FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is going to suggest that cable operators change to an à la carte method of pricing instead of only offering package deals. Some say this could mean an end to niche channels, but is that a bad thing? Why the hell should I be forced to surf through dozens of channels I don’t watch just to see the few channels I like. Personally, I would rather not subscribe to any of the new channels, especially FOX, so why should I have to pay for them? It would not be a terrible thing if some of the crap cable channels went away. It’s also the right thing for consumers. This is just another way for parents to have control over what their children see.
Missouri is a rather red state these days. Republicans control the state government (for now), both of our senators are Republicans, and most of our Congressman (and woman), as well. That’s why I find it odd our broadcast airwaves are full of ads by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, a stem-cell research advocacy group. They even have former Senator John Danforth, a pro-life Republican and Episcopalian minister, doing ads in support of their initiative. Danforth has always been a favorite of mine. He’s one of those rare Republicans who is able to reach out to the other side, isn’t afraid to stand up for sensible ideas and program the wingnuts hate, and is an all-around nice guy. So I’m not surprised to see him supporting this initiative. It’s a very sensible plan and makes clear it will only support "…research, therapies or cures that are permitted by federal law … provided that such activities are conducted
ethically and safely and do not involve human reproductive cloning to
create babies."
What I’m surprised about is that there is absolutely no opposition advertising. None. The pro-life movement is very strong in this state, so why haven’t they started beating the killing-babies-drum? Curious.
Damn, Larry Wilkerson has one major axe to grind! I’m not sure what this man thinks he accomplishing by saying things like this, but it certainly won’t endear him to Republicans and Iraq War supporters.
Link: Brothers on the march to Islamic State
You know, a lot of folks like to knock Egypt’s Mubarak for not democratizing his country more, but is this really in our best interests? I know, I know, why would I ever think to defend a man who is guilty of doing terrible things to his citizens in order to remain in control? However, if the election of Islamists is the trade-off, I sometimes wonder. Of course, Mubarak is at least partly to blame for the rise of radical Islam in Egypt. The problem is, we do not need a well-armed country like Egypt to become a radical Islamic state. It wouldn’t take long for a major conflict to arise between them and Israel. So what do we do? Do we support free elections that will almost certainly lead to control of the government by radical Islamists, or do we turn a blind eye to Mubarak’s attempts to eradicate any opposition? Either way, we lose.