Earlier this year, I wrote a series of articles debunking Global Warming. Well, amazingly enough, in the last month the number of news stories supporting my position have been on the increase. NASA published an article stating that the polar ice caps are in fact NOT melting and that lower atmospheric temperatures, as measured by satellite systems, shows no net Earth temperature change. No warming exists! The warming figures that the Global Warming crowd has been spewing forth come from local human observations, which are unreliable at best. To further this, the chief meteorologist for The Weather Channel, who has been a leading weather scientist for some 50 years, has also come out to debunk Global Warming calling it the "junk science" that it is. Everything about the Global Warming crowd is continuing to turn out to be politically motivated with no evidential scientific basis.
But even now, we continue to see a big Global Warming push. From the Nobel Prize to despicable "community service" ad campaigns, certain media outlets are pushing Global Warming as if tomorrow were Judgment Day. Why do they continue to do this? It's not that complicated really. They point to "big oil" as the blame. They state that all our ills are due to oil company and big corporate pressure. Interesting. Because it turns out that the Global Warming debate is also being run by "big corporations" who have financial interest in the public thinking that Global Warming does exist. We are primarily talking about General Electric here. Yes, GE stands to make billions by forcing us to use their developing technology if Global Warming exists and if it is caused by human created pollution. GE also owns the media networks that are blatantly pushing forward with Global Warming agenda despite a lack of scientific evidence that such warming exists. It must be real convenient to have your own news network to sway the public into believing such a lie so that your own company can make a billion bucks.
I'll scrape together and post some more evidence on this topic a little later, but right now we need to shift political gears to another topic. Stand by for a series on the American political scene. We have 11 months until one of the most important national elections of our nation's history. The wrong choice now could destroy this nation.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Back on track
It's been awhile since I've posted anything to this blog. But it's been a busy summer and I've also been engaged in other forums. I'm gathering my napkin-notes together and will have some new politically charged posts rolling in like an avalanche. Stay tuned while I catch up...
Friday, May 4, 2007
My Best Friend, Merlin
Merlin as a puppy, taking a break from chewing on everything in the house.I lost my best friend today. I am devastated by the senseless loss. He was only 2½ years old and I loved him as if he were my own child. His name was Merlin, which was partially derived from his blue merile coloring. Like the rest of the animals in our home, he was rescued and from the information we have he was an Australian Shepard and black Lab mix. Exactly one month ago today, we took him to the vet when he suddenly developed problems eating and closing his mouth all the way. I thought he might have a tooth problem as one of his canines was discolored. They did some blood work as a precursor to anesthesia for an oral exam. The vet came back and said the blood analyzer must be broken because his white blood count was off the chart. They said they would check it manually under microscope and sent us home with some antibiotics for a possible infection. A couple hours later, they called and said they think he has leukemia, but they would have to send his blood to a lab for confirmation, which would take a few days.
What I now know about leukemia in dogs has me furious with the inaction shown by our vet. As it turns out, the average life expectancy of untreated leukemia is about 30 days. I found this out from a dog cancer book that I received in the mail 4 days ago. The first week was wasted while they waited for “confirmation” by shipping the blood to an outside lab. Then, the next 3 weeks were wasted while they “tried” a high dose prednisone treatment. I asked about chemotherapy when that was started and was told that it would “make him sick” and that prednisone was the best choice. If it didn’t work, they would look at doing something else. Well, as I have now discovered, there was no room for any “trials” and the standard of care for this illness is immediate chemotherapy. With that, there is an 80-90% remission rate after only a couple treatments with a prognosis of about one year. With proper diet and strengthening of the immune system, these dogs can stay in remission for years. But I found this stuff out too late to act.
Yesterday I looked up the phone numbers of two veterinary oncologists and had planned on calling them Monday morning for a consultation about Merlin. His condition was steadily worsening over the last week and he was again having problems eating. I had that slip of paper sitting right in front of me when I got the phone call from home that Merlin had died a few minutes earlier. I am over a thousand miles from home right now, so the last time I saw him was two days ago when I left to go to the airport. He had been very lethargic that day and raised his head only slightly and gave me that sad look as I walked out the door. He always hated it when I left. I always hated having to leave him.
In the end, it appears that he died peacefully in his sleep. He was found lying on his favorite bed with our two cats lying beside him, as if they were watching over their favorite buddy. After all, the three of them grew up together as a mismatched team of two kittens and a puppy. He will be dearly missed by all who knew him. A man couldn’t have asked for a more wonderful dog. A piece of me has gone with him.
What I now know about leukemia in dogs has me furious with the inaction shown by our vet. As it turns out, the average life expectancy of untreated leukemia is about 30 days. I found this out from a dog cancer book that I received in the mail 4 days ago. The first week was wasted while they waited for “confirmation” by shipping the blood to an outside lab. Then, the next 3 weeks were wasted while they “tried” a high dose prednisone treatment. I asked about chemotherapy when that was started and was told that it would “make him sick” and that prednisone was the best choice. If it didn’t work, they would look at doing something else. Well, as I have now discovered, there was no room for any “trials” and the standard of care for this illness is immediate chemotherapy. With that, there is an 80-90% remission rate after only a couple treatments with a prognosis of about one year. With proper diet and strengthening of the immune system, these dogs can stay in remission for years. But I found this stuff out too late to act.
Yesterday I looked up the phone numbers of two veterinary oncologists and had planned on calling them Monday morning for a consultation about Merlin. His condition was steadily worsening over the last week and he was again having problems eating. I had that slip of paper sitting right in front of me when I got the phone call from home that Merlin had died a few minutes earlier. I am over a thousand miles from home right now, so the last time I saw him was two days ago when I left to go to the airport. He had been very lethargic that day and raised his head only slightly and gave me that sad look as I walked out the door. He always hated it when I left. I always hated having to leave him.In the end, it appears that he died peacefully in his sleep. He was found lying on his favorite bed with our two cats lying beside him, as if they were watching over their favorite buddy. After all, the three of them grew up together as a mismatched team of two kittens and a puppy. He will be dearly missed by all who knew him. A man couldn’t have asked for a more wonderful dog. A piece of me has gone with him.
Merlin, a few months ago, with his new friend, Bella.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Second Amendment - Break It Down
Let’s take a quick look at the Second Amendment. This is a commonly misinterpreted item in the Bill of Rights. This can be expected with language that was written over 200 years ago where meanings and grammar change over the generations. Here is the actual text:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The anti-gun groups like to claim that this establishes a “militia” and does not apply to the individual. This is completely false. The first portion is a statement of fact, that a “militia” or military must be maintained and controlled by the government in order for the country as a whole to remain free. Remember that at the time this was written, it was common for European countries, where our forefathers came from, to battle with each other over land and ideals. In order for a country to protect itself from another, they must have armies, or as described here a “militia”. It does not talk about the National Guard as the anti-gunners like to claim. The National Guard did not exist at the time and was not created until 130 years later. The National Guard is simply an extension of the existing military.
Why do we need to state the fact that the government needs a military? Well, at the time these people were living under a government which used the military to control people for the benefit of the ruler. The people were not allowed to bear arms as this would give them the ability to fight back. They were subjects of the government. However, when they broke free, they realized that the government must have a military to defend itself from outside forces, yet they must protect the citizens within from the government using the military against its own people. Hence, the rest of the amendment comes into play.
The right of the People to bear arms. This means that the individual citizens are allowed to be armed. This balancing of power between the government military and the people is to ensure that the government does not become abusive like the governments of Europe were. The government knows that the people can successfully revolt. This right further allows for the people the means to protect themselves against criminals as well as to hunt. It was quite some time before the box grocery stores would show up.
That’s all there is to it. The government will have a military and the people will be armed. Don’t try to read any more or less into it.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The anti-gun groups like to claim that this establishes a “militia” and does not apply to the individual. This is completely false. The first portion is a statement of fact, that a “militia” or military must be maintained and controlled by the government in order for the country as a whole to remain free. Remember that at the time this was written, it was common for European countries, where our forefathers came from, to battle with each other over land and ideals. In order for a country to protect itself from another, they must have armies, or as described here a “militia”. It does not talk about the National Guard as the anti-gunners like to claim. The National Guard did not exist at the time and was not created until 130 years later. The National Guard is simply an extension of the existing military.
Why do we need to state the fact that the government needs a military? Well, at the time these people were living under a government which used the military to control people for the benefit of the ruler. The people were not allowed to bear arms as this would give them the ability to fight back. They were subjects of the government. However, when they broke free, they realized that the government must have a military to defend itself from outside forces, yet they must protect the citizens within from the government using the military against its own people. Hence, the rest of the amendment comes into play.
The right of the People to bear arms. This means that the individual citizens are allowed to be armed. This balancing of power between the government military and the people is to ensure that the government does not become abusive like the governments of Europe were. The government knows that the people can successfully revolt. This right further allows for the people the means to protect themselves against criminals as well as to hunt. It was quite some time before the box grocery stores would show up.
That’s all there is to it. The government will have a military and the people will be armed. Don’t try to read any more or less into it.
Gun Control Dwindles, but People Control Opposed
The last few days I’ve been patiently watching as the media lays out the direction of the gun control debate. The good news is that most politicians have been properly placed in check by their constituents as to our feelings on the government messing around with the Bill of Rights. It is not the “powerful gun lobby” that does this, it is the average American. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is more like a consumer advocacy group in that it is supported directly by millions of individual Americans. This is contrary to many of your industry lobby groups which are supported directly by businesses. Of course there are gun manufacturers and gun-related businesses that support the NRA also, but you cannot discount the huge support of individuals, many of whom are not even gun owners, but recognize the right of those who choose to bear arms.
The expected knee-jerk cries to ban all guns from the hoards of anti-gun liberals did not develop significantly. There were a few isolated peeps, but no organized call for new controls has yet shown up. The few notable Democrats that were asked in front of the camera about gun control, by anti-gun reporters who were trying to dictate the direction of public policy again, said that it was too early to talk gun control. Does this mean that the subject will be pushed in later? I don’t know, but there are enough pro-gun Democrats in Washington to make any new Federal gun control a failed cause. Long before the Virginia Tech case, there was an extremely restrictive bill introduced that would reenact the 94 ban and expand it to include millions more rifles and shotguns. It was so restrictive that there is no possible way it could be passed, nor would it stand a chance of being signed by the executive branch or passing a constitutionality test in the courts.
We need to clarify what the 94 law and this newer push for expansion of it are about. They don’t target firearms that are used by criminals. They specifically pick out guns that are used by law-abiding sporting, competition, and recreational shooters. They use cosmetic features of these guns to determine what a “bad” gun is. This is like arresting a woman for prostitution based solely on the kind of makeup and clothing she wears, or banning spoilers and hood scoops to stop people from speeding. They determined that any gun with a bayonet lug, a muzzle flash hider, or a collapsible stock should not be sold to civilians. None of these features has anything to do with crime. The gun manufacturers responded simply by removing these features from the guns. The exact same guns continued to be sold, so there was no reduction in the number of “banned” guns on the market. When the ban expired, all these features went right back on the guns.
The other aspect of the law restricted detachable magazines to 10 round capacities. This also had no effect on crime. I’ve previously pointed out the reason this issue cannot and will not have any effect on a deranged mass murder’s ability to kill multiple people. Changing magazines takes only a couple seconds. Magazines are abundant, so the murder can simply carry more of them. It worked just fine for the murderer at Virginia Tech as he inflicted over 100 gunshot wounds while having to reload between every 15 rounds in the Glock and 10 rounds in the Walter. I haven’t heard any figures on how many rounds he fired in total, as there is no such thing as 100% accuracy so he must have fired much more than 100 rounds, meaning even more reloading.
In Japan, which the anti-gun crowd holds up as a shining example of how gun control is supposed to work, the government is proposing new gun control measures. Yes, in a country where the only people allowed handguns are sworn law enforcement and the very limited numbers of rifles require strict government licensing, they have a gun crime problem. In the last week or so, they have had a rash of shootings including the murder of a mayor and some “gang related” shootings. Such shootings have been steadily on the rise in recent years. Well, I thought that Japan was supposed to be completely safe since they have banned nearly all guns. Why are they having gun violence then? Well, the black market keeps bringing the guns in and selling them to the criminals. It is just the legal guns that they have gotten rid of; you know, the ones that aren’t being used by criminals. Just like they do worldwide, especially in so-called gun ban zones, the black market is smuggling illegal guns in for the criminals to prey upon an unarmed society. The only people in Japan who do not have access to a firearm are the good, law-abiding residents. These same gun violence problems are plaguing the most gun restrictive countries of Australia and England as well as much of Europe.
As an interesting side-note, a year or two ago a young Japanese guy came over to the USA on invitation to participate in one of our national handgun shooting competitions. This guy had done very well with competition air guns in Japan, which is basically the only kind of gun they can use over there. He was loaned a real gun by one of the top shooters in America and given about a week of practice on a private range. This was the first time he had ever shot a center-fire gun. When he went to the competition match, he out scored nearly all the American champion shooters. His speed and accuracy were simply amazing to watch. Up to that point in his life, his government had denied him the tools to fully develop his abilities as a world-class competition shooter. If he would have grown up an American where shooting sports are encouraged and supported, he may have become the next Tiger Woods of the shooting world. Of course, he may still reach that goal, but he will be fighting the gun restrictions of his government to do it and will obviously have to make many trips to the USA in order to compete in this sport.
Now back to the current developments in America. We now have state governments looking at how they deal with mental health problems and restricting their legal access to firearms. They are also looking at what can be done to get these people proper help or even place them in mental health facilities when needed. This is a good thing. As I predicted, we have had an immediate outcry from the privacy advocacy folks as well as a number of people within the mental health industry. They claim that any such legislation will have the government locking up everyone with an anxiety or depression disorder. No one wants to do that, but all of us want to have those with bona fide mental health problems that could be a danger to the public to be addressed and treated. When treatment is ineffective or as the case warrants, these folks do need to be locked up in a facility that can protect them and the public while they get treatment.
Just as with endangered children being evaluated by social services agencies, people with mental health issues can be handled on a case by case basis with individual determinations made as to the correct treatment. This information should be included in the NICS background check process to prevent such individuals from legally purchasing a firearm when the system has determined they may by violent or a public danger if armed. The only thing I would add to this is that a means of removing an individual from the system at a point where they are found to either be successfully treated or in the case of a mistaken diagnosis.
In what I feel is very much related to our trend of violence in this country, the FCC has asked Congress to consider implementing more controls over cable and satellite TV in order to reduce the amount of violent programming. Immediately, the ACLU has jumped on this one as an attack on freedom of speech. We don’t hear these guys make a peep when the talk is about restricting the freedom of the people to bear arms, but when we try to protect our very impressionable young children from learning that violence is ok, they immediately go on the attack. No specific recommendations have even been made, so they are flatly against the whole concept of regulating TV entertainment. Time and again Hollywood and the billion dollar entertainment industry oppose any sensible labeling of immoral entertainment materials.
I am not for government censorship; however that’s not what we are talking about. There is a break down in the family structure in America with more and more busy parents using the TV as a babysitter. If these young children, whose minds are still being shaped by their environment, are bombarded with graphic violence on TV, it becomes part of what they think is normal behavior. Now when I heard this story, one guy I know immediately stated that they want to ban the Roadrunner and Sponge Bob. Give me a break. Just like we don’t want to lock up everyone with anxiety in a mental institution, we don’t need to worry about comedic cartoons on this issue. I faithfully watched Wiley Coyote fall off cliffs and get blown up by Acme rockets as a child, but it did not cause me or anyone else to become a violent criminal. It is a cartoon and has no basis in reality. However, take a look at this generation of kids who had those cartoons replaced with countless hours of watching real graphic human violence with blood and guts galore. Now we have thousands of troubled kids who are more violent than ever. Every week there is a new story of some kids who have made a video of themselves beating the snot out of some other kid and posting it on the web for all to see. We have developed a culture of young adults who think violence is normal and have no discipline or respect for authority.
Now show me a kid who had good parents, was restricted from watching too much TV and prohibited from seeing violent movies. Instead, he went outside and had active encounters with real people. Maybe he played “Cowboys and Indians” with a toy gun. That didn’t make him racist against Native Americans or turn him into a violent killer. The old western movies that our fathers grew up watching did not have graphic violence. The setting was of a historical perspective, not a current timeline, and it was always a good vs. evil with the good being triumphant in their fight against evil. On the same lines, I don’t think that seeing historically referenced movies like the Patriot or Braveheart, which contain some very graphic violence, have the same effect as the endless barrage of films and cable TV series set in modern times that blur the lines between good and evil while being filled with and glorifying graphic violence.
What the FCC is proposing is quite simple. They want the industry to adjust their system to limit the access of young children to this type of entertainment. They also want a clearly defined rating system that parents can use to decide what they will allow their kids to watch. When it was first suggested that the music industry place advisory stickers on the outside of packaging for retail music sales, the industry cried out government censorship. But this is not a censorship issue. They are still able to produce and say whatever it is that they want to. The public is still free to listen and to purchase as they please. We are only informing parents and restricting minors, who are dependants and not yet able to think and act for themselves, from purchasing material that our society as a whole feels they don’t need to see or hear. We are now simply carrying this philosophy over to the cable and satellite TV areas, which currently have very little restriction in what they can put out, or when. If you, as an adult, still want to get the Playboy channel or watch late night Cinemax, you are fully able to do so. But there are measures that can be taken to prevent children from doing the same.
The answer and method of doing this may be a complicated issue, but we need to stand up and do something to prevent our society from being drawn down into a world where violence and evil are common place. That is where we are heading, and at a rapid pace. Our entertainment promotes selfishness and hate. Our news media only report on the violence and evil. Our society is heading toward a repeat of the fall of the Roman Empire. And it seems our leaders don’t want to do anything to stop it.
The expected knee-jerk cries to ban all guns from the hoards of anti-gun liberals did not develop significantly. There were a few isolated peeps, but no organized call for new controls has yet shown up. The few notable Democrats that were asked in front of the camera about gun control, by anti-gun reporters who were trying to dictate the direction of public policy again, said that it was too early to talk gun control. Does this mean that the subject will be pushed in later? I don’t know, but there are enough pro-gun Democrats in Washington to make any new Federal gun control a failed cause. Long before the Virginia Tech case, there was an extremely restrictive bill introduced that would reenact the 94 ban and expand it to include millions more rifles and shotguns. It was so restrictive that there is no possible way it could be passed, nor would it stand a chance of being signed by the executive branch or passing a constitutionality test in the courts.
We need to clarify what the 94 law and this newer push for expansion of it are about. They don’t target firearms that are used by criminals. They specifically pick out guns that are used by law-abiding sporting, competition, and recreational shooters. They use cosmetic features of these guns to determine what a “bad” gun is. This is like arresting a woman for prostitution based solely on the kind of makeup and clothing she wears, or banning spoilers and hood scoops to stop people from speeding. They determined that any gun with a bayonet lug, a muzzle flash hider, or a collapsible stock should not be sold to civilians. None of these features has anything to do with crime. The gun manufacturers responded simply by removing these features from the guns. The exact same guns continued to be sold, so there was no reduction in the number of “banned” guns on the market. When the ban expired, all these features went right back on the guns.
The other aspect of the law restricted detachable magazines to 10 round capacities. This also had no effect on crime. I’ve previously pointed out the reason this issue cannot and will not have any effect on a deranged mass murder’s ability to kill multiple people. Changing magazines takes only a couple seconds. Magazines are abundant, so the murder can simply carry more of them. It worked just fine for the murderer at Virginia Tech as he inflicted over 100 gunshot wounds while having to reload between every 15 rounds in the Glock and 10 rounds in the Walter. I haven’t heard any figures on how many rounds he fired in total, as there is no such thing as 100% accuracy so he must have fired much more than 100 rounds, meaning even more reloading.
In Japan, which the anti-gun crowd holds up as a shining example of how gun control is supposed to work, the government is proposing new gun control measures. Yes, in a country where the only people allowed handguns are sworn law enforcement and the very limited numbers of rifles require strict government licensing, they have a gun crime problem. In the last week or so, they have had a rash of shootings including the murder of a mayor and some “gang related” shootings. Such shootings have been steadily on the rise in recent years. Well, I thought that Japan was supposed to be completely safe since they have banned nearly all guns. Why are they having gun violence then? Well, the black market keeps bringing the guns in and selling them to the criminals. It is just the legal guns that they have gotten rid of; you know, the ones that aren’t being used by criminals. Just like they do worldwide, especially in so-called gun ban zones, the black market is smuggling illegal guns in for the criminals to prey upon an unarmed society. The only people in Japan who do not have access to a firearm are the good, law-abiding residents. These same gun violence problems are plaguing the most gun restrictive countries of Australia and England as well as much of Europe.
As an interesting side-note, a year or two ago a young Japanese guy came over to the USA on invitation to participate in one of our national handgun shooting competitions. This guy had done very well with competition air guns in Japan, which is basically the only kind of gun they can use over there. He was loaned a real gun by one of the top shooters in America and given about a week of practice on a private range. This was the first time he had ever shot a center-fire gun. When he went to the competition match, he out scored nearly all the American champion shooters. His speed and accuracy were simply amazing to watch. Up to that point in his life, his government had denied him the tools to fully develop his abilities as a world-class competition shooter. If he would have grown up an American where shooting sports are encouraged and supported, he may have become the next Tiger Woods of the shooting world. Of course, he may still reach that goal, but he will be fighting the gun restrictions of his government to do it and will obviously have to make many trips to the USA in order to compete in this sport.
Now back to the current developments in America. We now have state governments looking at how they deal with mental health problems and restricting their legal access to firearms. They are also looking at what can be done to get these people proper help or even place them in mental health facilities when needed. This is a good thing. As I predicted, we have had an immediate outcry from the privacy advocacy folks as well as a number of people within the mental health industry. They claim that any such legislation will have the government locking up everyone with an anxiety or depression disorder. No one wants to do that, but all of us want to have those with bona fide mental health problems that could be a danger to the public to be addressed and treated. When treatment is ineffective or as the case warrants, these folks do need to be locked up in a facility that can protect them and the public while they get treatment.
Just as with endangered children being evaluated by social services agencies, people with mental health issues can be handled on a case by case basis with individual determinations made as to the correct treatment. This information should be included in the NICS background check process to prevent such individuals from legally purchasing a firearm when the system has determined they may by violent or a public danger if armed. The only thing I would add to this is that a means of removing an individual from the system at a point where they are found to either be successfully treated or in the case of a mistaken diagnosis.
In what I feel is very much related to our trend of violence in this country, the FCC has asked Congress to consider implementing more controls over cable and satellite TV in order to reduce the amount of violent programming. Immediately, the ACLU has jumped on this one as an attack on freedom of speech. We don’t hear these guys make a peep when the talk is about restricting the freedom of the people to bear arms, but when we try to protect our very impressionable young children from learning that violence is ok, they immediately go on the attack. No specific recommendations have even been made, so they are flatly against the whole concept of regulating TV entertainment. Time and again Hollywood and the billion dollar entertainment industry oppose any sensible labeling of immoral entertainment materials.
I am not for government censorship; however that’s not what we are talking about. There is a break down in the family structure in America with more and more busy parents using the TV as a babysitter. If these young children, whose minds are still being shaped by their environment, are bombarded with graphic violence on TV, it becomes part of what they think is normal behavior. Now when I heard this story, one guy I know immediately stated that they want to ban the Roadrunner and Sponge Bob. Give me a break. Just like we don’t want to lock up everyone with anxiety in a mental institution, we don’t need to worry about comedic cartoons on this issue. I faithfully watched Wiley Coyote fall off cliffs and get blown up by Acme rockets as a child, but it did not cause me or anyone else to become a violent criminal. It is a cartoon and has no basis in reality. However, take a look at this generation of kids who had those cartoons replaced with countless hours of watching real graphic human violence with blood and guts galore. Now we have thousands of troubled kids who are more violent than ever. Every week there is a new story of some kids who have made a video of themselves beating the snot out of some other kid and posting it on the web for all to see. We have developed a culture of young adults who think violence is normal and have no discipline or respect for authority.
Now show me a kid who had good parents, was restricted from watching too much TV and prohibited from seeing violent movies. Instead, he went outside and had active encounters with real people. Maybe he played “Cowboys and Indians” with a toy gun. That didn’t make him racist against Native Americans or turn him into a violent killer. The old western movies that our fathers grew up watching did not have graphic violence. The setting was of a historical perspective, not a current timeline, and it was always a good vs. evil with the good being triumphant in their fight against evil. On the same lines, I don’t think that seeing historically referenced movies like the Patriot or Braveheart, which contain some very graphic violence, have the same effect as the endless barrage of films and cable TV series set in modern times that blur the lines between good and evil while being filled with and glorifying graphic violence.
What the FCC is proposing is quite simple. They want the industry to adjust their system to limit the access of young children to this type of entertainment. They also want a clearly defined rating system that parents can use to decide what they will allow their kids to watch. When it was first suggested that the music industry place advisory stickers on the outside of packaging for retail music sales, the industry cried out government censorship. But this is not a censorship issue. They are still able to produce and say whatever it is that they want to. The public is still free to listen and to purchase as they please. We are only informing parents and restricting minors, who are dependants and not yet able to think and act for themselves, from purchasing material that our society as a whole feels they don’t need to see or hear. We are now simply carrying this philosophy over to the cable and satellite TV areas, which currently have very little restriction in what they can put out, or when. If you, as an adult, still want to get the Playboy channel or watch late night Cinemax, you are fully able to do so. But there are measures that can be taken to prevent children from doing the same.
The answer and method of doing this may be a complicated issue, but we need to stand up and do something to prevent our society from being drawn down into a world where violence and evil are common place. That is where we are heading, and at a rapid pace. Our entertainment promotes selfishness and hate. Our news media only report on the violence and evil. Our society is heading toward a repeat of the fall of the Roman Empire. And it seems our leaders don’t want to do anything to stop it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)