Sneakers

In the hopes that y'all have found your way here (hope hope hope), I have a question for you. Now, all my sneakers have holes in them. I've basically worn them out as much as I could, and haven't bought a new pair of sneakers since Converse got rid of their American factories and started manufacturing in Indonesia. Hell, I've even heard that Doc Marten doesn't make their shoes in England anymore, so I hope my boots hold up (so far they've been good to me after six years).

I can't in good conscience buy a pair of sneakers made in a sweatshop. When I was younger, I wasn't aware of what went on, but now that I know, I can't spend my money on sneakers made under these conditions. You might disagree with me, which is your right, but it's my conscience, and I have to live with myself every day. It's why I don't shop at Walmart, either. If I know how these shoes are made, and I spend money on them, then I'm saying, with my hard-earned dollars, that I approve.

So my question is to you--are there any sneakers still made in America? I just need normal sneakers, tennis shoes, whatever you want to call them, which aren't made in sweatshops.

|

1:30 PM

Sunday, March 6, 2004

Welcome to the New Digs

As some of you know by now, I decided to move my blog from the Blogger site to my own website. Really, it makes more sense this way. And, now that I've actually bothered to learn some CSS coding, the site will look, if not good, then at least halfway readable.

|

11:12 AM