Are you Ready for DTV?

In another example of the government knowing better than we do, if you use an antenna to watch TV, you won't be able to watch TV after 17 February 2009. (Even sooner, if you live in Wilmington, NC. That is the test market, and will go strictly digital in September this year.)

The FCC has mandated that on that date, all full power over the air TV broadcasts be exclusively broadcast in digital format.

It seems that the government has mandated that everyone abandon the analog frequencies and equipment.

Now, in their bottomless well of compassion, the government has graciously arranged for each household to receive as many as 2 coupons to offset the cost of a set-top digital converter box. Each coupon is valued at $40. Converter boxes cost around $50 or more, so we are still going to have to pay for them.

If you subscribe to cable or a satellite service, you won't be effected by this change. These types of services are already digital.

There have been several commercials on TV lately advising the public of the change. They tell people to go to www.dtv2009.com or www.dtv.com for more information and to get the vouchers.

They have been doing a good job of educating the TV watching public that the change is coming, but not such a good job of saying why the change is being required. There may be a perfectly logical reason that this is being implemented, but I really don't know what it is.

Now, don't get me wrong.. Digital is a better technology than analog.. whether it is TV, cell phones or whatever.. but let's be honest. It should be a decision made by the consumer market. If the networks want to go all digital, than they can. The industry will make the transition, just like we did from VHS to DVD, and from clunky analog cell phones to the sleek ones we now use.

I just think that the government should stay out of our living rooms.

It's Down to 2..

Or is it?

Barak Obama has announced that he has claimed enough delegates and super delegates (do they come with their own theme music and side kicks?) to secure the nomination of the Democrat party (not the Democratic party, that doesn't exist.. it's a process, not a party).

But it seems that her highness isn't ready to pack it in just yet.

Is she angeling for the VP? What about a Cabinet post, or even a spot on the Supreme Court?

It seems that she would be more benefited by being a part of the Obama administration, but will he, or, more importantly, the country suffer?

I think that if offered, she would take the understudy role on the Blue Ticket, but I don't think that he would be wise to keep her around.

On the other side of the aisle, the John McCain is starting the process of picking the other half of his ticket. I would like to see him pick Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romey. (I would have voted for Thompson in the primary if he was still running when NY voted. Instead, I voted for Romney.)

What are your thoughts? Who should be the VP nominations?

Do You Remember when New York was one of the United States?

I don't think that I do.

I seem remember being taught in US History and in the various government classes I've taken that when the US Constitution was written, that there were 3 distinct branches of the government. They set it up that way so one branch wouldn't get too powerful. It was set up as a 'checks and balances' system.

These 3 branches were given specific responsibilities. The legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws and the judicial makes sure the laws are fair.

Here in NY, the lines between the branches have blurred beyond recognition. The judicial branch seems to think that they can make the laws.

Specifically I'm referring to the recent ruling that NY must recognize gay marriages entered into in other jurisdictions that allow them to be performed (i.e. Canada, MA or CA).

According to NYS law, such marriages are not legal to be performed, so why is it that something that is illegal to do in NY, would be approved of if it was done in another place, then transplanted here?

It would be like saying it is illegal to produce heroin in NY, but if it is legal to produce it somewhere else, you can bring it to NY to use it.

I think that the simplest way for the government to take care of the gay marriage thing is to have the government not recognize any marriage.

Think about it.. marriage was originally a religious institution. It was made a government institution by societies where the Church was the State.

Is Instant Replay the Answer?

Human error has been a part of sports since the beginning. In this age of technology, several sports leagues have embraced the advances and used them in an attempt to improve the game.

The NFL was one of the first to do so, the NBA and NHL have followed suit. Instant replay even has a place in Tennis.

The big hold out is MLB.

The main argument against it is the same thing that comes up any time a change to the game is suggested.. in a word, Tradition.

Other arguments include slowing an already slow game, the delay would be a detriment to the pitcher (potentially injury causing) and more.

In a recent game between the NY Mets and the NY Yankees in Yankee Stadium, Carlos Delgado was robbed of a 3 run homerun when the homeplate umpire overruled a call from the 3rd base umpire. He, upon seeing the replay after the game, admitted that he made the wrong call. Now, this didn't make a difference in the game (the Mets won 11-2), but it isn't the first time that a call has been missed.

Here's what I propose.. Only use it when it will decide whether a run will score (i.e. fair or foul for homeruns or close calls at the plate).

Don't use it to challenge the strike zone, don't use it to see if a player beat a throw at first, don't use it to see if a fielder caught the ball or not. These are part of the game, and often have little to no bearing on the outcome of a game.

Also, there should be a time limit to the time taken to review a play. A few minutes should be all that is requisite to decide. If not, the original call stands. Only the managers and the umpire crew chief can call for a review, and each manager can only call for 2 per game.

Should there be a penalty if the call is not overturned? Perhaps, but it's not like you can take away a time-out like in the NFL. Taking away an out is a bit harsh.

I think that there is a way to make instant replay work. It can be done without being a drag on the game.

Who is Right?

It happens every election season.

Candidates pandering for votes throw out empty promises in an attempt to show that they are the better choice than the other guy.

In the face of ever elevating prices, 2 of the 3 candidates for have suggested rolling back the Federal gas tax for the summer. One says that it is short sighted.. that it will leave the coffers to empty. Another says that we can make up for it by taxing the record profits from the oil companies.

If you ask me, that is the short sighted idea. Let's call a spade a spade. Corporations don't pay taxes.

Oh sure, they make payments to the government, but where do you think the money comes from? They look at taxes as operating expenses. These operating expenses are passed on to the cost to the consumers.

Here's an idea, waive the Federal gas tax and make up for lost revenue by not burning tax dollars with that misguided idea that corn ethanol will save the world. That will solve 2 problems with one solution..

Don't get me wrong, I am all for renewable energy sources, as long as they are commercially viable. If corn ethanol was going to work, someone would have figured out a way to make it without taking tax dollars to develop it.

14-6 is better than 18-1!

Go Blue!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Distraction-gate

Why is it that anytime there is a controversy for anything, it is tagged with the suffix -gate? I know where it comes from, but I think it has been way over used.. We've had 'Whitewater-gate'.. Monica-gate.. and now Spy-gate.. (and the first one wants to be president..)

My thoughts about spy gate is it has been blown way out of proportion. For those who aren't aware, (where have you been?) the New England Patriots have been accused of video taping the NY Jets on the sidelines to try to steal the signals. (Which, by the way, happened at the Jet's stadium, on their sideline.. so how much blame do you place on them?)

Stealing signs have been a part of sports since the beginning of time, but the NFL has rules against electronic capture of such signals. Baseball players do it all the time, and it's not uncommon for a manager to change the signs during the game.

The thing that concerns me is that the US Senate is getting involved. Why is it that Arlen Spector (R-PA) is getting involved? Does the Chair of the Judiciary Comittee have nothing better do do than to utilize tax dollars to investigate the NFL? Does the Senate have nothing better do to than this?

The League investigated the allegations, meted out their sentence. That should be the end of it. There is no reason that it should go as far as it has. It's time to let sleeping dogs lie (I'm not talking to Mike Vick).

Oh yea, Go Giants! :)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Let's look at it for What it is..

For those who still think that universal health care is the way to go, here are a couple of ways to put in perspective.

I'm not going to go into how it is failing in other countries that have it, because most Americans don't care what happens elsewhere.

Look at it this way. When was the last time you went to the DMV? Do you remember waiting in line for an extended length of time for a simple transaction? How difficult was it to do something a bit more complicated? Have you ever filled out the wrong form? or the right form, wrong?

Why would anyone think that government run health care is going to be any different than government run auto licensing agencies?

You are taken to the ER after a car accident, or a heart attack, or whatever, and the nurse says 'Take a number' (unless of course you are an illegal alien, then you get right to the front of the line).

And do you want to see how well the government runs health systems? I have 2 words for you: Walter Reed. Do we all remember how well that worked? The patients there are American Heroes. If that's how the government will take care of their own possessions (remember, they consider soldiers property of the government), how well do you think schlub citizens like you and I will be cared for?

I have only heard one argument that was even slightly logical in favor of universal health care. It wasn't enough for me to turn, but it is worth bringing up. A teacher I had at college brought it up.

The argument goes as so: As the world evolves into more of a global economy, companies who operate in countries that have universal health care (i.e. Japan) have an inherent advantage over companies that operate in countries that don't (i.e. US). For example, Toyota employees in Japan have health care coverage paid for by Japanese tax payers, not by their employer. As such, Toyota does not have the expense of paying health care premiums for employees, and can invest the capital in other areas of the business (i.e. R&D). GM on the other hand, spends more annually on health care for it's employees and retirees than it does for steel, will not be able to compete in the long run with Toyota. This is not a completely apples to apples comparison, because Toyota doesn't have to deal with the UWA, but that's a completely different conversation that I am not going to get into here. Those who know me, know where I stand on unions and what they are doing to our economy.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Is it Big Brother?

A friend of mine sent me a link to an article that is very 1984ish.

It talks about AT&T and alleged plans they have to monitor and sensor the internet traffic that travels over their networks. According to the article, the network giant is planning on blocking material that is potentially copyrighted and other violations of intellectual property laws.

At first thought, one might think this is a violation of the 1st amendment, but I would have to disagree. The 1st Amendment protects us from government censorship. It isn't designed for a private entity (i.e. AT&T) to monitor and regulate what happens on its privately owned assets (i.e. their network). It would be the same as a mall regulating the objectionable activities in its halls.

I'm not sure where I come out on this. Should they be allowed to do so? The capitalist in me says yes, the concerned citizen in my says no.

I understand that Federal law protects network owners from liability in patent infringement cases. But lets be serious.. in today's increasingly litigious society, it makes sense to take as many safeguards as possible to protect yourself. Especially when it costs so much to defend yourself in a lawsuit, even one that has little to no merit.

It brings me back to 'If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about'. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but it's true.

You can read the posting here.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Happy 2008!

Another year is gone, and a new one is upon us. I wanted to take a few moments to look back at a year gone, and forward to the next.

What were some of the big news stories that happened this year? A few things stick out..

• Barry Bonds at the pinnacle of the steroid era of baseball
• The diaper wearing astronaut
• The fires of So-Cal
• The assassination of Bhutto
• The K-Fed and Britney saga
• 16-0 (and almost 0-16)
• The writers strike
  

Whatever you will remember '07 for, whatever you are looking forward to in '08, it is what you make of it.

Here's to a great '08!

Leave comments with what you think is the biggest story of 07 and predictions for 08.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Merry Christmas

I wanted to take this chance to wish you and yours a wonderful Christmas Season. A friend of mine sent me this, it is a Christmas Medley that is done quite well.

Enjoy, and thanx for reading! :)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Is it really necessary?

In these days of not trusting the police, TASER has introduced a TASER cam. They have upgraded a model of their hand-held non-lethal immobilizer. The X26 model is able to be fitted with a video camera that can capture as much as an hour and a half of video with sound.

I saw a report on the news about this new feature, and a debate on the concept.

What does this mean for law enforcement? Well, if it is anything like the dash cams in patrol cars, it doesn't bode well. Remember when they started to go into cars? They were supposed to be to verify police officers actions. Instead what what they have done is bread police misconduct complaints.

The problem I have with all of the complaints about it is, the TASER was designed to be a non-lethal way for law enforcement to subdue potentially violent assailants before they become violent. To prove the safety and efficacy of their devices, many employees and all of senior management have taken shots (including several by CEO Rick Smith) from the TASERs they produce.

Why is it that someone is threatening civilians or law enforcement officials, they can only act when it seems it is too late? Isn't that what the TASER was supposed to be? A non-permanent way to save innocent lives? Now, like in so many cases in today's legal system, the criminals have more rights than the victims. And no, a bank robber who got TASERed is not the victim.

My piece of advice, if a cop is telling you to do something, 'do it'. If you don't, the officer's choice is the .40 cal or the TASER. Which would you prefer?

Powered by ScribeFire.

In the news...

There have been a couple of big stories in the news this past week, the CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed and the Mitchell report.

The first story, the NY Times reported that 2 tapes featuring several hours of interrogation of two high ranking Al Qaeda lieutenants that allegedly featured severe tactics including waterboarding.

Regardless on your thoughts on torture, this story only serves one purpose. First of all, these tapes were destroyed 2 years ago. This is just another chance for those who hate America to attack the current administration.

I'm not one to give the CIA carte blanche when it comes to questioning detainees. If we pull out all the stops, we are no better than the heathens that they are protecting us from, but they should be given some latitude to do their job. Remember, these are the guys who aren't afraid to die. otherwise, they are not going to be willing to pilot a plane into a building, or put on a dynamite vest on and walk into a crowded market. Don't these guys get a free pass to heaven when they die for Allah? One of these guys gave up information that saved countless American lives after less than 35 seconds.

The CIA claims the reason for the tapes being destroyed is that the agents doing the interrogating can be identified. My reaction to that is if you don't want the agents to be identifiable on your interrogation tapes, don't make the tapes.

To those who say the CIA should be able to keep the tapes secure, keep in mind that the CIA isn't the only intelligence agency that is tasked with using covert means to secure information. And if the NY Times can break the story that the tapes were destroyed, imagine what a trained field agent can do if they wanted to.

==========================

The other story that is dominating the news is that of the Mitchell Report. It's the 400+ page report authored by former Maine Senator George Mitchell at the request of commissioner Bud Selig. In the report, more than 80 current and former Major League Baseball players are named in connection with steroid or human growth hormone (HGH). Some of the names are surprising (Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens) others are not (Barry Bonds). The report names players from all 30 teams, but it is curious that 25% of the list authored by a member of the Red Sox board of directors is made up of current and former Yankees.

This report was nearly 2 years in the making. It was met with a myriad of reactions. Will it make a difference? That is to be seen. Do the fans really care? As a whole, not really. Individually, perhaps.. Will it effect entrance into the Hall of Fame? I think it may. I don't see it keeping anyone out of the Hall, but it may delay their entrance. Someone like Bonds who was well on his way to be a near unanimous first ballot inductee will likely not be voted in for a year or two.

The question that keeps getting asked is: what should the League do with the players? First off, many of those on the list are no longer players, so there isn't anything that MLB can do. For those who are still active, the recommendation from Mitchell is to do nothing to them. I have to say I agree. Too much of the information is circumstantial, and there is the whole spectrum of involvement. Some were offered HGH and declined (David Justice, in an interview on ESPN Radio with Colin Cowherd on Friday) others had a more in depth involvement. Keep in mind, steroids and HGH were not against the rules of baseball until just recently.

When you start talking about wiping records, you have to consider all of the implications. If you take away Barry Bond's home runs, do you take away wins from the Giants? What about the runs scored by the players already on base when he hit it? The pitchers' ERA? All of the sudden it isn't such an easy solution.

The bigger implication in the report is the hundreds of thousands of non-professional athletes, many high school and college athletes who are on the juice. That is the problem that really needs to get addressed. That is the real problem here.

** My disclaimer.. this is the second time I wrote this today, right before I published it, my web browser crashed, and I lost it, so I had to start it over..

Powered by ScribeFire.

It's not easy being green.

It's that time of year again. Time to pick how you want to be billed for your energy, and who will bill you for it.

This is thanks to the genius of Charles Schumer. You see, we aren't smart enough to take care of ourselves, so it's a good thing that we have such a smart, benevolent senator like Schumer.

He came up with this brilliant idea of de-regulating the power industry of NY. This allows for a bunch of other companies to start billing us for power that is still provided by RG&E, along lines that are owned and maintained by RG&E, so it only makes sense that another company can come in and do a better job of billing than the company whose infrastructure is being used, and whose product is being used.

The thing that throws me off is the company that is offering green energy. It costs more, but you can get that warm feeling when you turn on your furnace to get warm. How is it that a company that doesn't produce the power control where the power comes from? And how do they keep the coal and nuclear power from those customers who worship the gods of global warming? What's even better, they have different levels of green plans. That way, you can choose how much you love the planet.

Don't get me wrong.. I am not advocating for waste, I just want to save money.

And it seems that you cannot ever win with Al Gore's disciples. (see my column from back in August of my thoughts about wind farms).

Powered by ScribeFire.

Who let the dogs out?

Former NFL quarterback Michael Vick was sentenced for his part in a dog fighting ring this morning. As you may already know, a house owned by the former Atlanta Falcon was used for an underground dog fighting ring.

When it came to light, the new gestapo of the NFL, commissioner Roger Godell issued an indefinite suspension. As the investigation developed, several of the people involved in the ring, took plea deals. Vick and his attorneys decided that the best thing to do is to plead out himself. The sentencing came down today, 23 months.

The questions that this raises is was that fair? Speculation was that it would have been closer to 12-18 months, but the statute allowed for as much as 5 years.

Will we see him back in the NFL? Well, if he serves his full sentence, he will be in jail until midway through the 2009 season (October 2009). He then will have to serve whatever sentence the League sees fit to impose. So it is likely that he won't be eligible to play until at least the 2010 season. At that point, he will be 29, and out of the league for 3 years. Sure, he will have the opportunity to stay physically fit while in prison, but that isn't NFL game condition.

Reaction to the sentence was varied. Many were satisfied that he got a stiffer sentence than expected, while others played the 'he was a victim' card and got a stiffer penalty than someone who fit a different demographic would get.

Bottom line, I feel the sentence was fair. He got hit in the pocket book much harder than the jail time. He lost millions in endorsements that will likely never come back even if he does make it back to the league. Do I think he will be back in the league? Probably. If the QB shortage is anything like it is now, someone will give him a shot. I think that he will have paid his debt to society by then. After all, this is the land of second (and third and fourth) chances.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Here they come again! Our heroes!

The federal government must think we can't survive without them. I guess we have given them plenty of reasons to think that, but it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The more someone (or someones) come to the rescue, the more they become dependent on the help.

The latest example of the white knight that is the Federal government is the announcement that they are going to freeze the adjustable rates on all of those mortgages. Sounds like a good thing, but here is what is being missed.. If borrowers can't afford the rates where they are frozen (which by the way is among the lowest on record), how are they going to be able to afford the payments in 5 years, when the rates thaw?

I understand that one of the key indicators of the health of the economy is housing sales, but isn't this just another form of welfare?

If there hadn't been the pressure to relax the standards for loans, there wouldn't be the need to bail out those who didn't plan ahead enough to get a loan they would be able to afford.

I'll be the first to tell you that I am no Warren Buffet, but I was smart enough to not get a loan for the max I was approved for, and I got a fixed rate. The only time my payment will change is when my taxes go up to help pay for everyone else that needs the government to bail them out.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why does it matter?

I'm about to talk about the two things you aren't supposed to talk about.. and I'm going to do it in the same column.. Religion and politics.

I don't understand the hypocrisy of it. One candidate is automatically disqualified because of where he spends his Sunday mornings.

It doesn't matter that the church in question teaches fiscal responsibility and personal accountability.

A church that developed a welfare program that fosters self improvement, a program that is designed to ween people off it. This program doesn't breed generations of dependents.

On the other hand, if a person pays homage to the same deity as those guys who flew planes into the Twin Towers, that is off limits.

I guess what it comes down to, does it really matter what church a person belongs to? Politically speaking? I don't think so.

One last question to consider.. Why is religion such a big deal for a former governor from the land of the Kennedys, but no one cares or even knows that a senator from the Silver State goes to the same church??

Powered by ScribeFire.

It must be fair..

I mean, it has to be.. people much smarter than me came up with it, and ESPN talking heads keep drilling it..

I'm talking about the rules that say a NFL franchise has to interview minority coaching candidates before they fill a vacancy. Now they are trying to force the rule into the college ranks.

Is it fair that of the 119 Division I-A football programs in the country, only a small handful is a minority. I think the number is less than 1 in 10 programs.

This comes up every year when the coaching carousel starts spinning.. It becomes big news when black assistants remain assistants.

Is the 'good old boys' club as strong as they would have us believe? Should organizations be forced to parade token candidates to comply with the rules? The theory is that it gets the name out there.. but If I am a hiring manager and I pass on a candidate, what does it say about the candidate? Are you more or less likely to hire someone who I passed on?

Do we have a ways to go? Yes. Is mandating affirmative action the right thing to do? I don't think so.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Heroes Season Finale

It's been a while since I added something new here.. so I figured it was time I put something up, I'll start with my take on last night's season finale of what is quite possibly the best TV series ever, Heroes.

I know, it wasn't officially the season finale... but if they don't settle the petty dispute between the producers and writers, it is unlikely the show will return before next fall. More on the strike in a bit..

A few weeks ago, I ran across a podcast and website dedicated to the show that is very well done. It has a very active forum. It can be found at http://www.thetenthwonder.com/ if you are a fan of the show, it is worth checking out.

Let me start out with saying if you haven't already watched the episode, there are spoilers here.. you have been warned... :)

The obvious first question is who shot Nathan and is he really dead? I think that we have seen the last of Nathan Petrelli, but Adrian Pasdar may reprise his role in a flashback sequence in future episodes. As far as his killer goes.. I would bet that it is Noah. After re-watching the episode, and pausing it as the lone person walks away from the commotion, it really looks like that person is wearing horn-rimed glasses (or as he is known in the forums as HRG)

My take on what Hiro did to Adam/Kensei is this.. I know that he (Hiro) felt that he needed to do something to put an end to what Adam/Kensei was up to, but if he is supposed to be the good guy, is trapping him in a coffin underground (was it LT Sulu's coffin?) the way to go? It seems that it is more of a cruel thing to do than to just cut his head off. Someone in the forums suggested that the super hearing that Sylar picked up last season from the mechanic will help him to locate him and dig him up.. interesting theory, but I'm not sure how much stock I put into it. I believe David Anders is done (except for possible flashback sequences).

Is there any significance to the other visible objects in the vault? From what I saw, there was a dagger, a brain, 3 cards (3 queens), a pyramid, a gold key, and a few other things. Honestly, I think that most of these objects have little to no plot value. People may be just looking for something to speculate on.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this series or episode? Predictions for volume 3? Drop me a line!

Now, getting to the strike. More often than not, a strike is the most selfish thing a worker can do (conversely, a lockout is the most selfish thing an employer can do). I understand that getting about $0.04 per DVD is not much, but the strike is hurting more than just the producers and actors. Most of them can afford to take a couple of weeks off.

What about all the rest of the staff? The cameramen, the grips, the set builders and countless more.. most of them are working stiffs.. they aren't making ton of money for the work they do, especially in comparison to the others..

And what about those who are indirectly related to the productions? People like drivers and caterers.. When the person that put their life savings into opening a catering business goes under because their biggest client is a TV studio, what happens?

And what about the advertisers? They put up good money to advertise in primetime shows that have been forced into re-runs? Do they get a refund or discount?

But what do I know?

I just hope this strike doesn't effect the upcoming season of Lost.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Do we remember 9/11 for the right reasons?

This may seem like this is a day late, but this isn't your typical 9/11 column. It's more of a reaction of the reaction.

Yesterday, I saw a video clip online that was a montage of pictures, videos, and news clips from 6 years ago. It was quite well done. There were several pages of comments about it. Most of them were from the vein of 'I was getting ready for work' or 'my brother was there' or 'the firemen were so brave'. Very heart felt. Many were poignant.

And then there was the other end of spectrum.

There were several from the whack jobs on the other end of the spectrum. There were countless comments from people who ended the post with "I HATE BUSH" or "BUSH LIED" and the like.

These are the types of people that are bad for America. Oh, they think they are being good Americans, and that they are what America needs.

I wasn't around for Pearl Harbor or the Lusitania, but after these events, did we criticize the government for planning the events? Did you ever hear about people who claimed that we bombed the USS Arizona?

I'm not saying that the government is always blameless, but attacking its own citizens? That's what Sadam did, not Bush. There is no credible evidence that the towers came down due to anything other than those planes. They were not imploded by pre-planted explosives. It's amazing how hot a 757 full of fuel will burn. It is hot enough to compromise the integrity of structural steel.

We were right to act out with emotion. We just reacted with the wrong emotion. We shouldn't be acting with sorrow, it should be anger. Not with vengeance, but with a purpose.

We need to take stock in what we lost 6 years ago. What we have given away since. Are we honoring those who gave their lives in the towers?

Powered by ScribeFire.