Saturday, February 16, 2008

Sour Grapes for Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Less is less
The real reason
Last week I complained about the static ‘filler’ commercials found on the local cable channel. In the interest of fairness, below you will find reprinted, an email I received from Mark Birmingham of MCV regarding the real reason they don't show commercials during the Super Bowl and many other live sports broadcasts.Bob Coldeen and Jim Barry also rang in to let me know what is going on. Some of you may not know and some of you may already understand the reason. As both Bob and Mark point out, without the AFN (Armed Forces Network) feed, even though restricted, we would not have live sports coverage at all so they, I and probably you should be happy to have what we have, elevator rap and all.Anyway, here it is from the horse’s mouth:
Hafa Adai Bruce,The reason you do not see Super Bowl ads, or any other national ads for that matter, on AFN is because AFN does not show them. They substitute their own Military commercials (you may have seen the start of some inadvertently) and we are restricted from showing those commercials, so we must cover it up with our own ads (preferable because we make money) or"filler" ( just some filler stuff, logos, and stuff). The filler was a static screen that said "Stay tuned for more Sports", but we wanted something with a little bit more movement. Our Graphic Artist is always looking for ideas, so if you have one let me know (Note: It cannot becamera video due to certain issues, but we can do graphic motion, which we do now.) The music is what is called "Music Bed" and is available for free. I cannot tell you how much trouble we can get into if we start putting Beyonce or Nickleback as the background. Unfortunately, Music Bed is basically elevator music.I wish we would sell more advertising and cover up the graphics with ads, but you know how that is. Maybe when the economy improves a bit. Mark

So there you have it. Notice that Mark calls for usable ideas so if you have one, give him a call at MCV headquarters.
* * * *
Smaller spender
Back in the United States, the battle rages over who will be on the ballot in November shooting for the Presidency. Primaries erupt over the face of the country like a “wave” in a football arena – coming and going and leaving not much but a bunch of people sitting there after it passes. The end result of all that ‘waving’, however, will be profound as from it comes the nominees with the only chance of ruling (no running) the country for the next 4 or 8 years. He, She, It will be a Republican or a Democrat. Third parties are not welcome at the table (except sometimes as spoilers). Third party candidates are basically ignored by the media and can’t get a seat at the ‘open debates’. Within that restricted framework of RepubliCrats will come the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.

I read an article the other day that showed the projected dollar/spending effects attributed to each potential candidate should they be elected and should their respective agendas be put into place. The information is instructive:

New Study: All Candidates But One Will Increase Government Spending

Of all the Republican and Democratic candidates for president, only one is proposing to actually cut government spending. That one, not surprisingly, is libertarian Republican Ron Paul. The rest, Republicans and Democrats alike, are proposing to increase government spending by anywhere from several billion to hundreds of billions of dollars.

That's the startling conclusion of a comprehensive new study from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). NTUF is the research arm of the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizen group founded in 1969 that works for lower taxes and tax reform. Their new study provides cost estimates, based on hard data, for more than 450 actual proposals by the presidential candidates.

The leading Republicans love to describe themselves as "fiscal conservatives" and they all pledge to cut back government. But that's all hot air, says NTUF. The truth is, all but Ron Paul are proposing an even bigger, even more bloated, even more intrusive federal government than we have today:

* John McCain's proposals would result in a $6.9 billion spending hike.
* Mitt Romney's programs would result in a $19.5 billion spending hike.
* Mike Huckabee's proposals would result in a $54.2 billion spending hike.

As for the Democrats:

* Hillary Clinton's proposals would result in a $218.2 billion spending hike.
* Barack Obama's proposals would result in a $287 billion spending hike.

What about Ron Paul? The NTUF study notes that only Ron Paul is proposing to eliminate whole departments he considers wasteful, unnecessary and unconstitutional. Among them: the departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, and Homeland Security. He would also end "corporate welfare," or government handouts to business. He has proposed numerous other measures to reduce government spending as well.

Finally, his call for ending America's self-assumed role as policeman of the world would save trillions of dollars over time, as well as American lives.

Bottom line on Ron Paul, according to NTUF:

* Ron Paul's proposals would result in a $150 billion spending CUT.

(Source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation study: )

So what does it all mean to us, sitting out here in the western Pacific? Probably not much except that if you are wanting to see the federal government get smaller instead of bigger, and you are eligible to vote in the coming election, you might give some thought to researching Ron Paul as a candidate to see if his other platform stances are compatible with your voting philosophy.
Quote of the week: Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. Douglas Adams (1952 – 2001)


Jeff said...

The system is hopelesly fucked. I've spent almost twenty years, since I was a teen, trying to learn how it really works, now I know, and all knowing about it does is depress me.

SteeleOnSaipan said...

Great info Bruce, thanks and you're right Jeff.