Since when were the taxpayers responsible for providing entertainment to the masses?
For nearly 4 years we have been bombarded with media notices that television broadcasters must switch from analog to digital signals. This move, scheduled for February of this year, will directly affect only those still receiving television broadcasts by antenna. The rest of us have been paying for either cable or satellite signals.
And since 4 years wasn't enough warning, the federal government has appropriated $1.5 billion dollars (so far) to help pay for a converter box for those who haven't prepared for this "surprise" switch. $40.00 coupons may be applied for to offset the approximate $60.00 cost of the device. Anyone can apply for these coupons, even those who do already have cable or satellite!
Did I miss something in the constitution? You know, the part where it says that the government (translated taxpayer) is responsible for America's entertainment? If TV is that important to all these unprepared souls, wasn't 4 years enough warning to save up the money to pay for the converter?
If that's the case, I'd like $40.00 to apply toward my cable bill; it's starting to get a little steep.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Is it just me, or is the new President contradicting himself?
The following quote was published and broadcast in the national media concerning, by his own admission, potentially dangerous men:
“First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture,” he said. “Second, we will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there.”
That’s all fine and good, but as reported by the Associated Press, he also has a stand on abortion:
President Barack Obama renewed his commitment to abortions rights on Thursday, saying the nation needs to find common ground in the contentious abortion debate so "our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons."
Marking the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama said in a statement that the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion represented a broader principle that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Let’s think about this for a minute.
According to him it would be wrong of this country to coerce a person, apprehended in the act of war against the United States, into giving up information that may save other Americans.
But it’s OK to kill unborn children?
Maybe it is just me, but I see something wrong with this picture.
Looks like we’re off to a flying start.
The following quote was published and broadcast in the national media concerning, by his own admission, potentially dangerous men:
“First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture,” he said. “Second, we will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and determine how to deal with those who have been held there.”
That’s all fine and good, but as reported by the Associated Press, he also has a stand on abortion:
President Barack Obama renewed his commitment to abortions rights on Thursday, saying the nation needs to find common ground in the contentious abortion debate so "our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons."
Marking the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama said in a statement that the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion represented a broader principle that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Let’s think about this for a minute.
According to him it would be wrong of this country to coerce a person, apprehended in the act of war against the United States, into giving up information that may save other Americans.
But it’s OK to kill unborn children?
Maybe it is just me, but I see something wrong with this picture.
Looks like we’re off to a flying start.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
