Proving once again to have their collective finger on the pulse of what really matters, the federal government has begun dispensing $40 coupons to households in the effort to make sure that no American will go without their precious television shows. All told, up to $1.5 BILLION has been set aside to protect the interests of electronics manufacturers, broadcasting networks, and pretty much anyone who has a commercial to run on television.

For years, the public has been told about the upcoming conversion to digital transmission for television signals. Of course, this is a topic that is about as interesting to the average person as the molecular make-up of peanut-butter (which may account for the fact that 51% of people still have no idea that this is coming.) In fact, the switch is coming soon- February 18, 2009 to be exact. On that day, any person who does not own a digital telelvision set and still gets their television signal “over-the-air” with an antenna will suddenly be greeted with static and snow when they turn on their set. Imagine the horror! Imagine the fear! Imagine the mass panic! What the f%#k happened to our TV???

Fortunately, Congress in its infinite wisdom, foresaw such a widespread panic in the making and has worked ahead of the curve to provide a solution. Because of this coupon give-away program, there should be no reason for any American to lose even a second of life-giving television viewing when the switch is made.

For the record, I work in the television industry. Television literally pays my bills, so of course I am happy in a sense that so many people prefer to sit for hours in front of their sets instead of doing other things. So for my own personal reasons, making sure that everyone can get a TV signal is a good thing. But to spend $1.5 BILLION of federal tax money to make sure that people don’t lose their signal? Give me a freaking break! This is beyond ludicrous, it’s obscene.

America has many more pressing problems that could be helped with a billion and a half dollars. Dilapidated schools. Hospital shortages. Food pantry closures. Making sure our veterans don’t get screwed every time they turn around. I could go on and on and on. The last thing we need to be throwing money at is television converter boxes.

Let’s face reality here. Americans are already so addicted to television that they will go out and buy the damn boxes themselves. Even the people who can’t really afford to. The anecdotal proof is in the pudding- I can’t tell you how many times my wife or I have been to the grocery store and seen a family ahead of us splilt their purchases into two piles: one pile of food that they pay for with food stamps, and one pile of dvd’s and video games and beer that they pay for with cash. Or how about the fact that most people consider someone who lives without television to be really wierd? In the land of the free and the home of the brave, even the poorest houses have at least one television. So when the government starts throwing out money to “help people keep their television’s working” I want to wretch. Because this is a program that is unnecessary, wasteful, and offensive in a time where dollars are short and there are many things more important to fund.

Of course, politicians need television, and they need people to get television signals, so this is as much self-preservation for them as it is a nod to their contributors and a give-away to the public. But hey- who am I to rage? When it’s all said and done, the Great Television Coupon Give-Away of 2008 may well end up being the most popular thing that the 2006 Democratic Congressional winners can produce. After all, if there’s one thing every American would probably agree on it’s that life without television is just, well, un-American.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

This week is “Green Week” on NBC, a television network owned by General Electric, maker of all those fine, sparkly things that makes America the most materialistically enjoyable place to live in the world. On one hand, I have to commend NBC and GE for bringing to light the plight of global climate change and humanity’s role in shaping our changing environment. Several of their programs are adopting a “Green” theme during this weeks broadcasts, even including tips on how individuals can aid in fighting over-consumption and assist in recycling and conservation efforts. This attention being given to environmental issues by a national television network can only help raise awareness of the problems of global climate change and ecological destruction among the general public, and that is a good thing.

On the other hand, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I ponder the seeming hypocrisy of it all. Considering that the creation and delivery of television programming requires the efforts of tens of thousands of people and consumes a great amount of energy in the process, if NBC really wanted to show its audience how best to “Go Green” they’d have pulled the plug for a week and sponsored live, local events targeted towards environmental rejuvenation or other similar projects. They could have encouraged their audience to turn off the TV altogether, thus saving untold amounts of energy that would in turn decrease all sorts of atmospheric pollutants. Now that would have been a true example of “Going Green.”

But they didn’t choose the latter option, instead opting to promote “Green-think” during their programming. And guess what? They managed to get some sponsors to get with their program too. Which brings me around to the topic of this post and a concept I’ll call environmental ludicrousness.

During one of NBC’s reality programs last night, contestants had to vie for a spectacularly shiny prize- a brand new Ford Escape SUV. My first reaction to this major prize was, “Are you freaking kidding me? They’re giving away an SUV during “Green Week?”” But then I quickly remembered where I was. As the show host described the fabulous prize and began to expound on how this was a hybrid vehicle that got up to 34 miles per gallon it was all I could do to keep from falling on the floor in laughter. This brand new 2008 SUV is the American automobile industry’s answer to energy consumption? Christ, I drive a 1995 Mazda 626 with over 240,000 miles on it and it still gets around 30 miles per gallon. When I first bought it in 1998 (with 60,000 miles on it) I was getting closer to 38 miles per gallon on the freeway and at least 35 in the city! And my car isn’t anywhere near being hybrid.

And then it struck me like a two by four in the forehead. American’s don’t really want to do anything serious to solve the problems of the environment, problems we had a big, if not the biggest, hand in exacerbating. American’s only want to pretend we’re doing something. And in that vein…voila! The Hybrid SUV! Want to look worried about the environment without sacrificing your roomy vehicle and oversized cupholders? No problem- just jump in the Hybrid SUV! Only in America, I guess…

The fact that most SUV owners have about as much need for an oversized fuel guzzler as I have for my own personal Sherman tank is very much the point, but one that is missed completely in the land of the free and the home of the brave. After all, being American by definition means having whatever the hell you want regardless of the consequences. And when the consequences add up to melting icecaps that you’ll never see anyhow, it doesn’t seem like there are consequences at all, right? So why not buy the biggest, most fuel-inefficient vehicle you can to haul your solo self around the block for another 6-pack of Diet Coke? This is America!

Other countries have different domestic travel dynamics, and as such have incorporated into their national transportation systems many forms of competent public transportation options. Many countries are small in comparison with the United States, and as such have less ‘long-distance” travel internally. Many more countries are economically poor to the point that having personal transportation is considered a high luxury. In the United States, we have a lot of territory and good incomes, so we have highways and personal vehicles. And for decades, we’ve also had cheap gasoline to power our personal vehicles. These factors have helped make us an automobile nation, and even if we had a national desire to change that fact, our infrastructure is designed on the predicate that people travel to get anywhere. So in order to make adjustments in this environmentally challenged age of ours, we’ll have to make significant changes to our personal transportation models. And the Hybrid SUV just doesn’t cut it folks. It’s not even a good effort.

If appearances were all that mattered, America would reign as king forever. But hypocrisy has a way of catching up. Fuel prices are closing in on $100 per barrel of oil, and gasoline in America is starting to approach prices that have been known in Europe and Asia for decades. And yet American consumers are being told to trade in their old gas-guzzling SUV’s for what? A smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle like the Smart Car? Nonsense! Here’s a brand new SUV model for you- a Hybrid, no less- and it gets great mileage too!

Well, actually folks, it gets mileage comparable to that of foreign cars built a dozen years ago. But don’t think about that. If you’re too busy pondering the depths of the BS you’ve been happily fed forever, you might miss your exit to the gas station. And your new Hybrid SUV is getting pretty thirsty- again.

(cross psoted at Bring It On!)

In an interview yesterday on NBC’s Today Show, while talking about viewing television coverage of the Iraq war, Mrs. Bush shared this bit of information with Ann Curry and the rest of the American people:

Ann Curry: “You know the American people are suffering, watching —
“Mrs. Bush: “Oh, I know that, very much. And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this. And certainly the commander in chief who has asked our military to go into harm’s way.”

AnnCurry: “What do you think the American public need to know about your husband?”
Mrs. Bush: “Well, I hope they do know the burden of worry that’s on his shoulders every single day, for our troops. And I think they do. I mean I think if they don’t, they’re not seeing what the real responsibilities of our president are.”

Ann Curry: “It must be hard for you to watch him in this.”
Mrs. Bush: “Well it’s hard, of course, it’s absolutely hard.”
(emphasis added)

Now that I’ve wiped the tears away from my eyes, all I can really say is WTF?!?!? What freaking planet does this woman live on? If we thought her husband was delusional, she is a strong second place. Hell- even Bush admits (time and time again) that he sleeps pretty good, and that he has remarkable peace of mind.

That doesn’t sound like a whole lot of suffering to me. And don’t give me that “brave face, look strong like a leader” crap either. Bush has never been able to wipe either the smirk or the snarl off his face since he left diapers. The man doesn’t give a shit about much beyond his immediate designs and the people of the world are mere pawns on his chessboard.

“No one suffers more” indeed! Mrs. Bush, you are an idiot of the highest order. Of course, I suppose some consideration can be given to you. After all, you started out marrying a pampered frat boy, taught him how to read, and now he’s become a brutish thug and worse, he’s set this country back in so many ways I’ve run out of fingers and toes counting them all. America has gotten a raw deal to be sure, but you’re getting the worst deal of all. You still have to live with him. But that does not excuse the slap in the face you’ve just delivered to every service man and woman, their spouses and children and other family members, and every Iraqi civilian caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It does not excuse to complete disregard and lack of empathy you have for the people of this country who sit by watching the American dream slip farther away again. Your words are a disgrace, but with the example your mother-in-law set after Katrina I shouldn’t expect much better from any of you. Even the bookish ones.

See the clip at Americablog.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

It’s all included in S.49, called the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, aka DOPA Jr. (DOPA was the Deleting Online Predators Act that died in the Senate last session.) While protecting children from online predators is a good and noble goal, this is a bill that goes too far, for not only does it attempt to crack down on internet child pornography (the good part) it also launches a frontal assault on the online community that has emerged in the form of personal websites, chat rooms, even contributer based information sites like Wikipedia.

At issue is Title II of the proposed act which would prohibit schools and public libraries from accessing commercial social networking sites unless used for educational purposes with adult supervision. The law would prevent any school or library receiving federal funding for internet subsidies from allowing ‘social networking’ sites to be accessed from school computers. Such a law would almost certainly require schools to increase their computer filtering capabilities, essentially locking classroom teachers out of any online educational sites that are determined to fall under the ‘social networking’ definition. A definition so broad that it could include just about anything.

Under the bill, a commission (of unelected individuals) would use this criteria to determine whether a website would be defined as a ‘social networking’ site:

-is offered by a commercial entity;
-permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
-permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
-elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
-enables communication among users.

Buh-bye Wikipedia. Buh-bye online publishing sites. Buh-bye search engines. Think I’m kidding? Here’s a comment from reader Vickey on the PBS article (2nd link in this post):

“In our district the blocking and restrictions have already arrived. This is the message our district puts out as we search on the computers and reach a restricted site:Web based email is not filtered for content and may contain as attachments, inappropriate images or other undesirable content. Search Engines Major search engines (MSN, Yahoo!, Ask, Dogpile, AltaVista, etc…) often cache or proxy inappropriate material, they also link to inappropriate sites. We do not block Google, feel free to use Google to search the internet. Unknown Sites These fall under the “better safe than sorry” category. Streaming Media With the exception of purposed “education” sites, streaming media (audio and video) is blocked for two reasons, inappropriate content and severe bandwidth limitations Social Networking Unmoderated social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook are blocked because there is no “responsible” party involved in what content is displayed Lyrics, Music, Poetry, etc… Sites that offer content for free are typically in violation of the intellectual property holder’s copright, and as such need to be blocked.”

So far, the bill is in the early stages, so we don’t need to get too worked up quite yet. But we do need to watch and see where this goes. Anything deemed ‘for the children’ can gain popularity, especially in the run up to presidential elections.

But is this really about protecting children or about regulating and limiting the effectiveness of the online community? After all, the world of ‘social interactive’ websites has been very vocal in protecting free speech as well as highlighting the excesses, abuses, and mistakes of the government and their corporate benefactors.

This bill can do nothing to prevent child pornography on the internet- much of it comes from abroad. It will do nothing to prevent predators from gaining access to children either. It will not regulate private schools that don’t take federal funds for internet programs, leaving wealthier districts (and by caveat, wealthier families and children) with an advantage to access information and educational materials. And by extending the law into public libraries, places widely used by adults and children, this law would unnecessarily limit access to information and social networking by adults too.

There ia a better way to protect children than to decrease their exposure to information. It’s called parental guidance.

And there are better ways to eliminate child predators. They’re called law enforcement and stiff prison terms.

Of course, if the goal is to silence free speech and stifle the flow of information between people, this bill looks great!

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Russert had the heads of three of the four largest oil companies (Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) in for a chat about high prices, consumer angst, and alternative fuels. When asked by Russert whether the oil companies and the White House were engaged in talks to wean America of its “addiction to oil,” John Hofmeister, head of Shell Oil replied,

“I think energy independence is the wrong direction because the United States is not an island nation. We are interdependent on all of our global companies doing business all over the world, and I think the oil companies need to be more interdependent as well. I think it’s good for international relations. I think it’s good for the economy, actually, to have oil come from wherever it can come from. Now we can do a lot more in this country. The 102 billion barrels of known oil reserves and gas reserves that we don’t have access to in this country on federal land and the outer continental shelf…we’d like to go produce that and we know how to produce that and I think we know how to protect the natural environment in sound ways.”

What? Energy independence is NOT the course to take? And here I thought that’s what the president meant when he said we needed to cure our addiction to oil. Gosh, did I miss something?

Looking a little closer at the actual words gives me even more reason to pause. What Mr. Hofmeister is really saying is that it is large, multi-national corporations who run the show and that not only should the oil companies work together to consolidate a hold on world fossil fuels, but they should have carte blanche to get fossil fuels wherever they may be found. Sounds like someone has a Napolean complex to me.

This monologue from Hofmeister came near the end of the segment, but there was plenty more good stuff before this show capper.

When asked about the future of energy, including the importance of renewable and alternative energy, all three CEO’s asserted that regardless of the public desire for alternative, renewable fuel sources, we were going to be tied to fossil fuels for at least 30 and upwards of 100 years. Each man danced around the possibility of non-oil energy while insisting increased efforts to increase supply of fossil fuels- from various forms of oil (sand, shale, conventional), gas (including LNG), and coal- were of primary importance at this time.

All three oil barons put up the standard defense vis-à-vis profit margins. Every oil company has experienced record breaking profit margins in the last year and change. Russert wondered why they couldn’t cut prices and earn only a 30% profit instead of 50% or 60%? Why were retiring CEO’s handed $400 million retirement packages? Didn’t they care about the public perception, which shows a 71% negative approval for oil companies? Investment in oil prodiction, offsetting losses in other divisions, and even some research into future energy sources. But none conceded that profits were obscene. No one suggested that consumers will ever get a break.

In the end, what probably shocked me most was the smugness of these men, especially Hofmeister. They spoke of the consumers and the hurricane victims and the hard time high prices are causing, and kept using the term ‘we.” And it occurred to me that the ‘we’ they are speaking of is not the American people. These men try to act like they are just another great American company, but it isn’t true. These companies are multi-national octopuses with tentacles spread across the globe. They don’t care about any one country at all. They care about the money, and the power that comes from controlling the people who control the oil.

It is clear now that if America is ever going to find a solution to our energy woes, woes that compound our foreign policy aims and national viability into the future, it will have to be done in good old-fashioned American tradition. It will be up to the independent thinkers and engineers and financiers who understand the importance of energy independence. It will be up to individual consumers and forward thinking businesses. In short, it is up to us.

The oil companies don’t want us to think of energy independence because that means they lose their money and their power. They lose their ability to manipulate international politics and internal politicians. They lose their strangle hold on the economy and transportation, and everything that makes our modern world modern. Because once we have energy independence, we can really begin to stretch our wings towards freedom, prosperity, and a more peaceful existence.

To be fair, all three executives agreed that we need to take a serious look out our energy demand issues, but their answer isn’t to conserve so much as it is to increase supply. And not just any old supply, but more fossil fuels. (Damn, I was trying to show something positive.)

You can watch the entire show here. This segment is the last of the show, starting around 35 minutes or so.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The issue of free speech has been all over the media in recent weeks, arising from the outrage of the Muslim world in protest to some caricatures of their religious prophet. It has also been talked about in the wake of the NSA wiretapping scandals and the possible effects that those actions may have on the U.S. government’s critics to express their views free of government eavesdropping and without fear of possible sanctions against them. In both of these cases, the ability to exercise the freedom of speech has been called into question, but in different ways. In one case, the ability to exercise free speech is being questioned by religious fundamentalists who don’t offer such freedoms to their own people. In the other, the use of free speech is being chilled by abusive governmental policies that increasingly seem to be targeted at political opponents. However, despite the serious implications of both of these matters, the topic of this essay is not to address those matters. Instead, I would like to discuss the efforts of American corporations to abridge the newest form of free speech in the world…namely, the use of the internet to get and share information and opinions in a way never before possible.

The internet has historically been an open medium, allowing innovation to improve the availability of information and the communication of people everywhere. This factor has led to the rise of many new businesses, including online shopping, online advertising, and of course, the sharing of news, information, and opinion. The internet has created a huge financial opportunity for businesses and individuals alike, but now it seems that some of the biggest providers of internet access want to change the rules and corner all those profits for themselves. The effects of this effort will not only consolidate the money making possibilities of the internet into the hands of a few giant and wealthy corporations, it will also have a chilling effect on the newest form of free speech, blogging.

With the internet today, all someone has to do is open an online account with a service provider and the entire world wide web is available with a few keystrokes and mouse clicks. You simply pay your $10 or $20 or $40 each month, depending on the speed of your service, and you can get literally all the information on any subject that you want. The explosive growth of the new electronic medium has enabled people to find out the time of the latest movie, download coupons, pay their bills, file their taxes, and organize political positions, to name just a few. You pay your provider fee and the content is free. And it has worked wonderfully. The biggest service providers get a lot of money in monthly user fees. The biggest content providers get a lot of money from online advertisers. And all the users get whatever it is they need or want from the experience. But what has been great for consumers, writers, and the curious citizen hasn’t been great enough for the biggest service providers in the game. Now they want you to pay not just for the ability to access the net, but also for the content you receive.

In recent statements to both the press and the U.S. Congress, the biggest telecom companies in the country think they deserve even more money, and they are actively seeking to restrict internet usage by trying to impose usage fees to content providers for using the infrastructure of the internet to disseminate information. By arguing that they own the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the network, they say that they should be able charge anyone who uses the network a user fee.

Bellsouth’s William L. Smith told reporters that he would like the Internet to be turned into a “pay-for-performance marketplace” where his company would be allowed, for example, to charge Yahoo for the right to have its site load faster than Google. (Washington Post, December 1, 2005)

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that web applications (like search engines, online video, VoIP telephone) need to “share the cost” of broadband – broadband that’s already been paid for by the consumer. “We have to make sure that they [application providers] don’t sit on our network and chew up bandwidth. We need to pay for the pipe.” (TechWeb News, January 5, 2006)

AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre said: “What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain’t going to let them do that….Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?” (Business Week, November 7, 2005)

and

“I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network…. Now they might pass it on to their customers who are looking at a movie, for example. But that ought to be a cost of doing business for them. They shouldn’t get on [the network] and expect a free ride.” (Financial Times, January 30, 2006)

What these men are really saying is that the more money you have to give to them and their companies, the more your right will remain to use and access the internet as you do today. Want to access 100 hundred sites a day with a high-speed connection? No problem, so long as you have the cash to pay for each site you visit, each page you view, and the faster you want to look the more expensive it will be. Effectively, they are trying to shut the door on the average person to utilize the great tool of information and commerce that is the internet. And for those who are willing to shell out a few more bucks, they are even trying to kick your personal websites into the slow lane by restricting high-speed infrastructure to their own content companies or affiliates.

But it’s not just the service providers that are trying to change the way we use the net.

America Online and Yahoo, two of the nations largest e-mail providers are taking a shot at getting an “e-mail tax” enacted in an effort to squeeze more money out of people who seek to communicate and share information via e-mail.

From the New York Times:

America Online and Yahoo, two of the world’s largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely. The Internet companies say that this will help them identify legitimate mail and cut down on junk e-mail, identity-theft scams and other scourges that plague users of their services. They also stand to earn millions of dollars a year from the system if it is widely adopted.

One wonders how soon it will be before they start d
emanding non-commercial e-mails be charged fees as well.

The successful effects of these efforts will ultimately spell the end of internet usage as we know it, and will shut the door on the freedom of speech that an affordable, open, and largely free internet offers us all today. These are issues that don’t just affect political bloggers either, though those of us who fall into that category will probably be the first to feel the loss. Ultimately, everyone who uses the internet for anything will feel the squeeze from these greedy, and already incredibly wealthy corporations. And while they don’t yet realize it, these measures will also kill off the revenue streams that these businesses already enjoy. When average citizens can’t afford both access and content fees, they will use the internet less and less. Advertisers will move away because their audience will have dried up. When the advertisers go, so too do all the profits. In what is often the case with unbridled greed, these guys are loading the gun they will be shooting their foot with.

Fortunately, it hasn’t happened yet. And it is possible for you to make it known that you want this nonsense to end. This is not a partisan or political problem. It will affect everyone of us who uses the internet.

To let the Telecom service providers know how much you oppose their actions, sign this petition.

To tell AOL that they need to keep their sticky fingers off of our e-mail, sign this one.

Yet in an increasingly expensive society, where trips to the museum or sporting event or theme park can set families back a hundred bucks or more, movies, television, music, and video games are becoming the cheapest source of entertainment for many families. And with parents most likely spending more time working than with their kids, children are increasingly being nurtured by the glowing boxes in our living rooms and bedrooms. We are easily into our second, if not our third television generation, and the effects on our society could only be described as dismal. Children become desensitized to violence before they even know what violence really is. They become entranced with physical appearance and relationships before they can even properly bathe themselves without help. They become obsessively materialistic before they can appreciate the value of money. And they have a difficult time differentiating between reality and fantasy. Today’s children grow up in a world full of promise and technological advancement, yet all we seem to be offering them is the same kind of entertainment enjoyed by ancient civilizations: gladiator-like violence, rapacious sexual play acting, and extreme caricatures acting in stereotypical, but unrealistic, manners.

Art, they say, is just a reflection of life. But what happens when the reflection is turned back upon itself? What then? Entertainment executives, when pressed about “family entertainment” often exclaim that there are plenty of options for parents and kids, and that no one is forcing people to watch, listen, or play with their products. And to some degree they are exactly right. But they also say that they only give the public what the public wants, and this is where their disingenuousness shows through clearly. In reality, the public gets what they executives think will get them the most return on their investment, either through commercial advertising, merchandising efforts, or direct sales. And the public, for the most part, reinforces this perception by continuing to consume all that they have to offer. But, again, if all that is offered is of the same ilk, what real choice does a consumer have?

Unlike most denouncements of the entertainment industry though, this is not a call for government regulation or censorship. This is a call for Common Sense. And it is a call to parents and entertainment executives alike. For though it is hard to evidence with hard facts, it seems obvious that there must be a direct correlation between the attitudes and actions of our society and the things we see or do for entertainment. It is easiest to perceive in children, and unchecked or unseen, the things we learn as kids shape who we become as adults. Children are mimickers, it is how they learn what is and what is not acceptable. They see someone act a certain way and they emulate that behavior. They have no innate concept of right or wrong until we teach them. Yet the insidiousness of today’s mass entertainment is that it reinforces socially negative behavior through its subtleties. Seemingly innocuous programs for kids often depict parents and adults as aloof providers who offer little real guidance and nary a scrap of discipline while the kids are know-it-all super heroes, capable of solving any problem in just under 30 minutes. After weeks and weeks of ingesting this kind of fantasy, children unconsciously adopt the behaviors of their television role models, creating havoc in the home and school and disrespecting their parents and teachers. And these are the least harmful attitudes they adopt.

So what should be done? After all, we don’t want entertainment to be exactly like reality since the whole point of entertainment is to forget for a while our own complicated lives. And certainly, we shouldn’t prevent adults from viewing or enjoying violent or sexy cinema if that is their choice. In truth, I enjoy a good war film, suspense mystery, or lusty love story from time to time. I listen to rock and roll music as well as love songs. But as an adult, I have both the life experience to understand what I am seeing or hearing and the established sense of behavior to know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable actions. As a parent, I have to recognize that my child does not have these same attributes, yet, and it is my job, not mass media’s, to teach them.

I am a big proponent in turning off the television. As parents, we need to engage our kids more often than our busy lives sometimes seem to allow. If there needs to be censorship of modern mass media, it is first and foremost our jobs to be the censors for our families. Parents need to remember that children will not raise themselves, at least not in a socially responsible manner, and that the decision to become a parent means that life does not carry on as before. Sacrifice of our own personal desires are a necessary element of raising children, which sometimes means missing our favorite sit-com and reading to our kids. Or playing a board game. Or taking walks around the neighborhood. Or staring up at the stars. If you don’t feel comfortable listening to sex jokes and fart noises with a four year old, turn off the TV and do something else. If you don’t want your ten-year-old thinking that girls must be thin, blond, and sexy to be beautiful, turn off the TV and talk to your kids about individual self worth. If your 13 year old seems obsessed with war and weaponry, don’t buy the newest shoot-em up video game and then leave him in his room for all hours to master the skills of street killing. Use some Common Sense.

This is the only effective means of getting mass media to change the menu of offerings. By turning off the television, by not buying the games, by going to the park instead of the movie theater, parents can send a more effective message to the entertainment industry. By not supporting what they have to offer, they will be forced to give us something else or go out of business. PBS is perhaps the last bastion of quality children’s television, yet the politicians and the corporate broadcasters want to kill it off. This should tell us something about their true motives, since PBS is also non-commercial and tax exempt.

The industry has proven to be ineffective at controlling themselves. Government has no role in legislating entertainment, except when it crosses the line into illegality. Therefore, it is up to us to call for change. It is not a push to eliminate the violence or sex from entertainment altogether. It is a call for industry movers and shakers to dedicate themselves to creating family movies and programs that are both fun and responsible. It is a call for parents to be more parental and more involved with their kid’s entertainment choices. And it is a call for families to spend more time doing things together and relying less on mass media to teach and entertain us.

It is generally believed that those who hold the reins of power never want their subjects to know too much about what is going on, only enough to make them think that all is well, or soon will be well if it is not already. In an effort to combat that type of imperialistic attitude, the U.S. Constitution was written with a provision forbidding our government from abridging freedom of the press. In conjunction with the freedom of speech, these provisions were meant to encourage a viable “Fourth Estate” of government that would act as a voice of conscience, reason, and truth in an effort to keep the government from screwing everyone over and stealing their hard earned fruits of labor. Almost immediately, the powers that be figured out how to restrain that fourth estate by collaborating with the owners of newspapers, and later radio and television companies, offering access to information in return for favorable press. Those with less integrity succumbed to the pressure, and were rewarded handsomely for their spinelessness. The relationship continued with the discovery of the radio spectrum and the government giving away something they didn’t even own- the airwaves- to favored businesses. Now that the broadcasters could reach many millions of people, there was some real money to be made. And to make money you have to appeal to viewers and listeners.

The truth of the matter is that the bulk of today’s mass media is controlled by a small collection of corporate conglomerates, and the information that their media outlets offer is based on two things: the opinions of the majority owner(s), and the generation of profit. The sharing of information and news is no longer considered a respectable career of public service, but a commodity to be bought and sold and tailored to each listener’s personal likes and dislikes. Rather than be a collection of voices across the country telling each other about the latest changes in the world, our main media outlets are tightly controlled and highly competitive dispensaries of information that is filtered and whitewashed to reach the largest possible audience.

Further clouding the availability of factual, relevant news information is the somewhat incestuous relationship between the news reporting media and the entertainment media. More and more often, news programming focuses not on the issues that affect our pocket books and our freedom, but on the themes elevated to popular status by the entertainment industry. Crime, sex, and celebrities seem to top the list of hot stories day after day. Cross promotion of movies, music, and television shows fill up hours of daytime programming. Even the reporting of critical issues is portrayed in a sensationalistic fashion to appeal to a particular demographic. Sound bites. Headlines. Fancy graphics. They are all meant to hold your attention while telling you nothing of value, or at the very most, not enough for you to be informed.

No matter which side of the fence you sit on politically, odds are you view mass media, also known as Main Stream Media (MSM) with a certain amount of skepticism, if not outright disdain. Conservative thinkers exclaim that the media is overly liberal while Liberal thinkers bemoan the media as being biased and one-sided. Citizens complain that the line between fact and opinion is becoming too blurry to distinguish while reporters and editors increasingly rely on unverified reports and copied information in an effort to be first with the details. Who is right? Who is wrong? Whatever the answer, the reality is that more and more people are turning away from the more in-depth sources of news and information in favor of polarizing talk radio and opinion driven TV talk shows that masquerade as straight, unbiased news. Rather than actually be informed, our politically correct society would prefer be affirmed and the process becomes a self-fulfilling slide down the hole to absurdity.

In another ironic twist, our national quest for profit has once again turned one of our most special, trusted institutions on its head. First to go was the notion of representational self-government, which has deteriorated to the point that most elected officials don’t even know the full text of things they vote on, let alone care about their constituents beyond what they need to say to them to get re-elected, and who instead pander to business and union interests for campaign contributions and personal perks. (Who now equates the words honorable and politician?) Second to go were the courts and the rule of law, made a mockery by the ineffective and often suspect criminal system and the gambling fever mentality that has turned our civil courts into a lawsuit lottery system. (Ever heard of unequal sentencing, early release programs or exorbitant jury awards?) Now we see the demise of the honest media, lay victim to its own lust for cash while ignoring the fact that without their free public airwaves they would have no profit, no business at all. (By all reports, subscriptions to newspapers are down, TV news ratings are down, and radio news is mostly traffic reports and weather forecasts surrounded by opinionated talk show hosts.)

Main stream media no longer is the best source for complete, unbiased news, but it is still the easiest way to get information. But despite attempts to portray themselves as real information authorities, too many recent reports have been uncovered as slanted and contrived or completely fabricated altogether. Events are described in terms of spin instead of in terms of what happened or what was said. And more attention is being paid to keeping up with the latest famous indiscretions than explaining geopolitical instability or our own domestic dilemmas. With each passing day, faith in the Fourth Estate grows weaker. Instead of being the champion for openness and truth, it is seen as an old and tired creature, bent on defending the status quo against all odds that it is losing.

The internet information explosion, and out of that the phenomenon known as “blogging” has begun to change the face of media, turning back towards the original intention of the Fourth Estate. And while so much that comes out of the internet journalists screen is just bits and pieces of a story, taken together with other bits and pieces they offer the bigger picture that main stream media isn’t showing or won’t spend the time to learn. And they offer a more comprehensive analysis of what actual people think and feel. Internet journalists force things to the surface when they might otherwise have remained secret forever. Internet journalists are picking up the challenge that the mass media has abandoned. And while individually these journalists are no more likely to have the whole story than a rip-n-read radio host, they will once again assure that somebody is always watching those who hold the reins of power. Someone is watching and someone will tell.