bread and circuses.
Where the frak does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the government has the authority to take money out of my pocket and give it to to other folks to make sure their Teevees don't stop working?
I think as inept as folks working in government usually are, some of them know exactly where to spend the cash to keep the masses quiet and docile. If you shut off the flow of the electronic opium to the lower-income households, the peasants are likely to a.) riot and do other nefarious things outside of the house due to sheer boredom, or b.) actually go to the library, pick up a book, and start forming an opinion that has a more solid foundation than a ten-second newsbite. Neither of those scenarios are terribly comforting to The Authorities.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a56e63f2e63.htm
And that's all I got to say about that.
It's not their money to give.
P.Blacksmith
Zylogue said...
7:29 AM
Have you ever read the Stephen King short story, "The Running Man?" (It really bears very little in common with the movie.)
The heart of the whole thing is just that -- everyone has a "freevee," to keep the lower classes pacified, sitting in their tenements and breathing themselves to death.
CrankyProf said...
8:22 AM
The FCC mandated the change to digital. Seems fair that the government should at least partly subsidize its own mandates.
If you have objections, they should be focussed toward the FCC mandate. The root of your objection is with the FCC and its mandates. Good luck with that.
Jonathan said...
9:14 AM
hm...if the plebs are going to come to the library if they don't get their TV, I might be willing to pay to keep them drooling in front of their boobtubes.
Breda said...
9:51 AM
Don't worry, the brainwashed masses don't read anything more engaging than the supermarket tabloids. I doubt they could even find the local library.
If they had no TV they'd probably riot and loot out on the streets and then march in D.C. for the "right to watch TV."
Mike W. said...
1:12 PM
I never realized there were so many people that felt superior to the unwashed masses.
Dion said...
6:04 PM
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, do you subscribe to the worldview that we're all exactly the same, and deserve the exact same amount of recognition and respect, regardless of our personal achievements and abilities?
Marko said...
6:18 PM
I do not believe it is a sense of superiority as much as attitude about life. I value my life and the people around me value my presence in their existence. I value theirs, as well, or I would not be comfortable in their presence and find another place to be.
We each surround ourselves with people that share common interests or beliefs. I prefer to surround myself with intelligent people who are willing and able to work for their own sustainability. We help each other when one falls down or has a serious problem and needs help. Most of us won't ask for the help, and will only grudgingly accept that same aid. Also, because we are the backbone carrying the weight of so many freeloaders, we don't qualify fro much of the aid we are essentially paying for others to enjoy. As intellectuals that share common ideals we support each other as equals and make up a wide variety of beliefs, races and ethnicities.
Now ask yourself, which would rather be; someone capable of helping or someone who has been siphoned dry by those unwilling to help themselves? Or perhaps those that have determined they deserver a free ride through life, not contributing to society, not supporting order, and usually, gladly taking from those who do by way of mass voting thieves into office?
In my first comment on this blog entry I posted a link to a story regarding Davey Crockett receiving a very important lesson from a member of his constituency. That lesson was, to over simplify, "take my money in the form of taxes to do the things the federal government is supposed to do, protect the nation as a whole. If you want to help someone who has fallen on hard times, do it out of your own wallet before dipping further into mine, without my consent."
I continue this 'tirade' in my own blog because I feel it is important to share.
P.Blacksmith
Pagan Blacksmith said...
10:44 PM
wonderfully written, and, of course it does not say that anywhere in the constitution.
Bob said...
10:02 PM
As much as I abhor the idea that the government is somehow responsible for keeping the idiot lanterns lit, I will grant that, in this specific instance, there is a case to be made for it.
The reason for the switch from analog to digital TV is not quality, nor transmission efficiency, or any such thing. The reason is that the gooberment wants to re-sell that spectrum which was allocated for TV broadcasting.
They expect to make some $4 billion from that sale, if not more.
That being the case, there is a certain logic and sensibility to the idea of them reimbursing (at least in part) the costs associated with their sudden "finding" of a new product to sell.
(Insert rant about spectrum allocation <here>.)
dave said...
2:44 PM