Category: Ranting

Any color you want, as long as it’s black

We’ve all heard a great deal over the last six months about President Bush’s call for social security reform. Although I believe he should’ve started with tax reform, he’s correct to encourage Congress to take action. Much of the information regarding his plans is vague, which mostly seems like a (correct) political play to get the topic in the national debate. But, for various missteps and bouts of irrational rhetoric, reform momentum seems to have faded away. Of course, we’d all like to pretend we can run away, but the problem is here until we deal with it. And even though I despise the government imposing mandatory “savings” minimum on me, I understand the social costs of a large percentage of workers saving nothing for retirement, thus creating an unfair (and economically ruinous) burden on society. There is a rational government interest in not having American cities cluttered with poor, homeless elderly and disabled. So I will issue no call for revolution. I welcome new proposals which serve to meet that alleged social security goal of a social safety net. Unless they’re ill-conceived.

In an Opinion Journal column yesterday, John Fund wrote about a forthcoming proposal from Senators Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum. According to Mr. Fund:

Ceaseless pounding by liberals has driven many Republicans into a defensive crouch. It’s time for some political jujitsu that will instead focus the public’s attention on stopping Congress from spending the extra payroll taxes now flowing into Social Security on anything else. The only effective way to prevent that would be to take the money off the table by starting personal Social Security accounts for every American who wanted one.

I agree that we need to stop Congress from spending the extra payroll taxes. As I’ve mentioned in the past, as a self-employed taxpayer, I have the pleasure of paying both employee and employer payroll taxes out of my income. Admittedly everyone pays this because if employers didn’t have to pay it, it would lead to higher salaries (with the additional tax going to the IRS) but my point is still the same. I see the direct impact of our social security taxation scheme. It’s atrocious and must change. Any proposal that offers me more control over the money I pay so that I may one day see a return of that money earns my attention. If it also limits the government’s ability to recklessly spend my money for other purposes, that’s a wonderful bonus.

However, if I must save a specific portion of my income every year, I should be allowed to control the investment mix. At only 31-years-old, I’m not at the point where I need an ultra-conservative investment strategy. While I also will not pretend that purely speculative securities would be wise for social security savings, some risk (and diversity of choice, i.e. international stocks versus U.S. blue chips), especially for those willing to learn and actively participate in their investments, should be encouraged allowed. So my first choice is not to have a personal lockbox account of any sort because I fear the investment options will be too limited, yet to expect anything else borders on fantasy.

Mr. Fund’s hypothetical personal lockbox under the DeMint/Graham/Santorum proposal meets my “worst-case scenario” test. Consider:

Politically, their proposal does disarm some of the most oft-used arguments against reform. It would create no new debt for the government because, unlike President Bush’s proposal, the personal accounts would use only the surplus payroll taxes now flowing into the Treasury. That surplus will hit some $85 billion next year, and grow in succeeding years to the point that it could provide every worker who wanted one with a personal account of some $1,200. The surpluses will total some $2.5 billion until 2017, when Social Security starts running a deficit as baby boomers begin to retire. Preventing that money from being “raided” by a spendthrift Congress and White House could be enormously popular with a cynical public.

In addition, if the personal accounts were limited to no-risk, but marketable, Treasury bills, the argument about the “scary and risky” stock market investment of payroll taxes would be neutralized. Converting the nonmarketable IOUs the government now holds into marketable Treasury bills issued to taxpayers would create an asset that individuals would own and be able to pass on to their heirs. If history is a guide, such risk-free Treasurys would earn an annual rate of return of between 2.5% and 3%–much better than Social Security will deliver. The surpluses would become real assets owned by citizens rather than government IOUs (or, more accurately, “I owe me’s”) piling up in a filing cabinet in West Virginia.

Where to begin? While there are several issues in there, I’ll focus on one. “…if the personal accounts were limited to no-risk, but marketable, Treasury bills, the argument about the ‘scary and risky’ stock market investment of payroll taxes would be neutralized.” Ummm, no. Sure, such a plan would then securitize a portion of my social security funds, but how is this plan wise? More importantly, how is it any different than what we have today? The government would no longer have “I owe me’s”, but I would have “I owe me’s”. This sleight of hand offers the warm, fuzzy fiscal value of ownership, but I don’t really own anything I didn’t own before (other than the ability to pass that asset on to heirs, which is something). Every taxpayer is the government. The IRS is only the middleman.

Rather than explain this sleight of hand, allow me to illustrate it. This diagram shows how Mr. Fund’s idea would work. Notice that the government would still spend the same amount under this proposal as it does today when it is “allowed” to spend the surplus. Consider:

It’s simple. While I get the asset worth $1,200, the Treasury still has my $1,200 to spend on however Congress decides. The only difference is that the government no longer has an IOU in a filing cabinet in West Virginia. Now it has a item on its balance sheet showing an extra $1,200 in Treasury bills, which it will have to repay in the future. Again, Congress can still spend my $1,200.

What happens when those Treasury bills mature? Oh, here’s where it gets interesting. Mr. Fund does offer a proposal for this inevitable scenario. Consider:

Would the deficit increase if Congress used the Social Security surpluses to create personal accounts rather than finance current government spending? Not if Congress found the will to cut federal spending by roughly 3% a year. Even if they don’t, the unavailability of the payroll taxes to fund other programs could be useful. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress in March, “One can credibly argue that [the trust funds] have served primarily to facilitate large deficits in the rest of the budget.” He went on to argue that personal accounts would add to overall savings, which “in turn, would boost the nation’s capital stock. The reason is that money allocated in the personal accounts would no longer be available to fund other government activities.” In other words, once Congress couldn’t get its mitts on the payroll tax money, it would be put to more productive use in the hands of individuals owning their own accounts.

“Not if Congress found the will to cut federal spending by roughly 3% a year.” Ahahahahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahahaha. That’s a
good one. Raise your hand if you have faith in this Congress to cut spending. Ignore partisanship because Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible. (Ms. Coulter, that means you must put your hand down, now. Now. Thank you.)

Mr. Fund even argues the possible inevitable scenario where Congress doesn’t cut spending. Remember, he argues “the unavailability of the payroll taxes to fund other programs could be useful”. But I’ve already shown you that, under his proposal, Congress can spend the surplus payroll taxes. The accounting is the only aspect that changes.

So let’s return to the obvious, logical question. What would the future look like when those Treasury bills mature? I have two illustrated scenarios for your consideration. On the left is the expected scenario, a tax increase to cover the maturing Treasury bills. On the right is Mr. Fund’s hopeful scenario, a 3% Congressional spending cut. Tell me if you like either scenario.

            

Again, in both scenarios, the $1,200 for personal lockbox accounts continues. However, the additional $1,200 for maturing Treasury bills must be accommodated. Either taxes increase, or we get fewer services. I, of course, am all for fewer services, but until Congress shows some resolve to implement that, I’m not expecting it. Because today’s political decisions have consequences, prepare for tax increases.

At least the social security crisis will be resolved.

(Link via Instapundit)

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I think I’m beginning to make a hobby out of countering Michelle Malkin’s lapses in logic contentions. Today, she linked to a story about released French hostages. Consider the basic facts of the story:

A French journalist who was held hostage in Iraq for five months says she was beaten by her captors.

Speaking at a new conference in Paris, Florence Aubenas said she was kept blindfolded in a basement cell that measured 4m by 2m (13ft by 6ft).

She said she was beaten after being accused of speaking to a cell mate.

Ms Aubenas was forced out of her car in Baghdad on 5 January, along with her guide, Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi. They were both freed on 11 June.

Mr Saadi was reunited with his family in Baghdad. Ms Aubenas, who is a senior correspondent for Liberation, was flown home to France.

What’s the lesson in this story? Terrorists are despicable. They’ll beat hostages for allegedly speaking to a cell mate. They’ll hold hostages captive in a basement. They’ll subject them to mock trials. Most importantly, this is the lesson reported by the BBC, which any right-thinking conservative will tell you is one of the biggest pushers of the Liberal Agenda&#153. Yet, the BBC reported this with objective facts that are easy to interpret. Again, terrorists do Bad Things.

So what does Ms. Malkin focus on? Consider:

TERRORISTS HEART THE FRENCH

Terrorist farewell gifts for a recently released French kidnapping victim:

Two rings and a bottle of perfume.

The French hostage reported that one of her captors offered her gifts at the same time he returned her belongings. Rather than discounting the significance of this as either a crush or a goodwill gesture or a hideously presumptuous guard, Ms. Malkin decided that this was the lesson: We hate terrorists, terrorists like the French, we hate the French. All with the specter of hating the Liberal Agenda&#153, I presume.

How ridiculous. From reading her blog, I understand that she wants us to realize that terrorists are bad, we’re fighting terrorists, and we can’t waiver in our commitment to the task. Ok, got it. I even agree with it, despite not casting my vote for George W. Bush last November. Yet, she doesn’t use this as an example to further illustrate who the real bad guys are in this war. She takes another hysterical jab at Those Who Are Against Us because they don’t agree with and condone every action we take. That’s stupid logic.

Until we stop throwing around this nonsense and presenting the “with us or against us” mentality, we’re going to be mired in the problem rather than striving closer to the goal. America is founded on belief in the moral correctness of our ideals and the ability to dissent in an effort to stretch the moral correctness of our actions closer to perfection.

You know, because it matters not really

God bless the staunch conservative mouthpieces bloggers who look out for the good people.

In yet another lapse in logical causality thinking, Michelle Malkin points her readers (of which, I am strangely one) to this story about Rosie O’Donnell’s guest appearance on Friday’s episode of The View. Ms. Malkin quoted the article’s recap of Ms. O’Donnell’s remarks concerning breastfeeding and a recent “nurse-in”. Consider:

O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding

Comedienne Rosie O’Donnell banned her partner Kelli Carpenter from breastfeeding their daughter Vivienne just a few weeks after she was born–because she was jealous of their bonding sessions. Kelli gave birth to Vivienne in 2002, and the lesbian couple have been raising her along with their three other adopted children.

But O’Donnell admits she felt left out of the motherhood process whenever she observed her partner nursing their child.

She says, “Kelli only nursed for like a month and then I was very angry.

“With the other babies, nobody nursed because they were adopted. But with this baby she was the only one getting to bond, so I was like, ‘The nursing is over!’ I cut her off.

“I’m like, ‘You’ve had your limit, honey, no more!'”

I watched the clip (watch it here) and she did say those things. While I think she was being dramatical for the sake of television, knowing that the people who watch The View would not likely jeer her comments, I concede that it was stupid. Ms. Malkin correctly attacks Ms. O’Donnell’s “selfish, psycho comments”. I’ll even add to that how absurd Ms. O’Donnell’s comments were because, given that her partner is the biological mother, Ms. O’Donnell is in the role of the father. Men don’t get that bonding, yet somehow the term “daddy’s girl” is familiar to everyone. So, yeah, Ms. O’Donnell is selfish, putting herself above the child’s needs (if she didn’t exaggerate the truth for dramatic effect, though I don’t doubt she’s “me, me, me”).

But. How does that correspond with introducing the story as “one for the Hollyweird files” and concluding with this:

Can the pathological self-absoprtion [sic] of Hollywood be illustrated anymore clearly?

You know, because Rosie O’Donnell is the sole spokesman for parenting skills and decisions for anyone who has ever worked in Hollywood. This is ridiculous. Ms. Malkin should have challenged her comments and then explained why “forbidding” nursing is wrong. And then, she should’ve stopped. But Ms. Malkin can’t do that. Everywhere she turns there is some further proof of the Liberal Agenda&#153, which dictates that all people must be brainwashed into collectivism, self-absorption, and homosexuality. (I’ve written about this here and here.)

I do envy her, though, because I imagine she has much free time. Ignore the likelihood that she uses this free time to sniff out the tyranny of the Liberal Agenda&#153, she still has lots of free time that most of us don’t. I know this because I think of those moments I spend evaluating each individual news item/circumstance/whatever to determine the truth and insight it reveals. How much easier it must be for Ms. Malkin to see the headline “Rosie O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding” and immediately know it’s the Liberal Agenda&#153. Oh, cursed objectivity, you are my life’s bane.

I thought perhaps I read too much into the post, but I know from reading through the trackbacks to her entry that I did not. Not because there is so much hatred for the Liberal Agenda&#153 in the post as much as what she spews regularly. There is an overwhelming “with us or against us” absolutism in much of her thinking, which permits every basic fact to represent the Path of Righteousness&#153 and its obvious triumph over the fallacy of the Liberal Agenda&#153. The trackbacks to most of Ms. Malkin’s “liberals are destroying America” posts include nonsense such as this blog:

Here’s yet another reason why it’s dangerous to exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. The family unit is being torn apart and Hollywood embraces it. This is enfuriating [sic].

That logic is solid, because any time one member of a community does something stupid or illegal or immoral or {insert other obvious bad Liberal quality here}, that person represents everyone in that group. Right, because every priest who molests an altar boy indicates the problem with every member of the clergy. And every doctor who abuses drugs reveals the heavy burden to which every doctor succumbs. And every pro athlete who crashes his car after beating his wife while drunk with his penis in another woman is proof that athletes are poor role models and should be mocked, shunned, and shamed for existing. How much easier life must be for those who have found that ideology trumps the mind’s flexibility.

I hope the Kool-Aid&#174 tastes really good because there sure is some mass consumption happening.

I spent 75&#162 on this entry

KipEsquire at A Stitch in Haste points to this article concerning New Jersey’s newly announced ban on junk food in school lunches (to take effect on Sept. 1, 2007).

Under the New Jersey plan, soda, candy and foods listing sugar as the first or principal ingredient will be banned from school cafeterias. Snacks and drinks with more than eight grams of total fat per serving and two grams of saturated fat will be banned, and cafeterias will have to restrict amounts of foods with trans fats.

The only beverages that can be served in amounts of 12 ounces or more will be water or milk with 2 percent fat or less.

I’m not going to focus on the merits of this proposal because I don’t really care much. It’s a noble goal that will go horribly wrong because the government wishes to dictate that people make responsible choices where they don’t wish to do so. It’s especially absurd because it involves the state’s power over minors, a group that obviously has no political power to object. Also, parents form their child’s eating habits, so anything that doesn’t influence the prior learning before forcing the change, and I can think of little government intervention that would, will fail. I suspect the typical reaction will mimic this (not surprising) response:

“I think it’s whack,” Malcolm Jones, 13, an eighth grader at South Orange Middle School, said while munching on a baked chicken patty sandwich. A carrot stick sat untouched on his plate. “They took away French fries, pizza, all the good stuff. A lot of students aren’t happy.”

Anyone believe that kids won’t find a way around this? Administrators and teaches will spend more time confiscating junk food contraband than educating kids. So, no, I have nothing to add to that debate that isn’t obvious.

I do wish to comment on this quote, though:

Robert Earl, senior director of nutrition policy for the Food Products Association in Washington, D.C., said there were flaws with the plan because it excluded many foods that children want and need as part of a whole diet.

“Things like cheeses, nuts, peanut butter, flavored milks and normal foods that are part of a healthful diet could be excluded,” Mr. Earl said. “It seems like the better objective is perhaps having a lot of variety instead of restrictions.”

Education and choices? Oh, why would we do that? We don’t put children in school to learn to think. They’re in school to learn how to take directions. Duh.

But again I digress. What really bothers me is that Mr. Earl mentions flavored milks as “part of a healthful diet”. How are they healthful? Aside from the obvious arguments that humans are the only species to drink the milk of another species and milk does bad things to the human body, how is adding flavors to milk going to keep make it healthy? Consider this explanation of flavored milk by the National Dairy Council:

In general, flavored milks are milks to which a sweetened flavors such as cocoa or cocoa powder, strawberry or vanilla extract has been added, along with a sweetener such as sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.

No doubt every nutritionist recommends a minimum daily intake of high fructose corn syrup. That’s why we’re being propagandized marketed flavored milk from many different angles. Consider:

Besides the great taste, pediatricians agree that flavored milk is a nutritious beverage for children. This same survey also revealed that 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children’s growth and development and 93% said that children are not consuming enough calcium in their diets. Many children agree that they would drink more milk if it were flavored, and a recent study shows that children who drink milk with their lunch consume more calcium for the entire day! Not just for kids, milk, including flavored milk, has an excellent nutrient profile, and, along with other dairy products, is the major source of calcium in the diet. Government data indicates that most of us fail to meet our daily calcium recommendations as set by the National Academy of Sciences. This can lead to bone fractures early in life and eventually osteoporosis. Why shouldn’t we add a little “flavor” to our lives!

That’s a hard-hitting study. 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children’s growth and development. Who knew? Blah, blah, blah. There’s more debunking I could do on the facts, as presented so far, but that’s for another day. What I will do is a little experiment, based on this comment from Dayle Hayes, a registered dietician:

Flavored milk does contain added sweeteners. However, the amount of sugar in most flavored milk is significantly less than the amount in regular soft drinks.

Really? That’s good. We should make flavored milk the staple liquid to quench every thirst. But just to be sure, let’s look at the labels, okay? Okay. Here is the nutrition label for Horizon Organics Vanilla Milk. Here is the nutrition label for Nesquik Vanilla Milk.

One has 29 grams of sugar, the other has 30 grams. They’re basically even. And to get that fine flavor, they both use sugar. And Nesquik is better because it uses the high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavors. Mmmmmm. Nutritious. At least they’re use considerably less sugar than soft drinks. I hesitate to even think of the sugar content of soft drinks. But I must suffer for my art, so I purchased a 12 oz. can of Coca-Cola to read the nutrition label. (Coca-Cola doesn’t make it available on the web. Wonder why?) I took this picture of the Coca-Cola nutrition label.

Right, the less sugar argument is true because that can of soda has 39 grams of sugar. And yet, I don’t feel like that’s true. Why is that? Could it be that the soda’s 39 grams of sugar is in 12 oz. of soda, versus the 30 grams of sugar in 8 oz. of flavored milk? I didn’t major in calculus, but I think I can do this math. The soda has 3.25 grams of sugar per oz. The flavored milk has 3.75 grams of sugar per oz.

I haven’t had a soda in years, so I’m not promoting soda as an alternative to milk. But the argument that flavored milk is a good choice is absurd. For example, a serving of flavored vanilla milk has the same sugar content as a Snickers&#174 bar. Yet, it’s so much easier to believe the marketing from the government and dairy producers that milk is a great food. Really, they wouldn’t market lies. They wouldn’t pay legislators to legislate milk over soda water. Would they?

So, no, I have no faith in the state of New Jersey to get th
is plan right.

Adam & Eve owned a butcher shop

Sometimes a news item comes along that makes me angry. I may rant at many stories, but this article’s nonsense is beyond anything imaginable. So, even though the article is more than three months old, I’m still going to comment on it.

I’m a vegan. I’ve written a little about that in the past, but not much because I don’t care to preach to anyone. I think it’s the right choice, but I know most won’t agree. So be it. If you’re interested, I’m more than happy to give you information about why I choose veganism. Basically, I subscribe to the “Don’t tell, unless asked”. Most carnivores don’t want to know, believing that ignorance is bliss. Fine, enjoy. However, I expect the same because yes, I can get enough protein and no, I don’t really want a burger. I don’t even sneak them when no one is looking, even though I know many don’ t believe that. Somehow, I survive.

A few months ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting. One topic was veganism and whether or not its healthy, appropriate, or ethical for children. Professor Lindsay Allen, a US scientist with the US Agricultural Research Service. (The ARS is part of the US Department of Agriculture.) Those credentials seem impressive, but this is what she had to say:

“There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently.”

Really? Hmmm, maybe she’s on to something. I’ve read the exact opposite in almost every book I’ve read in the last eleven years, but perhaps she’s studied more. I want to know more.

“If you’re talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life.”

Unethical? That strong? What would be better? Blue Kool-Aid&#174 drinks? That occurs naturally in the wild. Chocolate milk? Ditto. I can’t count the number of times I’ve driven by a pasture only to witness three, sometimes four children suckling the teat of some grateful dairy cow. She nurses them so well, it’s stunning to think that, not only did she not give birth to those children, they’re not even the same species. Yet she cares so much. Cows are cool.

Professor Allen’s studied enough to know this. She’s even done studies. Consider:

Research she carried out among African schoolchildren suggests as little as two spoonfuls of meat each day is enough to provide nutrients such as vitamin B12, zinc and iron.

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples lacking these micronutrients.

This meant they were already malnourished.

Time to interrupt this just to emphasize that point. The children were already malnourished. Remember that as the story continues.

Over two years, some of the children were given 2oz supplements of meat each day, equivalent to about two spoonfuls of mince.

Two other groups received either a cup of milk a day or an oil supplement containing the same amount of energy. The diet of a fourth group was left unaltered.

The changes seen in the children given the meat, and to a lesser extent the milk or oil, were dramatic.

These children grew more and performed better on problem-solving and intelligence tests than any of the other children at the end of the two years.

Adding either meat or milk to the diets also almost completely eliminated the very high rates of vitamin B12 deficiency previously seen in the children.

Look at how completely the oil aspect dropped from the conclusion, but no matter. The point is obvious. Eat more meat and dairy. It gives the kids what they need. Damn, what an amazing elixir meat is. I’m just stunned. I would’ve never guessed that any adjustment to a nutrient-poor diet would make a difference. Who knew that consuming a variety of foods could make a difference? And I won’t mention how happy I am that Professor Allen concluded that it’s unethical to feed a young child a vegan diet consisting of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and oils, but it’s ethical in the name of science to deliberately withhold nutrition from a group of children known to be malnourished. I have so much to learn.

Professor Allen did make a concession.

She accepted that adults could avoid animal foods if they took the right supplements, but she said adding animal source food into the diet was a better way to tackle malnutrition worldwide than quick fixes with supplements in the form of pills.

“Where feasible, it would be much better to do it through the diet than by giving pills,” she said. “With pills it’s very hard to be certain that the quantity of nutrition is right for everybody and it’s hard to sustain.”

Right. It’s too hard to take B-12 supplements, so let’s just go to the easy answer. That’s how civilization achieved every advancement until this study, so it must work. Oh, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the National Cattleman’s Beef Association partially supported the study.

One final revelation in the story shows how generous developed, carnivorous nations can be. Consider:

In Africa, good results had been obtained from giving people a dried meat on a stick snack which proved both nutritious and appealing.

In two hundred years of economic and scientific advancement, the best we can do is export corn dogs?

The slogan will include “bias” and “pious”

That liberal media is at it again. Or is it just that the conservative blogosphere has nothing better to do than obsess about how allegedly far out of touch Hollyweird Hollywood is? Either way, there’s a new target for the disdain of so many who believe that every word uttered by, for, on, or in the media is a rant against “real”, patriotic Americans. Today, that target is Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Behold the freedom-hating, indecency-loving, vile-hatred of innocuous dialogue, as recounted (with comments) here:

If you really want to be all-but guaranteed to pick up on a bit of leftist Bush bashing on television, there’s no better place to turn than to NBC’s “Law & Order” TV series. The season finale of the show featured a storyline on judicial security. Detectives think a white supremacist is involved in the shootings of a judge’s family. Here’s part of the dialogue from that show:

ADA RON CARVER: An African American judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES: Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-Shirt.

Ummm, ha ha? Really, it’s a stupid throwaway line, but that’s how people talk, stupid throwaway lines included. And I believe the point of scripted entertainment is to entertain. Do we really want dialogue to sound like this:

ADA RON CARVER: An American judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES: Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody.

That works for me. “Somebody” doesn’t offend. It doesn’t describe either, but it doesn’t offend. And isn’t that the most important characteristic of entertainment? In business the maxim is “Cash is king.” I thought literature, a category in which screenwriting falls, the basic maxim is “Story is king.” Now I know better that the real literature maxim is “Non-offensiveness to any person’s politics, gender, sex, sexual orientation, education, ancestry, dietary considerations, disabilities, internet access, or humorlessness is king.” Really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

After a few incredulous comments, Mr. Boortz tries his hand at dialogue writing. Consider:

ADA RON CARVER: “She looks like she was alive when the car went off the bridge”

MAN: “Why didn’t she get out? The water is only four feet deep here.”

CARVER: “Dunno. Maybe she was dazed. The door might have been jammed. Anyway, she suffocated. Lack of air. Must have been a brutal death.

MAN: “Was she driving when the car went off the bridge?”

CARVER: “Doesn’t look like it. The seat is too far back for her to have been driving. Looks like someone taller .. a lot heavier.”

DET. ALEX EAMES: “Check the car to see if it has a Ted Kennedy bumper sticker.”

Guess what? I caught the meaning. You know, that the evidence doesn’t add up to the alleged facts. Isn’t that what good writing is supposed to convey? But somehow, I don’t understand how that conveys that the hypothetical suspect is a crazy, moonbat, left-leaning, liberal elitist. I just don’t make that connection. But, of course, when it comes from the so-called liberal media, there’s a clear intention behind the stupid, throwaway line. As Mr. Boortz concludes:

I ask you to imagine, if you can, the outrage that would come pouring forth from the nation’s liberal media if any of those punchy little vignettes actually appeared on a network television show. We would see stories damming NBC for using that dialogue and making those references to liberal icons. But in this case all NBC did was suggest that DeLay supporters kill federal judges. That’s not bias .. that’s entertainment.

NBC did not suggest that DeLay supporters kill judges. Here’s NBC’s official position:

“This isolated piece of gritty ‘cop talk’ was neither a political comment nor an accusation,” NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly said. “It’s not unusual for L & O to mention real names in its fictional stories. We’re confident in our viewers’ ability to distinguish between the two.”

You mean viewers are smart enough to determine that the stupid, throwaway line implied that the killer might be a crazy person who took this statement as an immediate order to be carried out because Rep. DeLay stated “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” after judges refused to reverse the decision to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube? You mean writers may take the easy way out to express their thought in an “inartful” way, just like Rep. DeLay “meant that Congress should increase its oversight of the courts.” Huh? No, I don’t believe that. It’s the liberal media. It can’t be anything else, my ideological talking point interpretation tells me so, so don’t try to convince me.

Is it really that devious? Or is there an alternate possibility? Maybe, just maybe, “Tom DeLay T-shirt” is a stand-in as a current events reference, a reference which explains the point in 14 words rather than a 3-page dissertation about public figures irresponsibly bitching about so-called activist judges and how those judges will eventually be made “to answer for their behavior”. Again, I state, isn’t that the point of effective writing? Particularly in dialogue?

If it quacks like a duck, sometimes it’s actually a sound clip of a duck, played on a computer by someone who realizes that purchasing a duck to hear a duck quack is overkill.

(Hat tip: Instapundit and my friend Will)

P.S. Mr. Boortz uses a picture from the original Law & Order, even though that isn’t the correct Law & Order for this non-scandal. Isn’t putting a misleading picture with a story a conservative argument against the so-called liberal media? I’m just saying.

Where the hell is the damn dam tour?

I’m back from Vegas, exhausted and poor, but happy. The weekend held so many experiences that it’d take hours to write each one in sufficient depth. Besides being too exhausted to commit that much energy, I have no doubt that most of it would only be exciting to me. Vegas stories fall into the classic “you had to be there” category because, at its core, every Vegas trip is really just an exaggerated road trip. I’m going to laugh hysterically at the memory of these stories for years, but I understand that because you weren’t there, I’ll laugh harder at them than you. So I’ll sell the punch line early for each vignette. Once sold, I’ll stop.

Here goes…

_____________________________________________________________________

I know budget airlines are all the rage, but please, if an airline wants to try the budget route, they must have a think on it first. To get to Vegas, I flew a combination of United and Ted. I haven’t flown United in years because Southwest is usually the cheapest alternative to everywhere I travel, but United had the best combination of price and schedule. Every trip flight this weekend revealed that United changed since my last experience. I don’t remember them ever trying to be a budget airline/Southwest, so their new endeavor surprised me. I did give it chance, but I hate it.

United/Ted somehow believes that I want to be treated like a cow in a herd. I don’t. When I board the plane, I want logic and convenience. Airlines such as United used to offer that, but it’s gone. The boarding process felt like Southwest without any thought process. Southwest’s boarding process is tedious, but somehow it almost always works. No matter when I board the plane, there is always a seat in the front, middle, and back of the plane on the aisle. Wherever I feel like sitting for the flight, I have the choice. I’m sure there’s a theory for why it works, but I don’t know it. It’s probably the same personal motivation people have for sitting in the same seat in a classroom or meeting. Seat assignments aren’t necessary, as anyone who’s taken a class in college knows. The seating just works itself out. It’s the “private market” at its finest. Until United/Ted implemented it.

When the easy check-in machine printed my boarding pass, I read my seat number printed on the ticket, along with my Seating Group. It should’ve been simple. Instead I learned the torture of the Seating Group. Rather than group seating by row number, United/Ted uses some bizarre combination of check-in time, seat price, frequent flyer status, and astrological sign. There is no logical purpose to this beyond a cheap, stupid imitation of Southwest.

My journey’s most glaring proof of this idiocy occurred Sunday night as I caught the red-eye from LAX back to D.C. At 11:30 pm, I don’t want to stand around until it’s necessary for me to board. I want to sit in the terminal, not scrunched up with people. I don’t like people that much, so the normal procedure is good. But my seat was in the next-to-last row, which meant I needed to board first. Except United/Ted disagreed. I was in the next to last group to board, even though I’d checked in five hours earlier in Vegas. That meant that everyone in the front and middle of the plane boarded first, standing in the aisle, blocking the line on the walkway back to the terminal for those of us in the back. Brilliant strategy.

Unfortunately, in an effort to be witty and hip, like Southwest, the flight attendants also tell jokes. Upon landing in Vegas, the stewardess commented about the casinos on the right side of the plane as we taxied to our gate. She opined this:

If you look out the windows on the right, you’ll see the casinos where you lost your money the last time you were here. (pause) Now, if you look out the windows on the right, you’ll see the 3 or 4 casinos being built with the money you’re going to lose here this weekend.

That’s not funny. She thought she was being amusing, but all she did was wave her little have-shitty-luck fairy dust over everyone. I’m superstitious with a healthy bit of intellectual skepticism, but I attribute every bad beat of the weekend to her. I even questioned my decision to wear my 2005 Phillies spring training t-shirt on Saturday because the Phightin’s had lost every time I’ve worn it. I gambled on the Phillies Saturday, so I wanted to eliminate every disadvantage I could. I wore the t-shirt, which is where the skepticism came in, but the game was much tighter at the end than it should’ve been, which is where the losing ways of the t-shirt still lingered. I credit the gambling with breaking the curse of the t-shirt, but it took my effort and thought. There was no way to counter that stewardess’ waitress’ comment, though. My last 24 hours in Vegas proved that her torpedo hit its mark. After her comment, the only bet I’d win is the one that says my dollars will fly elsewhere in the future.

_____________________________________________________________________

Cousin Eddie: I haven’t seen a beatin’ like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose.

During my first 24 hours in Vegas, I crushed the Blackjack tables. I lost my small bets and won my big bets. If I wagered $50 on the hand, the dealer would hit me a seven after dealing me a fourteen facing a face card. My streak was sick. I couldn’t lose. Every time I sat at a table, I doubled my initial stake within twenty minutes. It didn’t matter who sat at the table or how many people. I rocked. And then…

Clark Griswold: Twenty.
Marty: Twenty. It’s a push!
Clark Griswold: Hey, its a tie! I didn’t lose!
Marty: That’s it, Griswold! Now you’re freakin’ dead!

I played the $5 single-deck table, doubling my bet with every hand and returning to the minimum with every minimum. There’s nothing illegal about the strategy, and it won’t make anyone rich, but it’s a perfect strategy with a good bankroll to sustain it. Vegas casinos know this, so they set the table maximums at a sufficient level low enough to bust almost everyone on a bad streak. I hit that bad streak. I lost (a loss or a push) nine consecutive hands before busting my stake for the round. My actual loss wasn’t huge, but I’d built a 125% return on my stake before the streak hit. I could’ve left the table before the streak, but it came so suddenly that I missed the signs. When the sign hit, I tilted mentally. It’s a lesson I mastered the rest of the weekend, but I tilted at the sign.

What was the sign? I put my original table stake on a hand after a string of losses. The dealer flipped the cards around the table. (Casinos deal single-deck Blackjack face down to limit card counting.) I pulled Blackjack, with a payout of 6-to-5. Except the dealer pulled Blackjack, as well. With her Ten face up and her Ace face down, I couldn’t purchase insurance, which I would have done if the Ace came out as the up card. Instead of doubling my money, I pushed. When that happens, get. up. immediately. I didn’t and I lost the rest of the weekend.

I turned my luck into small gains with diligence, but then my own version of Vegas Vacation’s Marty showed up at the table to take it away. She pummelled me so badly that I sat down, ordered a bottle of water, and busted out before my water arrived. Tipping the waitress with the last dollar chip is not funny, not funny, not funny. Every gambler should learn that when his “Marty” shows up, he must leave the table. It’s not hard. Just stand up, push the chair back, and walk away. I wish I’d made the connection before; it would’ve saved
me from paying so much for a tiny bottle of water.

_____________________________________________________________________

Craps Experiment 2005 was a bust. Unlike Mr. Papagiorgio, I threw three 7s on my first roll after the come out roll. After, not on, which means I lost. And lost. And lost. I’m convinced they made me play with loaded dice. I’ll play again, but sheesh, at least buy me dinner first.

_____________________________________________________________________

I saw this Blackjack scenario, not once, not twice, but three times this weekend. I swear I wish I was making this up. That’s a lie, actually, because it was so awesome that I took actual glee in the bizarre reality of it. Consider:

Lois: I’m upset because you never listen to me. This is Atlantic City all over again.
[Lois and Peter at Blackjack table]
Dealer: You’ve got 20!
Peter: Hit me.
Lois: Peter, don’t.
Peter: Hit me.
Dealer: 21!
Peter: Hit me.
Lois: Peter.
Peter: Hit me.
Dealer: That’s 30.
Peter: Hit me.

I love quoting movies and TV shows during life’s random correlations, so I quoted that the rest of the weekend after the first time it happened. That I got to use it two more times made my head hurt in the same way it would if I’d finished a slushee in 30 seconds. Wow. Just wow. Vegas really is the land of dreams.

(For the record, the dealer didn’t give the next card once the players hit 21, but still… have you ever seen someone try to hit on 21? I didn’t think so.)

_____________________________________________________________________

That was the weekend. I can’t wait to go back. I can’t afford to go back, but I still can’t wait.

Clark Griswold flies to Vegas tomorrow

When a business wants to encourage customers to buy its product(s), it usually offers a hook. Whether it’s an advertisement showing just how freakin’ amazing your life will be from using the company’s product, such as a commercial implying that you’ll have scantily-clad chicks hanging all over you if you drink lots of beer for breakfast, or a story explaining how much worse your life will be without the company’s product, such as a commercial showing a woman rejecting her boyfriend for being a cad without a condom, companies try to sell you on why you need what they offer. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but they’re always trying.

It’s even better when they offer samples of a product. The primo example of this is Costco, because seriously, who would buy a fifty pound bag of fish sticks if they didn’t offer a sample? No one, so they offer samples. A “trial version”, if you will. It’s very effective and gets you hooked. Even if you don’t buy the fifty pounds of fish sticks, it’s always in your mind that, if you’re hungry on a Saturday afternoon and don’t feel like going to the grocery store, you can always go to Costco and eat for free. Yes, they give you $3 worth of free mini-hot dogs and shots of pasta, but you spend $130 on a lifetime supply of toothpaste and ketchup to get it. There is no logic behind the customer’s actions; it just works. So, yeah, trial versions are common. Especially in software.

Because I’m going to Vegas, I’ve been playing computerized casino games, as I’ve already written about. Aside from Blackjack and Texas Hold ‘Em, I want to play Craps. But I don’t know how to play Craps, so I’m playing on my laptop. Since my laptop is tedious on the Metro, I searched for a casino game for my pda to make it much easier to practice Craps while sitting with 200 of my closest strangers. I found All Mobile Casino.

I expect to pay for a full version of any game, but the trial version is my friend with software. Without trial versions, I’d buy few software programs, particularly games, because the risk of hating the game is too high. So trial versions enable me to verify a game’s merits before laying out my dollars credit card number. All Mobile Casino offers a trial version, so I installed it.

Riding to work this morning, I fired up my trusty Dell Axim so I could roll some 1s and 0s. I created my little miniature Tony, gave myself $1,300 in imaginary funds, and set off for the digital Craps table. Oh, my, the excitement.

I always start my bets small until I lose half my money and become bitter find the winning groove, so I dropped 25 fake American smackaroos on the Pass Line. I tapped the Roll button and two giant dice tumbled across the screen. The dice stopped on a five and a three, making the Point an 8. Excellent. I’m still learning, so I placed no additional bets before clicking Roll again. The dice shot across the screen and stopped on a four and a three, giving my roll a 7. That’s bad. Bye bye imaginary money, I hardly knew ye.

I can live with one loss, so I pushed another $25 to the Pass Line. You will not believe what happened next. Imagine this:

I tapped the Roll button and two giant dice tumbled across the screen. The dice stopped on a five and a three, making the Point an 8. Excellent. I’m still learning, so I placed no additional bets before clicking Roll again. The dice shot across the screen and stopped on a four and a three, giving my roll a 7. That’s bad. Bye bye imaginary money, I hardly knew ye.

Wait, what just happened? Did I roll an 8 and a 7 back-to-back in the same breakdown I did before? Very bizarre. So I bet again and tapped Roll. Same result. Are you kidding me? I ran the test one more time to verify that this is how the trial version is coded. It is.

I studied business in college, both undergraduate and graduate school. Never, not once, did I learn that it’s wise to make a potential customer a loser on the first shot. Would a drug dealer offer you the first hit of heroin for free, but with a disclaimer telling you how much your burgeoning addiction will destroy your life? No, he says “Try this, you’ll like it.” It’s the American way. Yet, Binary Fish expects me to give them my money so that I can practice being a loser? Ummm, no. If I want to know what it feels like to be a loser, I’ll watch the Phillies play. (I’m a bit disgruntled right now about this season. I haven’t given up hope, I’m just disgruntled. Ignore that comment because I’m not really that cynical.)

Can you imagine Las Vegas advertising with the slogan “Come to Vegas – We’ll keep your money and your dignity”? No, it’s never going to happen. Gambling sells illusions of riches and life betterment. That’s the product I’m buying. If you want me to buy your product, give me a trial version that allows me to roll nothing but sevens. That’s the product I want. I’d even give you the $17.95 you’re asking for it. Until then, I’ll just give that $17.95 to Las Vegas instead. They’ll at least offer me a smile when raking my money off the table.

Sounds to me like you caused a damn accident

Those crazy liberals are at it again, what with the refusing to resist the Cable TV-fueled temptations of Satan and the pushing of the homosexual agenda onto children. Consider this story from Lexington, Massachusetts:

For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington’s Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity.

Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of Who’s In a Family? by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.

The book’s contents concerned Parker and prompted him to begin a series of e-mail exchanges with school officials on the subject that culminated in a meeting Wednesday night with Estabrook’s principal and district director of instruction. The meeting ended with Parker’s arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail.

Ooooh, all conservatives think books are bad, right? Nope. Mr. Parker doesn’t say that and the specific book that his son brought home wasn’t the real issue for him. He’s concerned that the school is exposing his son to “homosexual material” without prior consent. The facts seem to support a complete communication failure between the school and the parents about this issue, which is where I believe Mr. Parker tried to take the discussion. Consider these e-mail excerpts from Mr. and Mrs. Parker and the school’s principal, Ms. Joni Jay:

Parkers to Principal on Friday, March 4, 2005

We do not authorize any teacher or adult within the Lexington Public School system to expose our sons, [older son] and [younger son] (begins school in 2006) to any sexual orientation/homoseexual material/same sex unions between parents.

Principal to Parkers on Friday, March 4, 2005

I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy.

Parkers to Principal on Friday, March 4, 2005

We would like to clarify that our previous e-mail which states: “we do not give the Lexington Public School system permission to discuss homosexuality issues (i.e. – trans gender/bisexual/gay headed households) to our son [son’s name]” – is a parental assertion; not a matter open to legal interpretation or administrative policy. Let us, David and Tonia Parker, parents of [son’s name], be clear in purpose and prose on this matter:

Discussions concerning homosexuality issues will not take place in front of our son, [son’s name] (5 yrs old), at Estabrook.

There is clearly a disagreement about how to handle this book. While I suspect that this book does nothing more than present a gay couple, which is not the same thing as “pushing the homosexual agenda”, I concede that this can lead to questions that the Parkers aren’t ready to answer for a 5-year-old. My nephew is four-and-a-half and, as smart (and inquisitive) as he is, my brother probably isn’t ready to discuss same-sex couples. (I think my nephew, like most kids, would say “Oh”, and then run off to play.) So, yeah, it’s certainly a parent’s right to determine what his/her child is exposed to at that age. And I don’t believe that getting that agreement from the school is too much to ask.

That didn’t happen in this case, though. Whether the school misinterpreted state law (mentioned in the article) or not is irrelevant. Mr. Parker should’ve taken his complaint to the school board, the next logical step. The exchange between the Parkers and Ms. Jay took several months, so time lag was not a factor. If, after taking his case to the school board, he didn’t get the answer he wanted, he could consult an attorney and sue or work to change the school board rules or whatever potential remedy presented itself. He shouldn’t have to go through that, but sometimes we endure obstacles that we shouldn’t have to endure.

That’s what he should’ve done, but it’s not what he did. This is what he did:

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

He was there, officials and police asked him to leave, he declined, the police arrested him. That seems simple enough, right? Nope. This is turning into a rallying cry for “liberals vs. family values”. Consider this conclusion drawn by Michelle Malkin (where I found the article):

Unbelievable that we’ve come to this. Parker is treated as a troublemaker and a bigot –and now a criminal–for refusing to cede parental control to p.c. public school educrats. Meanwhile, “diversity” brainwashing and Moral Equivalence 101 have seeped effortlessly into government kindergarten classrooms.

Mr. Parker is treated as a criminal, not for his beliefs, but for his alleged unwillingness to obey police instruction to leave the school premises.

Is this the only reaction where the thinker missed the simple fact for why the police arrested Mr. Parker? Consider this, from Wizbang!:

And in the meantime, what I think is the bigger issue is getting ignored. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Parker’s beliefs, the fundamental question is this: are his demands that he be notified about what material is being taught to his son about a clearly controversial issue unreasonable?

…snipped…

Quibble if you wish with Mr. Parker’s beliefs, but don’t challenge his right to possess them — and act on them. We need more parents who feel as protective of their children as he does.

While I quibble with his beliefs, Mr. Parker has a right to them. His demands to be notified are reasonable. But we also need more parents who respect the law as every other parent who has a disagreement with the school but works to achieve their goals in a proper manner.

Or consider this from The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill:

The vast gulf between the left and reality is making any possibility of my children ever going into any public school vanish. This is not as some might claim the Right Wing evangelicals rolling back the clock. This is much more like parents finally understanding what is being attempted by the left wing.

Read the whole entry… it throws around the term “Nazi” and the statement that educators who believe same-sex marriage is acceptable “have dedicated themselves to getting into a position where they could start tearing down the family structure.”

Or consider this from the blue site:

The liberals want to brainwash your children as early as possible. Liberal Massachusetts has a kindergarten program that teaches kids about homosexuals and “families” with 2 gay parents…

Sickening. The hom
osexuals will do anything to force their alternative (alternative to NORMAL) lifestyle down all of our throats…their new tactic is to start as early in a child’s life as possible, so the brainwashing will be totally set in by the time they become adults. Disgusting…

This is why liberals need to be stopped from their destruction of the family, traditional values, and this country as we know it…

Do I need to comment on that?

Or consider this comment left on the blue site by moe:

So true,Josh,so true. I dunno what’s gonna happen,but it ain’t gonna be good. As much as I would like to have children,I’m glad that I don’t right now. I would be constantly on edge,worrying that some stranger,will legally try and force them to learn to be fags. I wouldn’t stand for it,and you’re right when you say the vast majority of Americans find it disgusting too.

What the hell right does the public “education” system think it has? It’s supposed to teach readin’,writin’,and ‘rythmatic…not blowjobs and buttsex. And the big pisser,is that these filthy devient heathens,are enormously outnumbered by moral Americans,yet they somehow have been given authority. I ain’t happy.

I don’t bother queers,and I don’t harass them or go hunting for them to bash,so why do they attack the rest of us? Vile bastards,they are. They remind me of muslims….always picking the fights and starting trouble,yet always claiming to be “oopressed” and “discriminated”. They are not oppressed,but they should be. They should all get the ever lovin’ shit kicked out of them everyday,then see how much they wanna bitch and moan. Same goes for anyone who supports them.

Ah, those conservatives with their family values. Thank God they’re looking out for all of us from the evil liberal, homosexual agenda. Otherwise, what would concerned, law-abidingbreaking parents do?

You are one… sick… puppy.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association announced a new initiative yesterday. The new initiative intends to “help families manage their television viewing and protect children from inappropriate programming.” NCTA president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow offered the reasoning behind the new campaign (which can be found on the internets at controlyourtv.org:

“The cable industry shares the concerns of many parents, who want to guard against TV content they feel may be inappropriate for their children,” McSlarrow said. “While many cable customers already have the tools to block unwanted TV content, many are not aware how to use parental control features.”

Blah, blah, blah. I commend the NCTA for undertaking this task, but it really is a $250 million waste of money. Ideally it’ll keep Congress at bay because Congress seems to react favorably only when money is thrown at a problem. It reacts extra-special, super-duper favorable when it gets to define the problem. The free flow of money makes them feel like maybe some more of that might come their way for the next election, I suppose. Absurd, sure, but it beats legislation.

My issue with this is that parents who won’t read the instructions for their cable box won’t be influenced by this ad campaign. They don’t take the time now, so why will they with a few more spiffy commercials? Besides, those parents aren’t the ones who send e-mail and write letters and place telephone calls to L. Brent Bozell and the Parents Television Council every time some one says “H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks” on the TV. The parents who do will not be happy with this for one reason: it’s voluntary. Put a different way, it still allows all of the so-called offensive content to go to people who want it (or can’t/won’t stop it from reaching their children). The real opponents who’ve made this an issue want morality legislation and nothing else.

Consider this statement from Mr. Bozell:

… L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, blasted the program as an attempt “to spin the public with a multi-million-dollar campaign to promote channel blocking and V-chip technologies as an adequate remedy for families concerned about their children being exposed to violent, profane and sexually explicit programming.

“This $250-million sham is being foisted on American consumers by the cable industry with the sole purpose of shirking responsibility for its product,” Bozell added.

What else would Mr. Bozell promote that allows free citizens to choose what they watch and don’t watch? Does he not realize that this “$250 million sham is being foisted on American consumers” because of his blathering about indecency and the downfall of America and the inevitable coming of orgies in the streets thanks to one (not-really-) naked nipple fifteen months ago? Does he realize that that $250 million isn’t coming from the charity of the NCTA, that it’s coming from those parents who don’t bother to read the instructions that come with the indecency machine cable box hooked to their televisions? Or that it’s coming from me, an American consumer who understands that changing the channel or clicking the On/Off button on my TV remote is free? I already paid for those instructions the first time and my mother paid the taxes that supported my education which taught me how to read those instructions I’ve already paid for. But, nope, that’s not good enough, you have to be an obsessed Luddite who believes that every American child is the direct target of indecency and every American parent is too stupid to parent. Thanks for looking out for me, guy, but stop it. Now.

Mr. Bozell does offer rationalizations for his concerns. Consider:

“In order for the V-chip to work, it must rely on an accurate ratings system,” Bozell said. Pointing to the PTC’s recent report, The Ratings Sham: TV Executives Hiding Behind a System That Doesn’t Work, he called the existing system “a fraud, rendering the V-chip a useless tool and an irrelevant, meaningless gesture.

“Currently, the networks — not an independent body — determine a program’s rating, and those same networks are financially motivated to lower ratings in order not to scare away advertisers,” Bozell said.

Mr. Bozell doesn’t seek a method for a television rating system to be meaningful. He wants Congress to be the “independent body” that legislates what is acceptable. According to his “independent” standards, of course. I’m not going argue the financially motivated part because it defies logic to bother beyond a simple explanation. Advertisers are scared away only when viewers come complaining. Mr. Bozell and his devotees don’t go complaining to the advertisers, they go to Congress and the FCC.

Mr. Bozell added:

“Finally, even if the ratings system were accurate and the V-chip useful, it does nothing to solve the root problem,” he added. “Hollywood is flooding the family living room, via broadcast airwaves and cable, with offensive material, much of it deliberately designed for impressionable children.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to literally kick my feet to brush aside the offensive material. It’s everywhere and I’m afraid that my landlord is starting to get pissed danged upset about the filth. Do you know how many times I’ve had to hide a pile of breasts and the random, scattered Victoria’s Secret lingerie show lying around so that my house would look presentable again? I fear the day that must be coming soon when one of the cats licks the carpet and comes down with some horrible STD from the three seconds my TV was stopped on MTV last week. I’m sending that vet bill straight to Hollywood. But we all know nothing in Hollywood is straight, so the kitty’s STD will probably bankrupt me before I can get paid. Good thing you’ve come up with this alternative:

“Better yet, why doesn’t Hollywood just stop flooding television with sewage?” he concluded.

I don’t think they empty their sewage into the televisions, but I could be wrong. (I would think it would do bad, bad things to the wires.) Maybe you should call them instead of Congress. Better go directly to the source. Not directly to the source, I guess, but the central office maybe. Start there.

(Hat tip: SpeakSpeak.org)