Friday, October 13, 2006
Politicians should learn when to keep their mouths shut!The bodies from the tragic airplane accident in New York City weren't even cold yet when Governor George Pataki had to make a politically expediant comment about closing down the general aviation VFR corridors around the Manhattan landscape. The problem with the statement is that it showed his ignorance of the subject. You know what they say, It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Now other idiots have joined the chorus demonstrating that the current batch of politicians from all sides just like to have anything to say so they can keep their faces on camera. Speaking with no knowledge of general aviation or the situation in the New York Area are Rep. Anthony Weiner, Sen. Charles Schumer, and Gov. Jon Corzine. Such actions make them no better that the current President at running their mouths before engaging their brains. The proposals spouted by these nincompoops would do nothing to alleviate any suspected problems in the airspace.
The National Transportation Safety Board needs to conduct their investigation and determine what happened to cause the crash. Only then can appropriate steps be taken to minimize any future potential dangers. But one has to realize this is the first such accident (a fixed wing aircraft accidently running into a building) in over sixty years. It hardly seems like a situation where drastic governmental action is needed to further reduce the freedom of flying American citizens. There are more traffic fatalities in one hour across the United States than occurs in avaiation in a whole year, yet we don't shut down the roadways to private passenger vehicles and relegate a whole section of the public to horse and buggies. Should we restrict the interstate highway system to commercial vehicles such as trucks?
Joining the political idiots in exacerbating the fear of planes falling from the skies or crashing into cities are the major media newscasters. With the exception of a few who are also pilots, the public was whipped into a fear frenzy by constantly comparing the situation to 9/11. Sure, to those who witnessed the recent tragedy, it was traumatic and to New Yorkers, it probably did bring that dark day to mind. But responsible journalists should have used good, objective reporting skills to move the public past such irrationality and to focus on the people impacted by the event.
My prayers go out to the Lidle and Stanger families. May God comfort you in your hour of grief.
posted by Steven 10:15 AM
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Politicians make Satan look like a saint!
Well, you can tell it's election season again. The airwaves are filled with negative political candidate ads. Even where at least one candidate started out with a "positive" message containing their ideas for running the [state] government, one eventually had to answer the negative ads with more negative ads. And my favorite negativism is to use that all-powerful "L"-word: liberal. It's supposed to portray some horrible character flaw that used by itself is all-telling and powerful.
So, in answer, I guess I'll invent my own name-calling label.
- Conservative: deficit-spending, hatemonger. Someone who cuts taxes for the rich while spending money without control on any patriotically motivated program, and while being as bigotted as possible against anyone who doesn't agree with their own social bent.
And while we're talking about conservative ideals, the following appeared in a news article out of the White House:
"'Harriet Miers has a conservative judicial philosophy, and as a Supreme Court justice she will strictly interpret the Constitution, rule based on the facts, and not legislate from the bench,' Perino said." [emphasis added]
Well, stupid, nobody's fooled by your rhetoric. A judge, following their conservative (see above) viewpoint, is legislating from the bench too. So don't insult my intelligence. Get the pole out of your eye so you can see the splinter in everyone else's eye.
posted by Steven 4:07 PM
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The State of TV Golf Coverage
I can hear everyone yawning over this one.
A year ago, many of the tournaments covered by CBS were broadcast in high definition. This year, other than the Masters, none have been broadcast in hi-def. What gives? Does this portend what the broadcasters' opinion of high def really is? I've heard that they prefer to broadcast more programming over their digital signal instead of broadcasting hi-def. I hope not.
Despite that, CBS remains the clear superior as far as their talking heads go. The "Inane Comment Award" goes to Johnny Miller on NBC and Peter Alliss on ABC. Do these guys ever listen to what they say? I doubt it! The PGA should insist on dumping these turkeys just like the Masters made CBS dump Gary McCord (I like Gary, BTW, but I know some don't - including my wife).
To change the subject slightly, what was up with CBS returning to their scheduled programs in progress last night after W made his Supreme Court nomination speech. They couldn't delay their programming a measly 10 minutes. Dumb move guys.
posted by Steven 3:09 PM
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
With All Due Respect ...
Mr. President, if the war against terror, in both Afganistan and Iraq, is so important, why aren't your daughters on the front lines leading by example?
Could it be that they don't believe in your war? Or is it that the rich and politically connected don't have to risk the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country?
Maybe we should have a Constitutional amendment to require the President and Vice-President to have a son or daughter in the Armed Services (and on the front lines without any Secret Service protection).
Like they say, "if you don't play the game, you can't make the rules."
posted by Steven 7:52 PM
Monday, August 30, 2004
The State of Politics
I've come to the conclusion that politics today is like religion. Everyone thinks that their "preferred" candidate represents the only "absolute truth." They can't understand why anyone could believe anything else but their version of "absolute truth."
We've become a country divided. The fringes on both sides, left and right, or if I could stand to use the "L" and "C" words that seem to be spat from the mouths of today's candidates, have been pitted against each other by the media in order to draw us in to the bloodsport of a national cock (as in rooster, although it seems that other meanings may be appropriate) fight. It's a shame that we've become entrenched in a two-party system. And we've gotten that way because too many people "worship" the main political parties rather than using their brains to analyze what the candidates stand for, assuming you could get them to verbalize it in a concrete and positive way.
Imagine what would happen if a true center-moderate party could evolve with a candidate that would bring a positive message to the middle of America. Maybe we could actually get something done to bring America back to its senses!
posted by Steven 12:04 PM
Friday, March 19, 2004
Ads, ads, ads
Some are entertaining, but they are few and far between. Some are just stupid. And after most of them, you can't even remember what the product was that they were trying to sell you, let alone what the reasons were to make you want to buy it. But the real problem is ads that only try to sell you by bad-mouthing the competition.
Here it is only March, 2004 and already the dirty political campaign ads are starting to clog the airwaves. And this morning I awoke to an ad from an incumbent local telephone company who could only justify its position to raise its wholesale rates by blasting lies and innuendos about a specific competitor. And I just read a news article about how a broadcast radio network is putting out ads with half-truths about the competition from satelite radio. It's nothing new; remember the ad wars between Satelite TV and the cable companies. Oh, right, they're still bombarding us with that crap. Shame, shame, shame! I'm sure there are other examples, but they currently slip my mind.
I think we need a fair decency act in advertising - of any kind. After all, the FCC is going after indecency in broadcasting with their usual right-wing driven zeal! Sure, I agree that broadcasters need to clean up their act and make sure people like Howard Stern are only broadcasting their dirt when children won't be listening. And there was no excuse for the Janet Jackson incident. But I am getting side-tracked.
My proposal for the FTC to enact is that no advertisement may make reference to another person, company or product, either explicitly or implicitly, other than itself!
Can you imagine. Politicians would only be able to tell you why you should vote for them in positive terms. They could only tell us what their plans are for moving this country forward.
Imagine that a company could only try to tell us why they're jacking up their rates is to line their own pockets. And we could only learn about the benefits of cable television instead of the supposed flaws in their competitors products. BTW, I happen to think that cable has a lot of those benefits now, only because they've started providing some great services (e.g., HDTV and on demand programming).
So I challenge the current government to provide us some real decency. Lets get our advertising out of the gutters as well as our regular broadcast content. "W," are you up to the challenge?
posted by Steven 10:27 AM
Monday, June 16, 2003
posted by Steven 2:59 PM
