Why Pay for Extra Advertisements?

So, while watching sports recently, I have come to believe that channels like ESPN should not be charging so much to include the channel in a cable lineup. I believe ABC and CBS should be criticized for having so many commercials during sports broadcasts. Here's why.

See, every sports program now has so much embedded advertising it is annoying. From Overstock.com's "First-down line" to Aflac's "Trivia" to the Dell Halftime show, give it a friggin' rest. Why should I have to watch so many commercials and pay for the privilege while still having every thing possible "sponsored by" somebody? Every time they add a camera, they add a new sponsor. It is getting ridiculous.

I just wish I could watch the game and deal with the commercials I can skip. The stupid channels need to pick one, commercials or sponsors. Don't have both! Perhaps it is time for customers to complain.

By the way, I am trying not to rant about ABC having to promote its shows every five seconds. The bottom scroll bar is for sports scores, not another promotion for a show no one wants to watch. If the show was really that good, it wouldn't need to be shoved down my throat while I am watching a football game. Maybe it is me, but a guy watching football on a Saturday afternoon is not automatically going to be watching a network show on a Thursday night. Does ABC realize that someone watching a college football game on a Saturday might be on ABC's sister network ESPN for a Thursday night football game? Yeah, something tells me they don't pay any attention to that kind of thing.

I really hate TV networks. If only On Demand was more pervasive and could replace actual networks. I can only hope. Wouldn't it be nice if you could have only one channel, able to pick the show you want to watch, and see it when you have time? We are getting closer, but it is still at the "luxury" stage, but getting closer. Unfortunately, sports with all its dang embedded advertising will still charge extra to see it On Demand. Stupid bastards!

By the way, I don't know if On Demand is a trademark of a company or not. Either way, I wish it were available for every show and could replace my cable subscription.

Environmental Blogging Day

So, I missed the environmental blogging day on Blogger. Darn! So, here is a blog post that is better written than I could have done by someone who actually was able to write that day. Hope you enjoy!

Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse: Odd Results Huh?

So in this story, the truth is out about public school teachers molesting, seducing, and raping students. From the numbers given, it is odd that we barely hear much about this. Oh sure, every time a young blond teacher gets caught with a young male student, there are some complaints, but nothing major.

Yet, yet, how much have we heard about misconduct by Catholic priests? The outcry was tremendous; people were calling out the Church. So why don't we hear people clamoring for the demise of public schools as they were for the Catholic Church?

See, perspective is important. Always try to figure out how something fits in with a similar situation, be it students molested at school or kids dying from gunshot wounds (actually a lower number than kids dying from swimming pools).

So the next time you hear someone call for action on one item, see if there might be a similar or worse scenario where no one sees a problem.

Analyzing Arguments Using Math

So, first off, I need to come right out and say this. This post is meant to be offensive. It is not meant to be caring or understanding. Rather, I would like to take the time to sit and analyze a poster I saw, what can be inferred and what can be known, based on the premise involved in the poster. My arguments are not meant to be accurate of my personal viewpoints. I am merely trying to take the ideas presented in this simple poster and expand the concepts to determine the philosophy underpinnings and what those underpinnings would mean in similar situations. Okay, enough intro.

So, I saw this poster today.

77% of anti-abortion leaders are male

100% of them will not get pregnant

Well, let's see what happens when we analyze these two statements.

First, what is meant by "leader?" For example, are we only talking about the CEO of an anti-abortion as a leader or do we include lower leaders? Wouldn't you rather see the percentage breakdown of ALL volunteers rather than just leaders? Think about it this way. Have you ever heard feminists complain about the glass ceiling and how few women are in leadership roles? Well, if that is true, wouldn't it be logical that men would be in more leadership positions? If one is to make the first argument, and a significant portion of abortion advocates are also feminists, then to make the second argument is misleading.

Now, as for the second sentence, it is true...well, at the moment. But have you ever heard feminists complain that men can't get pregnant? Remember, this is what makes women special. Imagine how horrible it would be for feminists if men could get pregnant. Remember also that abortion lobbyists would be mad if men could get pregnant too because it would remove the "Women's body; Women's right" argument.

However, let's take a look at something embedded in this argument. Frankly, abortion advocates argue that it is a woman's body so it is her choice. But that is wrong. Actually, show me a woman who got pregnant without a man's input (hehe), and I will show you a woman who is the only decision maker. (I think she would be an it then, but go with it, she I mean.) One problem with the pro-abortion crowd is they all talk about women's bodies. Well, yeah, but part of that bit in her uterus is a man's property. Why should her rights be over the rights of the man? Aren't men and women equal?

Let's take the other side. In some countries, men provide for women, housing, clothing, and food. In many of those countries, men can decide whether to let their wives live or not. Now, if that happened here, can you imagine the utter outcry from feminists? (Well, there really wouldn't be any. Remember, men "own" women and can decide to kill them, be it a husband or father. How many feminist women would be alive after they opens their mouths?) So why are abortions okay? Isn't it the same basic principle? Don't abortion advocates always talk about how the fetus can't survive without the mother? Well, in some countries, a woman can't survive without her husband or father. So, why is one okay and the other not? Any possible answer?

So, here is the problem with this whole thing. Using a misleading statistic and trying to imply something using it distracts from the group's argument. See, I am one of those that believes if you are truly right, if your beliefs are so important that I must believe it too, then why mislead me? Think about it like this. If I was trying to sell you a piece of land and I went through and put up a Potemkin village -type thing, would you trust that I was selling in good faith? If you found this out, would you believe that I was honest and that this piece of land was worthwhile? It could be worth millions, but are you going to believe it? Probably not. My actions would lead you to distrust my message. Well, the same thing happens here. Trying to deflect the facts, trying to mislead instead of persuade, that leads to a distrust of the message and the messenger.

Overall, this poster is not very effective. It could bring a chuckle, but then again, it could be a wry smile as if the person was wondering if this sign was real. However, before accepting this sign, ask yourself what it really means, not what it is supposed to mean. What does it really mean that 77% of leaders are men? What else could be explaining that statistic? How does that other explanation affect the group's offered explanation?

Be wary of groups that try to be funny. As Chris Rock once said in a song,

If a homeless person has a funny sign he hasn't been homeless that long
A real homeless person is too hungry to be funny.

Remember, a group that tries to be funny might not have a worthwhile message and hides behind comedy.

Bias in Survey: My Avoidance

So I was invited to join in this survey. Now, because of privacy concerns, I won't quote exactly, but the idea behind the survey was Internet satire on views of minority candidates. There is only one, well actually, very, very large problem with this invitation. The only minority candidates are Democrats at the moment - mainly Hillary and Obama. If I were to participate, I think my actions might skew the data set, unless the person is specifically eliminating libertarians and conservatives.

See, no matter what I see on the Internet, I will never respect Her Majesty, Hillary Clinton. Obama tries to play the outsider, but then talks about experience. Exactly what experience does he really have? If I were to look at an online satirical piece, my overall disgust of these two candidates would not change.

Ultimately, this study could only be used to discuss left-wing people. Any right-leaning folks would not be swayed by satire and libertarians couldn't care less about two groups of authoritarians fighting it out. (Ron Paul is the lone exception.)

So, will this study be able to say something useful? Eh, probably not. The base hypothesis has an embedded bias and so will limit any results the person may ultimately come up with. At least I am doing my part to avoid this thing. No point wasting my time on a study concerning people I can't stand. Though, I would have to bet I might get to see some funny anti-Hillary/Obama stuff. Eh, actually, I can see that on my own. Yep, no point going.

Jim Carrey Being Serious? Wonder If His Performance Was Better Than Majestic?

So yeah, turns Jim Carrey has joined the intellectual elite out in Hollywood. This article discusses Carrey's visit to the U.N. recently about Myanmar. Now, I actually think I might agree with Carrey somewhat and thankfully he is talking to the idiots at the U.N. rather than lecturing Americans, but this is where I must stand on principles. I have come to believe in non-intervention, staying out of other nations militarily, and I also believe that economics is the ultimate negotiator. So, like Darfur, I must argue against military action and sanctions in Myanmar. If the pro-democracy rebels invite our business, then let's trade. Sanctions never work.

It is unfortunate that this is happening. But remember, if we place sanctions, the only ones who are going to be hurt are the rebels, the pro-democracy group. Is that what Carrey wants? (Probably not, but then again, he is a bloody actor, not an international expert.) Remember, there are always unknown consequences. I admit, I don't know what might happen. Then again, my guess is based on my knowledge of other sanctions. (Iraq comes to mind. We sanctioned them and then France, Germany, and the head of the U.N. made big money exchanging food for oil. Wow, talk about a winner there, eh?)

So, this was an attempt to show my consistency. I couldn't care less about Darfur and so I must also say, I couldn't care less about Myanmar.

When Idiocy Runs Amok

So yeah, turns out that dog-fighter Michael Vick took 8 hours of a PETA training in empathy. Umm...only two problems with that. PETA is a lobbying organization; they aren't worth a damn! Second, how can you have empathy for an animal? Isn't empathy a human emotion? (This will definitely piss off the PETA bastards.)

This is idiocy. Just send the guy to jail, make him do his time for an idiotic crime, and set him free. This is just a PR stunt by a bunch of incompetent boobs. (Okay, this one will definitely set off filters, even though nothing that wrong with it.) Will Vick really be more empathetic after this class? If you say yes, you sit and waste 8 hours of your life on this crappy class and see what you say then. This is part of a voluntary PR stunt by Vick or I would argue this as a legal punishment would be "cruel and unusual punishment."

If you think this is somehow a remarkable thing, that Vick is learning how animals feel, take your hand, make a fist, and wallop the side of your head. Just do it! Truly punch some sense into yourself. What a stupid idea!

Define Quiet: With this One, Even I Would be Silent

So, I open this article and I read this first line.

President Bush cast a quiet veto Wednesday against a politically attractive expansion of children's health insurance, triggering a struggle with the Democratic-controlled Congress certain to reverberate into the 2008 elections.

I guess it depends on what they mean by quiet. Do they mean low-key or more like resigned to it? Then again, is this news? Didn't Bush come out and tell Congress that he was going to veto this legislation like 2 or 3 weeks ago?

Now, is this a politically attractive idea? No, not really. Well, it is to morons and the sheeple of the nation. See, the idea that by taking money from middle class people to give back to middle class people, less a government handling fee (waste), just seems idiotic. Unfortunately, I just described most government programs. This one is no different. There is no reason that a middle class family should pay more taxes so that they can then be allowed to get government health care, even if they get it through work. It is stupid.

Will this play a part in the election? Do the media people even remember yesterday? See, in 2006 they predicted all this stuff from 2005 would play a part and in 2004, they predicted stuff in 2003 would play a part. Did any of it? (Without specifics, no, not really. Most stuff that would qualify from the prior year was repeated in the election year so it isn't really the same as this.) Will this play a part? Nope. It ain't that big a deal, other than proving to Republican voters which Republican politicians should be voted out of office. It is unfortunate that it took a Democrat Congress full of nincompoops to force Bush to remember smaller government is better government, though he still can't say "No" to Teddy Kennedy very often. (For the President's sake, it is a good thing the Secret Service won't let him ride in a car driven by Teddy though.)

I will make this prediction. Nothing matters. Not at this point. Well, take that back. If someone pulls a Howard Dean Scream Attack, then maybe. But it is still too early. Heck, even the earliest primaries are 2 months away or more. It won't matter. And the kids who were gonna be saved by this program will just have to live with mommy and daddy's employer provided coverage. Oh darn.

Time to Cut the Crap Out of Leaks: Part II

So earlier, I wrote about one of the dumbest phrases (and a confession to a crime technically). Well, here we go again. Read this phrase and see if you would agree with my conclusion.

These officials said the 75-year-old Domenici intends to make a formal announcement on Thursday in his home state. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the six-term lawmaker.

Umm...yeah, what was that again? They don't want to "pre-empt" the lawmaker, but didn't they just do so? Hello? How the heck does that work? "Well, we're spilling the beans, but since we are anonymous, it ain't like we're spilling the beans, see?" What the what? Didn't the guy's announcement just, I don't know, get announced?

Sometimes, when you just read articles, you have to wonder if reporters even have the same language as the rest of us. I mean, crikey, when you compare English as spoken in the U.S., U.K., and Australia, it is a heckuva lot different than the English spoken by the nutjob reporters. What the heck? Did the reporter turn of his brain or something? (Well, that assumes that reporters occasionally actually USE their brains. Not necessarily.)

So, to the lawmaker, sorry about your luck. Fire the anonymous bastard! Do it, even if he would be laid off next year anyway. Just idiotic!

Time to Cut the Crap Out of Leaks

So in this article, there is one line that just has set me off. Read this piece of utter garbage of writing.

There was at least one other similar fire last week in a Senate office building bathroom that was determined to have been caused by a cigarette, according to a knowledgeable Senate official who is not authorized to speak to reporters and demanded anonymity.

Uhh, yeah, this is crap. A person not authorized to speak to reporters is what? Oh yeah, speaking to reporters. It is time to get rid of this dang idea that something can be "on background." No! No! See, this guy broke the law. Now, reporters like these people cause that way, oh yeah, they don't have do to any actual work. See, they find some numb-nuts shooting his mouth off and job's done.

This guy deserves prison. See, the media jumped when Scooter Libby was charged with a leak. But where will there be for this guy? I ask you. If you answered, "media? What media? There is no media here," good job.

I guess what really ticks me off is just the outright bluntness of breaking the dang law! They said in the dang quote the source wasn't allowed to talk to the media, but yet the person did. Uhh, yeah. Ain't something wrong here? "Hello, McFly?" (I love that quote. "I'm your density...I mean, your destiny." Oops, sorry, got caught in a tangent.)

When the author wrote this line and gave it to the editor, shouldn't a bell have rung somewhere in that head? Shouldn't someone have noticed and said, "Umm...guys, we might need to change this here little bit. Sounds a bit fishy, eh?" But no, the media LOOOVES leaks. And then they wonder why people want them to go to jail when they break the law, exposing a leak. See, if you can break the law and get away with it simply because you a reporter, yeah, that ain't equal justice before the law, now is it? Nope, I didn't think so.

So Laurie Kellman, be careful. You have aided and abetted a, well technically, an admitted lawbreaker. (And you done the admittin'!) This ain't a matter of national security so if you wanted to complain that officials weren't talking, you should have complained. Don't break the law cause that just ain't cool.




I apologize to anyone who had trouble reading this post. For some reason, when I was saying the words aloud, I put on a few different accents and the words I chose took the flavor of those accents. It was probably harder to read, but would have been more fun if I was actually saying it to you.