Still not bad.
There was a time a few years ago I ditched Cable TV. Money was tight and frankly I didn’t watch that much. I went for about six years with just local channels and blockbuster to keep me going. It wasn’t bad. While there wasn’t much on, especially on the weekends I could still catch a football game and the nightly news. There aren’t that many weekly TV shows I liked so no big deal. But after a while I wondered about Satellite and after checking the bank account I figured I could afford it and who can turn down 200 channels.
Now after a few years of Satellite TV I’m ready to quit it all. It’s too damned expensive for the five channels I actually watch. Lets face it most of what’s on is pure garbage. Then to top it off you buy the next package up for what? Usually one or maybe two more channels you want to see.
The only reason I have held on the my Dish is the kids programs. Sometimes I think these are the only people creating interesting shows. Not all of them of course but more than regular TV.
So my question to anyone willing to answer is, how many channels do you really watch?
The answer to TV either Cable or Satellite is a la Carte channel selection. So if I do give up my 200 channels you can bet I won’t be coming back until A la Carte is possible. Then I choose what I want and no more infomercials, no more TV shopping and no more preaching.
This might already be here in another medium and that is online. If I can find the shows I want online I may be gone even sooner. I’m actually looking at some DVD/internet players and if they work…well… by Satellite.
I’m sure it’s legal. Is it a good decision to build so close to ground zero? Well first off let me say I believe the placement and decision to build this mosque is planned and not just for worshipers to meet in peace. There is already a mosque in the area. I wonder if it’s a very smart move. Perhaps the “jumping the shark” moment for Radical Islamist in America. The Jihadist movement has been working it’s way through our system nice and quietly. While a few protest here and there are occasionally reported for the most part the politically correct have caved in front of the march of the radicals.
The United States seems to be facing more threats today than ever before. Most are from within. The expansion and corruption of government knows no bounds, while the economy continues to stumble and jobs disappear our leaders are nowhere to be found (outside of the golf course). Our enemies know this and are using it to their advantage.
UPDATE: Sweden drops rape charge. hummmmm
Oh this is going to make a great conspiracy story……
Yesterday my buddy Chuck brought up a good question. Why is Congress involved in Baseball? With all the economic issues, the war issues, the corruption in government itself, why has congress felt some great need to pursue baseball? Perhaps that is precisely why we see such things?
Now we see Rodger Clemens indicted. Indicted for perjury to congress? How is that even possible? Can we indict Congress for perjury?
We see Bonds and Maguire forced to testify, not in court or before the NBL, but congress. Not that they haven’t gone before those institutions also.
I suppose it’s no wonder we are in the employment mess we are in. Congress has a strange set of priorities. Hell they don’t even hide the fact they aren’t interested in this country anymore.
I really don’t care who does what in professional sports. At today’s prices I don’t see me going to any professional sports in the near future (ok unless someone sends me a free Raider V Bronco game ticket in Denver).
Here is some light reading for the national security conscious or those that can’t sleep.
These are DOD reports to congress. Some of it is actually interesting.
Sylvester Stallone has been relatively busy the last few years. With Rambo, Rocky Balboa and the expendables he’s made a bit of a comeback. When you go to a movie like this it’s not really about a great story, we really don’t expect that, or great acting, we are not watching hamlet but we do expect action. In this department the expendables delivers. In fact that’s just about all this film is. With the added feature of having so many named stars albeit older stars, it adds up to fun. Who doesn’t want to see for example Micky Rourke. I mean he’s that loser to cheer for and Dolf Lungren. Come on Dolf has paid his dues and he can act at least as good and Chuck Norris. Yes I’m smiling as I write that since I like Chuck a lot. Fact is we often like these guys because they aren’t great but great to watch. They also give us hope, if the old guys can stay in that good of shape maybe we can to. Ok I know we don’t have the personal trainers or the time to spend in the gym all day but still….
There was a down side of the film for me though. The fights had too much gore. I mean really, do I need to see a guys gut blown in half? Nah, I’ve seen the real thing and don’t need it on film. The explosions were huge but didn’t make sense. That’s pretty normal these days in films though so don’t let it stop you from watching. Besides it’s pale compared to the latest in horror movie gore.
Blackfive has some good post on NAD.
Der Spiegel has an interesting and revealing article about charity and the idea of private donations and government spending. The article focuses on Bill Gates and his “giving pledge”, a pledge to give away half of their wealth to charity. The part that is interesting was an answer giving by Peter Krämer a Hamburg shipping multimillionaire.
SPIEGEL: But doesn’t the money that is donated serve the common good?
Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it’s not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That’s a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.
Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.
Well I can certainly see a difference in the idea of democratically legitimate state. Krämer asks, “what legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?” well how about the fact it’s their money. I personally just think Krämer doesn’t want to spend his money but would prefer the government spend all the people’s money.