Louisiana stands alone
So I'm a day or two late on this, but with New Mexico banning cock fighting, Louisiana is now the only state in the Union to allow cock fighting. Lovely. I was sent a few good articles on the subject, and I'll list them here.
How New Mexico Banned Cockfighting
A truly sad quote from the article:
"This has been one of our dirty secrets for a long time, and quite frankly, this [ban] has been a long time coming," said Democratic State Rep. Peter Wirth. "I'm thrilled that we're finally putting Louisiana in the rear-view mirror on this issue."
Click Is Ticking On Louisiana Cockfighting
A good editorial on the subject, and gives you a bit of background on why it has been hard to ban it here.
Louisiana - leading the country in cock fights
I'm so proud I could cry. I've blogged on Louisiana and cock fighting before, but it looks like we will soon be the only state in the country where it will be legal. New Mexico, the only other state, is now close to banning the practice.
I still say that if the legislature here thinks it is legal, they should put it on TV and broadcast it. If there is nothing to be ashamed of then why not stand behind it?
The news lied to me!
I just watched a very interesting video on youtube (and no, it didn't involve unicorns):
The video talks about the Florida reporters who were fired for refusing to lie for Fox News. The courts upheld that Fox was not required to tell the truth.
I'm torn by this. I tend to think (outside of libel/slander), that a person can say what they want. Maybe this ruling can be a wake up call to the public to start questioning what they see from the media.
For all it's cheesiness, Running Man did have some very interesting scenes. When the broadcasters were "photoshopping" events to twist them to match what they wanted to show, it now seems more prophetic than I could have imagined. For fun - try googling for reuters photoshop.
Yes, you can cock fight, but you can't play GTA
I'm stunned. You can't ban cock fighting, but you can block violent video games?
These guys should be ashamed.
Protect Little Johnny, but don't take away my NASCAR!
So, as we know, ever since Nipple-Gate, the FCC has been in a tizzy about decency and TV. So much so that it's asked the cable industry to come up with "Family Friendly" channel tiers.
Apparently it's not enough that the cable companies provide a way to block whole channels and shows. Apparently the V-Chip isn't enough. Apparently even simple parental responsibility is not enough. Oh no. We need to also ensure that the consumer gets his sports as well. From the article:
Cable companies said in recent months they would offer G-rated packages of programming after FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said last fall that he wanted the cable industry to do more to address parental concerns about raunchy shows.The companies had hoped that the "family tiers" would address those concerns, but Martin said Tuesday he sees problems with the practicality of those offerings, particularly since they don't generally include sports programming.
So let me get this straight. The FCC feels that Americans, who are apparently too lazy to turn the tv off, want the cable company to help protect them from a product they voluntarily purchase, but they aren't so worried as to actually use the product if they can't watch sports?
Shouldn't this be a sign? If the American public can't be bothered to monitor their children's watching, nor be willing to give up sports, maybe they really aren't as concerned as the FCC thinks they are? I mean, I have to laugh every time I see the commercial for the V-Chip. Wasn't the V-Chip something that every parent wanted? Why does FOX need to advertise it? Aren't all parents using it each and every day because they are so concerned about it?
Maybe I'm crazy, but when my kids had a tv in their room (they don't know), I went through the trouble to remove the channels I didn't want them to see. It was a pain in the butt, but I did it. I understand that some parents may not have the time nor the technical skills to do so. Throw your TV away and read more and maybe you will get the technical skills you need. Don't ruin my cable offerings because of your inability to handle your own family's television.
Can we NOT wag the dog today?
I don't post many political entries here, but my readers know I'm not exactly a fan of Bush and Cheney. However, am I the only one sick to death of what I'll call "Hunting-Gate"? Today the big deal (at least on NBC's Today show, not exactly the best source of hard hitting news) concerned the fact that Cheney had been forthcoming with news on the accident, and has not spoken to the "people." Well, as one representative of the "people", I can say I don't care. It was an accident. Watching the press try to turn this into a major scandal is simply ridiculous. Cheney does not need to make any kind of public statement. He has already spoken to the poor guy he shot and that should be the end of it. I've also heard he didn't have a proper hunting license. Well, give the man a fine and move on. If the RNC pays for it, who cares.
I think any person who thinks like I do about this administration can come up with about 10 other topics that are greatly more important. I think the most ardent Bush supporter could do the same.
p.s. Why does it seem like every picture of Cheney shows the man scowling, or generally looking like a storm trooper for the Empire? The man can't be that evil. I say we start a Flickr site and collect some nice photos of him!
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you...
Saw this on a story at ABC News this morning:
The White House has barred some top advisers and staffers from answering Senate investigators' questions about the administration's response, saying that certain discussions and documents must remain confidential.
Am I the only one saying, "What the heck" at this? A disaster response is confidential? Scott made the comment that maybe the thinking was that if a terrorist knew how we responded to disaster they can use it against us... but like him, I think this is just the administration covering their rears.
BellSouth - Thanks for the Suit!
So, a while ago I blogged about how our city voted to approve a bond to pay for fiber to the home. This would let the city offer phone/video/net service via fiber optics to the home. BellSouth and Cox were... slightly upset at the city for daring to attack their monopolies and fought very hard. They did things like sponsoring polls that led people to believe that television from the city would not be allowed to watch religious programs.
Since the election, Cox has accepted the will of the people, while BellSotuh has fought very strongly against the city. They have brought up multiple suits, all of which have been denied. This is covered in much detail at the Lafayette Pro Fiber blog.
Anyway, the reason for this entry was to point out a very funny (but sad), flash animation created to "thank" BellSouth. Warning - the Flash is a bit loud, but very appropriately describes what our telco is doing to "protect us" from the big bad city.
You Need TV (Really)
The US Senate is so concerned about your ability to watch TV, they want to spend 3 billion dollars to ensure your TV still works in 2009 when we switch to digital TV. I suppose 3 billion for schools, shelter, food for the homeless, etc. would have just been insane.
I've thought about this before, not in relation to digital TV, but in relation to losses incurred by the studios due to DVR, downloading, etc. I had thought - why not get rid of free TV? There is no consitutional right to TV. (In fact, I'm sure many people would be more well served to have less TV.) There are only a few shows on the major networks that I would consider paying for and would be more than happy to lose all the rest of the tripe.
So with that being said - why even worry about it? Some would say, what about educational programs and news. First off - the major networks carry a grand total of 30 minutes of news, if you ignore the Sunday "Talking Heads" type shows or the morning shows which are more entertainment than real news. Could we not subsidize newspaper subscriptions instead? Seems like you would get more news, and more activity for your brain.
What about educational programs? There are some good ones on TV, PBS at least, but most educational programs are on cable (Discovery, History Channel, etc.), and be honest, how much viewership does PBS get in the first place? I certainly don't think the government should tell people what to watch - but at the same time, do we need to subsidize people watching the Young and the Restless?
So - with all that being said - what if the major networks decided to do this anyway? Let's say they are tired of DVR units resulting in a loss of ad revune. The big four certainly have the right to just "pull out" and stop broadcasting. They wouldn't, of course, since they still earn a significant amount of money from ad revenue, and with Congress spending 3 billion to ensure they don't lose customers, why would they? Maybe Congress can buy the poor TVs? (Since books would just be insane - again.)
I do see some logic to this. Congress is forcing the upgrade. However, TV is still not a right. The change is still four years away, so it isn't like people will not get to use their TVs. People who can afford a TV, but not the converter, have been warned. A portion of that 3 billion could be used to simply run public service announcements. (I.e., don't buy a new tv if you won't be able to afford the converter.)
Lafayette got Slashdotted...
This weekend, our city held an election on whether or not we should take a loan to build a fiber optic network for the city. This was strongly ooposed by BellSouth and Cox (gee, I wonder why), with BellSputh threatening to close a local call center, and "polls" where the pollster told the person that if you got cable TV from the city, you may not be able to watch religious programming (which considering the area is almost the worst thing you can say), or you may not be able to watch TV on certain days like you can't water your yard every day (seriously, one poll mentioned that as a possibility). Here is the Slashdot story.