Mi-17...what?

At first, I was glad when I found this, what I'm going to call "piece", because I myself think about some of these problems on a daily basis. In The Smirking Chimp, Tom Engelhart talks about how the U.S. military has strange ways of spending and training. When I started reading it, my thoughts were that he shares my wonder in why America insists on carelessly spending when we can barley afford teachers in public schools and policemen in our towns. When continued reading, it felt like more of a rant with useless jargon that I have no time nor interest to brush up on. I understand that most of what a blog is for is to journal your feelings for an online audience, but when you're writing for a reasonably larger audience, you should really take in consideration how long your post is and how you explain things, which he did a poor job of at both. I don't think he has many excuses either. He has written a published book, so he should know how it is to write for an audience. I guess the difference is that when he's writing a book, people are going to pay money for his work instead of browse over it online. Regardless, I think that he should spend less time ranting and trying to prove he knows what he's talking about and more time trying to get the point across.

Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine?

In USA Today, Caroll Culler writes (article here) about her life living in a border town next to Piedras Negras, Mexico. She 'explains' the effect the drug wars has had on her hometown and her favorite restaurant. Being from a border town myself, I cand understand the loss of leisure to walk right across the border and go shopping, of have lunch. But, I do feel that she talked more about how it has effected her personally, and I understand that she's trying to speak as the everyday citizen she claims to be, but in my opinion, she focused too much on her self & her home town. "A few months ago, El Restaurante Moderno in Piedras, known locally as 'Modernos,' closed its doors," Culler writes, "another victim of Mexico's raging drug wars. Its quirky elegance and four-star menu had served four generations of luminaries and film stars." I think that the drug wars are something that effects this country in general, and if shes worried about just her hometown, she isn't taking the time to really look at the big picture. She complains that the white house isn't doing enough and didn't jump on this issue quick enough, but she isn't trying to convince any of her audience how its effecting the people in say, Kentucky, instead of just on the border towns. She talks about how some of the local politicians gathered for lunch in a mexican restaurant and an innocent lady got shot on the way to her car, "In December, local officials...were toasting one another in a restaurant in Piedras when it was sprayed with bullets. One of the diners, a woman who had gone out to her car for something trivial, was killed." Remind me what they were doing in the next country? I agree that the white house hasn't done a reasonable amount to "fix" the drug wars that bleed in to our country, but THERE IS STILL A WAR GOING ON HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD. I'm sorry, Caroll Culler, there is no magic wand that Obama can wave around to get your favorite restaurant back.

Whats the use of biting your tounge, when the FCC does it for you?

Over the years we as American citizens have grown particularly accustomed to having public media and entertainment censored significantly. Sure, there are your everyday protesters that just need to be mad about something, but for the most part we all pretty much just live with having the 'F-bomb' replaced with bleeps. Who's responsible for those protesters' problem of the week, you ask? The FCC, or The Federal Communications Commission, they are responsible for giving liberal protesters something to complain about since Bush is out of office, and deciding what gets bleeped, cut or dubbed out of radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

I read in a recent blog post (in MediaMatters), how Bush's FCC was trying to rewrite the books on whats considered profane and indecent. Nothing was changed as far as 'redefining' indecency goes and the 'F-word' remained profane in any context, thanks to the Court of Appeals, but several conservative politicians fought for it to be changed even though it was deemed unconstitutional.

I think this would be a good issue to talk about because we all are effected by the FCC's determination to protect our delicate naive minds from the harm of "bad" words and images on radio and television. In this day in age we rarely rely on public television for entertainment, we have more choices in what we watch and listen to, and we dont have to be looking for these choices either. I dont think there should have been a big deal made out if Bono using the word, "fucking," in exclamation at a live broadcasted event. You hear about this politicians do that are worse and dirtier than that an the Bush's FCC never makes a big deal about that. There are medical shows that get broadcasted that make more people uncomfortable than the f-word being shouted in exclamation.