Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Big Government, TV, and Nonsense

The legislature has enacted a billion-dollar bill to provide coupons to help people purchase converter boxes so that they will successfully transition from analog to digital television signals.  (Analog = "over the air" or "bunny ears", digital = "cable, dish, etc.")  Only the people on analog ("over the air") signals will be affected.

There are only a few channels that broadcast over the air.  Just the locals, for the most part.

Why is it, then, that this advertisement about the government-sponsored coupons for a converter box are showing up on digital-only channels?  We've seen the commercial on A&E, Lifetime, and ESPN -- none of which broadcast "over the air" signals anywhere in the U.S.

It's those people who get those channels who are precisely the ones who don't need the coupons.  That's weird.  I mean, why is this commercial running on digital-only channels?

I have some thoughts, but I'm curious as to what you'll say.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

China, the Olympics, and Human Rights

This year, for the first time, I am boycotting the Olympic games.

It's not because I don't like the Olympics -- I do. Very much. But starting on August 8, the 2008 Summer Olympics will be held in Beijing, China.

So why am I boycotting?
  1. Because for every one story published like this one, there are a hundred "incidents" that go unpublished. The Chinese response to protest? Beat the protesters and imprison them. So how does China get ready for the games? They expel approximately 1.5 million residents from the city -- including vagrants and the mentally ill.

  2. Quite simply, freedom does not exist in China. At least in the way that Americans think of freedom. I personally know people who have been beaten and/or imprisoned in China because of their religious beliefs. Is that the type of country and the type of government that we want to support?

American support of something as big as the Olympic games means one of two things: either you are ignorant of what really goes on in China, or you know what goes on in China and you don't care. If you've made it this far in my post, you now know that every day the Chinese government commits innumerable human rights violations. (China Aid Association keeps up with these pretty well. Thanks, Bob Fu.)

And so you'll have a choice this coming summer. You can buy the merchandise, watch the programming, support the Olympics, and turn a blind eye to the ongoing silent atrocities in China. That, or you can boycott the Olympics with me.

No one in their right mind would support an Olympics in the Darfur region of Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, or any one of a dozen other places because of the unashamed ongoing human rights violations. Why then, knowing what we know about China, do so many support these Olympic games?

I'm not willing to sacrifice this one on the altar of entertainment...

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Planned Parenthood, Race-Particular Abortion, and Statutory Rape

Planned Parenthood is apparently doing two things:

1. They are accepting money specifically for abortions of black babies.

This is from a transcript of a phone interview with an employee of Planned Parenthood:
  • Caller: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.
  • Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
  • Caller: And we don't, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.
  • Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable.

Here are some articles that might help:

2. They are turning a blind eye -- and in some cases deliberately covering up -- cases where underage girls come in to have an abortion when they have been impregnated by older men (i.e. statutory rape).

Here is a report from Dallas' own WB33 on Planned Parenthood's cover-up of statutory rape:


Thursday, March 13, 2008

A Robber, an Old Lady, and Jesus...

...were all in the car together.



Thanks to the wife for this great story.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Hulu, TV Shows, and User-Driven Content

A really neat website launched today: Hulu.

It allows you to watch full-length TV episodes from a variety of shows. It’s definitely worth a look. Plus, it’s legal and free.

It won't replace TV, but Hulu is a good alternative to watching that one episode of your favorite show that you missed.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Coolness, Despair.com, and Fun


Tomfoolery, Despair.com, and Fun


Gilligan's Isle, Mary Ann, and Mary Jane

This inspires me:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_en_tv/people_dawn_wells

Apparently when you're on an island for a long time, you learn to cultivate the earth in such a way that helps pass the time.

Bad News, Home Schooling, and California

Bad news for home schoolers from the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Focus on the Family's article provides an opportunity for you to sign a petition (the link is at the bottom of the page): http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006717.cfm

Friday, March 7, 2008

Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Obama's true colors:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

A summary:
Sometimes babies survive late-term abortions. That is, a late-term abortion is attempted, they get the baby out of the womb, but the baby survives the "procedure." Both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate wanted to enact bills to protect these "survivor babies" from being discarded/killed. Obama opposed these bills outright. Twice.

And from Scott:
Even the most liberal, pro-choice senators voted in favor of this bill in the Illinois Senate. Obama was the only one to oppose it. I’m not a one-issue voter, but it’s significant that Obama votes against a law that intends to protect living, independent, out-of-the womb babies.

So congratulations, Texans. Forty-seven percent of you who voted in Tuesday's Democratic Primary voted for this guy.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Illegal Immigration, Socialism, and the New U.S. Caste System

More and more, the “democratic” party (and America in general, for that matter) has moved toward the ideology of socialism. Socialism applied to the arena of illegal immigration means that the democrats want, on the whole, anything from few restrictions on the illegal immigrant to complete amnesty for the illegal immigrant. The democrats want the government to help the illegal immigrant. For sure, they believe their actions help the illegal immigrant.

What this creates, though, is anything but help for the illegal immigrant. What do I mean by this? Glad you asked…

The Bush administration’s argument for amnesty is that illegal immigrants are willing to do jobs that Americans won’t do. Well, that’s just not true: if you pay a man enough, he’ll do just about anything. [Pick the cotton seeds out of cow manure? Sure, I’ll do that…for $150,000 a year. (See what I mean?)] The problem is that illegal immigrants are willing to work for lower pay than what the average American will work for. So the democrats’ answer is this: encourage the illegal immigrant to work in this country for lower wages. But this inevitably creates a caste system: the lowest caste is now the illegal immigrant who is willing to work labor-intensive jobs for a wage that Americans will not.

What we're left with is a generally educated middle- and upper-class (i.e. Americans) that are unwilling to work hard labor for mere scraps, and a generally uneducated lower-class (i.e. illegal immigrants) that is willing to work hard labor for mere scraps. Isn't that a caste system?

You think those in favor of amnesty realize this?

Monday, February 11, 2008

Churchill, Islam, and Men Who Meant What They Said

A few words today from the great Winston Churchill:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the infence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Winston Churchill, The River War, Vol. II, 1st ed. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899), p. 248-250.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Light Bulbs, Mercury, and Mother-Government

In about 2 years, I plan on buying several cases of incandescent light bulbs. Why? Because our government has decided to make them illegal. That's right--illegal. The same incandescent light bulb invented by Edison and used in homes for some 120 years will be illegal in 2012. Why? Because it will save us, the consumer, energy costs.

For one, I'm very excited about this. I love it when the government tells me what I can and cannot do in the minutia of life. I love the soft flicker of the "replacement" fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). I love the mercury found in the new bulbs. [If they break, you get to evacuate the room for 15 minutes and then start your special clean-up process!] And I'd like to thank President Bush and Congress for enlightening me and helping me with this process.

[I first read about this in Forbes (Jan. 28, 2008, p. 17-18), but also found an article from U.S. News and World Report.]

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Logic, History, and Anonymity -- About Your Comments

From now on, if you're going to leave comments:

1. Use sound logic.

2. Use sound history.

3. Do not post anonymously.
I realize that most people don't have a blogspot account, so I'm going to leave the blog open to anonymous comments, but please put your name on your comment and be accountable to your words.

I'm not trying to stifle your comments, as most of them are very good -- even if I disagree with you. I'm simply trying to promote all those good comments out there.

Friday, July 13, 2007

White Man = VIOLENT, Native American = PEACEFUL. Oh really?

If all the "Native Americans" were so peace-loving, as most history books would have us believe, then why do we consistently find archaeological sites like this one throughout the Americas? I mean, didn't this genocide occur long before the evil white man can over from Europe?

Well, I'm sure the evil white man caused it somehow. Let's follow that rabbit trail...

The article did say that the genocide could have been the result of a clash between different tribes that were searching for food because of a drought. But what caused the drought? As everyone knows, droughts are caused by one thing (and one thing only): global warming. But what caused the global warming? It must have been that medieval evil white man and his SUV!

See -- we found our rabbit!

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

African, American, and African-American

The label "African-American" really bothers me, at least how we use it here in the U.S. Let me share a story from my buddy Thomas that illustrates why the term ought to be radically altered in its meaning and use.

Thomas was in a class at TCU in which the professor kept using the word "African-American." At the end of the lecture, a white student with a foreign accent stood up and asked the professor, "By African-American, do you mean African-American, or do you mean black? I wanted to know because I was actually born in Africa. My parents were driven out of their land in response to the apartheid. We lost our land, everything. So we had to come to the United States, where I am now a citizen. And I bet that in this class of about 250 students, not only am I the only real African-American, I'm probably the only one that could name even 5 African countries. So the next time you want to refer to black people, just say black: don't say African-American, because when you do, you insult the true African-Americans." He sat down and the professor didn't respond.

So here's several reasons I don't like the meaning and usage of "African-American," and why I never put my race on any sort of paperwork or survey that requests it if they have "African-American" as an option:
  1. My ancestors are from Germany, Ireland, America (native), and elsewhere, yet I am not referred to as German-Irish-Native-American. We should be consistent across the board. Until that day, I will rebel.
  2. Some black people are not descended directly from African blacks, but from Caribbean and/or South American blacks. They should not be referred to, then, as African-American. Calling them African-American blatantly ignores their heritage. (Some, I've found, get really irritated at being called African-American.)
  3. There are many (millions?) of people in the U.S. who were actually born in Africa. They are African-American. Joe Black who was born at Parkland Hospital in Dallas is not African. Consequently, he should not be referred to as African-American.
  4. African-American has nothing to do with race, as Thomas' story proves, yet we make it entirely about race.
  5. Special labels help perpetuate a society of victims and separationism.
  6. Finally, as an aside, do you know how Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to people of his own race? In his "I have a dream" speech in Washington D.C., he refers to them as "negro," "black," "God's children," "sons of former slaves," "judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"...not once does he refer to "African-Americans."
So here's to hoping for a future of equal labels for equal treatment.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Why Gay Matters in Dallas' Upcoming Mayoral Election

Mr. Oakley is gay, Mr. Leppert is straight. Both are runoff candidates in Dallas' upcoming mayoral election.

Today's Dallas Morning News states the following:
"Mr. Leppert, who has won the lucrative support of Dallas' business establishment, said he would not make his opponent's sexuality an issue in the race. 'I want people to focus on what we need to do to make Dallas the finest city in America,' he said in a recent interview. Mr. Oakley's supporters have noticed, however, that Mr. Leppert frequently mentions that he is married and has children and often points out his wife at candidate forums. 'They use all the buzzwords about lifestyle, including references to his family and his children and his wife being in the audience,' noted Mr. Bailey, who has attended recent forums."

So let me get this straight (haha) -- according to Oakley's camp, apparently it's okay for Oakley to mention his sexual orientation, but somehow it's not okay for Leppert to mention he has a family and children? That's ridiculous. But what do you expect from the gay juggernaut?

I'm tired of double-standards plaguing our country. Vote on June 16. Make a difference.