Just a quick little observation about the mainstream media

Sarah Palin still lives rent-free in the heads of most of the Obama-supporting mainstream media.  And, as always, this is most evident at that bastion of unbiased--meh, I can't even joke about that, no one would believe it--this is most evident at MSNBC.

Courtesy Newsbusters via The Right Scoop:


Yes, in a conversation that had absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Palin, Mika Brzezinski felt the need to say that something with which she (or, rather, her colleague, Joe Scarborough) not only disagreed but found "stupid" sounded like "something Sarah Palin would say".

Whatever, Ms. Brzezinski.  Keep thinking you're doing something worthwhile when you rant about Governor Palin, as you have done for years now.  Keep hate alive.

Is round two of Time Warner vs. KXAN on the horizon?

Three years ago, Time Warner Cable and LIN TV (owners of KXAN) had, you might recall, a little tiff which resulted in KXAN, Austin's NBC affiliate, disappearing from channel 4 on Time Warner Cable for almost a month, as documented here, here, and here.  (Also note that I correctly predicted, to the day, the date on which KXAN would make its return to the Time Warner lineup.)

You would think this article would not have to be written, but:  here we go again.

Time Warner Cable, at least, is preparing for yet another disappearance of KXAN from its lineup (apparently the previous agreement was for three years or so).  Its current document of future and/or potential channel changes mentions several channels, broadcast and cable, whose agreements with Time Warner are due to expire "soon".  (Soon is relative, judging by how long some of these channels appear in these lists.)  And appearing prominently in this list is KXAN, which is now joined by its sister station, KBVO (which is also owned by LIN TV).  KBVO, for the uninitiated, is the MyNetwork TV affiliate for Austin; however, it inexplicably can only be found on channel 1525 (which, you might guess, is not in the basic tier, which is what we get at the Snowed household).  But regardless of in which tier these channels are, they are listed as possibly disappearing in the (somewhat) near future.

Now, most channels seen on this list get an agreement in place well before the deadline; it's only those companies and channels that want to get a better deal that end up causing standoffs like the one KXAN and Time Warner had.  (Or, more recently, KVUE and Time Warner, which you perhaps may not remember because it was worked out at the eleventh hour.)

No, what makes me think that the KXAN/KBVO situation is more dire than most of these expiring agreements is that Time Warner already has a message ready to throw up on the missing channels once the signals are removed.  Currently, since KXAN and KBVO aren't going anywhere anytime soon, Time Warner is showing this agreement on channels that don't actually exist.  See, channels 11 and 16 are two of the three community access channels; they went digital-only almost a year ago.  So I, with my basic cable, shouldn't be getting anything on these channels, one would think.  However, for a while Time Warner helpfully had a static image with a message saying that the channels had moved to digital-only and should I wish to upgrade...

Well, now on these two channels, this message, which can apparently only be seen by those without a digital converter, appears:

The message reads, "KXAN and KVBO (sic) have required that we stop carrying them.  While we work to bring their channels back, please refer to www.RollOverOrGetTough.com/SurvivalGuide to find alternate sources for the shows you're missing."

Is Time Warner tipping its hand with this message?  It certainly appears that way to me.  I guess we'll find out in a few months.

But if this has a chance of happening, ask yourself:  is this battle worth fighting a second time?

Update:  Thanks for the Facebook link love, Republic of Austin!

Update 2:  Apparently Time Warner reads my blog...the "KXAN and KVBO..." message that I saw has suddenly disappeared from channels 11 and 16.

CNN and the no good, very bad day

How bad has CNN's last 24 hours been?

Well, last night CNN presented a Republican presidential debate that featured some of the most inane questions I've ever seen in such a forum (and I'm not just talking about the "this or that" questions, which, in a truly just world, would get CNN sued by Jellyvision).  Really, CNN, with the economy in the toilet and the U6 number somewhere around 17%, you think one of the most pressing issues of the day is the degree to which each candidate is pro-life?  It's as if CNN tried its hardest not to mention any issue that might present the Obama administration in a bad light, while at the same time keying in on issues designed to trip the candidates up.

And let's not forget that anchor John King, in the absence of a bell or light to signal the candidates that their absurdly short 30-second time limit had been reached, took it upon himself to grunt "uh, uh, uh" in a way that, from what I seem to recall seeing, has already been made into a backbeat for some Youtube video.  (Finding that is an exercise for the reader, 'cos I heard more than enough of it last night.  Seriously, imagine some guy grunting for two hours.  Yikes.)

So, after a debate that may as well have been presented by your local community access channel for all the preparation CNN didn't do, what did it do for an encore?

Why, CNN took its journalistic integrity and impartiality and flushed them.  How else would you explain this headline?

(screenshot of an actual CNN headline; courtesy The Daily Caller; used under Fair Use)

Yes, CNN said "wingnut", a term of scorn frequently found in lefty blogs and tweets, none of which I feel the need to link.

CNN has since changed the offending term (without comment, of course) to "goofy", as can be seen in its article.  Is this really any better?

Maybe a more important question is:  why is CNN still relevant, and especially, why do Republicans treat it as such, given its ever-more-apparent MSNBC-like slant?  It's amazing how much it has done in just 24 hours to destroy its reputation.

(H/T:  Moonbattery, The Daily Caller)

The media's love/hate relationship with Sarah Palin, Part 2

Building on what I wrote the other day, I saw the perfect summation of how the media has acted during Sarah Palin's bus tour:

(Picture courtesy Barracuda Brigade, used

Simply put:  Sarah Palin is not going to let the old-school, dying mainstream media set the narrative of what she does.  Her handlers in 2008 during her vice-presidential campaign convinced her to let the media do just that back then, with disastrous results.  (How many people in this country still think she was the one to say she could see Russia from her house?  Put your hand down, Meghan McCain.) 

No, Governor Palin is setting her own narrative this time.  And that's what has the talking heads so bent out of shape.

The media's love/hate relationship with Sarah Palin

This isn't exactly breaking news, but maybe you, like me, have noticed the tendency of many commentators in the (old-school) news media to cover every little thing Sarah Palin does with the same intensity as the paparazzi did Paris Hilton's trip to jail, while at the same time decrying the influence and popularity Sarah Palin presently holds.  For example, a few months ago some guy named Dana Milbank, who works at some old dinosaur called the Washington Post, decided that the best way to get himself some attention attempt to take away from the influence wielded by Mrs. Palin was to declare that February would be a Palin-free month in the (so-called) mainstream media.  The fact that most of my readers probably are not aware that this even happened speaks volumes both to Sarah Palin's influence and to Dana Milbank's lack thereof.

Anyway, the current even that has those types frothing is a bus tour by the Palin family to historic sites around our nation.  This may be followed at the SarahPAC webpage. You can view the introductory video to this tour right here:



Now, most rational people would not think that there is anything wrong with a bus tour.  Heck, John Madden did it every week when he did NFL color commentary.  But when Sarah Palin does it, it's a real problem!  She can't do this!  But it must be reported to death anyway!

Or at least so sayeth the talking heads.

For example, I don't need to go into the details of how some of these people are annoyed at not being told where the Palin family is going...Matt Lewis already summed up most of the grumblings:

Some journalists believe Palin is behaving like a celebrity, and that covering her may be beneath them. For example, The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta Tweeted: “reality TV star Palin treating pol reporters like paparazzi — needing & hating, inviting & making chase.” Politico’s Ben Smith Re-Tweeted her — and Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post agreed, responding: “seriously, why dont media outlets have entertainment reporters cover her instead of polit. press?”

The whining got even better, or more shrill, or something, with one CBS News producer blaming potential future car crashes on Mrs. Palin.  As Geoffrey Dickens of NewsBusters writes:

The press is pouting because potential GOP presidential contender Sarah Palin is apparently having a bit of fun with them, by refusing to let them know in advance where she is headed on her bus tour. One of them, CBS News producer Ryan Corsaro, even suggested the former Alaska governor is a "dangerous" traffic hazard because she is forcing reporters to chase her around like they were paparazzi.

[...]

In a May 31 CBS News.com article headlined "Sarah Palin's bus tour treats reporters like paparazzi" Corsaro complained:

I just hope to God that one of these young producers with a camera whose bosses are making them follow Sarah Palin as a potential Republican candidate don't get in a car crash, because this is dangerous.

But the prize for the lamest take on the Palin bus tour has to go to MSNBC's Martin Bashir, as quoted by Alex Fitzsimmons, also of NewsBusters:

Anchoring his eponymous program, Bashir scolded, "In fact, the whole thing could be in breach of a federal law because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules for the use and display of the stars and stripes, the flag of the United States."

The entire video of the rant can be found at the previous link; I don't care to post it here.  

Hey, perhaps Mr. Bashir would prefer people who use and display American flags like this:

(Picture courtesy the Denver Post via HotAir.com; used under Fair Use)

(That, in case anyone has forgotten, is how used flags were "used" and "displayed" following the conclusion of the coronation nomination acceptance speech of Barack Obama in 2008.  But hey, at least he didn't put them on a bus!)

But regardless, with regard to Sarah Palin, if it isn't one thing, it's another for the dying breed of media talking heads so desperately hanging on to their waning prestige and their nonexistent influence.  They can't live with her, but in these present days with their many choices for information gathers, they sure can't live without her.

(Oh, and I am on record as hoping that the Palins will make it to the Austin area, despite its deep-blue condition, and check out The Salt Lick.  I can dream.)

(Hat tip: Texas for Sarah Palin)

Is public broadcasting still viable?

From the "this story will eventually be given the attention it deserves" file:

Longtime Los Angeles PBS affiliate KCET has announced that it is giving up its PBS affiliation at the end of 2010.  Apparently the dues that PBS requires from KCET have become a bit too cumbersome:

Last year, the dues totaled nearly $7 million, or almost one-fifth of the station's $37-million net operating revenue. Station officials say that amount is far too high. PBS, fearing that a reduction in the sum could lead to demands for similar discounts from other member stations, refused to budge.

The back-and-forth between the two parties appears a little bit like a circular firing squad.

So where does this leave KCET?  They are losing the ever-popular Sesame Street (the last PBS program in production that actually predates PBS itself) and whatever other kids' programming they have now (and I've written recently about the popularity of at least one of those programs), as well as the PBS NewsHour, Nova, Masterpiece, Nature, and so on.  With that said, this doesn't leave KCET with no programming whatsoever, of course.  Per Al Jerome, president/CEO of KCET:

"As an independent public television station, KCET will be committed to investing in Southern California by developing, acquiring, producing and distributing content across all media platforms," he added. "We will continue to offer the KCET audience programming from leading national and international sources. Some of these series are currently on our air."

And, of course, there are many programs aired on public television that do not come from PBS, including a lot of British shows, most notably longtime favorites such as Doctor Who.  There is also a fairly large public television syndicator, American Public Television, which offers programs in just about all genres.

Suffice it to say, then, that KCET will not be at a loss for programming.  But will its members (and the literally millions of people in the LA area who are not members) be happy about these changes?  The response has been mixed, as per these two comments at the LA Times blog:

Al Jerome is a smart guy. I've known him for years. He once headed up the NBC stations. He's right on target for making this decision. PBS charges way too much for its programming--considering there are multiple PBS stations in the LA area carrying the same thing. KCET now has an opportunity to reinvent itself. They can still get many of the series that PBS carries directly from the program suppliers--who will do great deals because they want their programming seen in LA on the major (once) PBS outlet. 

Bad move. They've lost me as a loyal viewer and annual contributor.

PBS, meanwhile, is not without an outlet in the LA area, as they have multiple stations available there.  Orange County station KOCE is poised to become the primary affiliate in the area.  (KOCE's statement about the matter may be found here.)

But this situation leads to the question about whether the departure of such a cornerstone affiliate from PBS is an aberration or the beginning of something larger.  Public television has survived, thus far, in an era in which myriad viewing options offering similar programming to PBS are available to the viewer, but this seems unlikely to continue indefinitely.  The question has been raised, and is being raised more often now, whether PBS needs to be funded at all.  Would Sesame Street be different if it were on another channel, for example?  (And the answer to that, for several years, was no, Sesame Street was no different when it aired on Noggin.)

Another part of the equation, from my observation, is this:  pledges aren't going as far as they once did.  The PBS affiliate where I grew up had one pledge drive a year (Festival, they called it then, and for all I know they still do) in March, and then there were no more annoying interruptions for the rest of the year.  I know that there are now more pledge drives now in the area where I grew up, just as there are probably multiple pledge drives a year for most PBS stations.  This may relate to the previous example I gave; why give to PBS when the kids can watch Nick Jr, or whatever?  And why bother with my local station at all when I can watch just about all PBS shows online?  (This is where I think we're headed:  entertainment and/or instructive programming entirely on demand.)

And the last part, as evidenced by the recent firing of Juan Williams from NPR, is, of course, that public broadcasting has long been seen as partisan and liberal.  Already many (including one Sarah Palin) have called for federal funding for NPR to be killed, and some, such as Senator Jim DeMint, have included PBS in the defunding call for perceived (by many, including me) liberal bias.  (You wouldn't want to give federal funding to Fox News, now, would you?  Neither would I.)

So what is the answer?  Is public broadcasting going to survive?  I say no...at least not in its present form.

And KCET and PBS's lose-lose situation is just going to accelerate the decline.

Time Warner, KVUE reach an agreement

As of this evening at about 7:00pm, KVUE and Time Warner Cable of Central Texas have come to terms, thus avoiding the worst-case scenario of KVUE disappearing at midnight tomorrow.

Per Patti Smith, general manager of KVUE:

Dear valued KVUE viewer,

I am pleased to tell you that KVUE and Time Warner have reached a tentative agreement that will allow the cable company to continue to carry the station's broadcast signal in Central Texas.

This means that we do not anticipate a disruption in service for viewers who watch KVUE on the Time Warner Cable system.

I would like to thank our viewers for their patience during this process. We are grateful to those who called and/or wrote the station over the past few weeks. We received interesting and thoughtful comments, and appreciate that viewers would take the time to share them with us.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact us at the station by calling 512-459-6521or e-mailing cable@kvue.com.

Respectfully,

Patti C. Smith
KVUE President and General Manager

No other comment is necessary except I told you so.

Time Warner Cable finds new ways to irritate its customers

I've laid off Time Warner Cable for a couple of months, but somehow they manage to do something to tick people off enough that I feel a need to write.  ("Time Warner" is still one of the most popular search terms leading to this blog, just behind "92.5 Austin" and "is Scarlett Johansson a slut".  Yes, I'm serious.)

So, what's the latest with our friends over at Time Warner?  Well, Time Warner has lots of things going on at the moment, none of them great.

For starters, Time Warner is, once again, in the midst of a staring contest with a local station about retransmission fees.  This time, as you may have seen, given that it's the highest-rated channel in town, the station is KVUE.  (You can see what has happened up to this point over at Austin360.)  KVUE, of course, has a webpage up giving their side of the story, and Time Warner, of course, has updated their perpetual website, RollOverorGetTough.com, with the latest info giving their side.  (I've spoken previously about the push-polling that Time Warner does to get people to tell them to "get tough" with these awful, awful channels wanting to be compensated for retransmission.)

The deadline for these negotiations is September 25, but I do not see Time Warner dropping KVUE.  They didn't drop KTBC last year, possibly (my conjecture) because they knew they would face a lot of angry customers wanting to see a Dallas Cowboys team in the midst of a playoff run (and playing a whole lot better than they are this year, but I digress), and similarly, I doubt they'll want to upset a lot of people who will want to watch UT playing Oklahoma in a couple of weeks.  Yes, they dropped KXAN two years ago, but KXAN wasn't showing any football games of local interest.  And yes, I do think football is the main consideration for a lot of local viewers.  As Time Warner has said before, most network shows can be streamed online at this point, but for people who want to watch their football games live and uninterrupted, they need these channels on their cable system.

After that, the other things going on at Time Warner seem rather boring, I suppose, but I'll cover them anyway.  First of all, I reported two months ago that Time Warner was moving all the access channels to digital-only (and was slightly corrected in my interpretation), so that people like me who haven't shelled out several hundred dollars for a digital set (it's below the line right now) will no longer be able to see them without a converter box.  Well, that is supposed to happen on October 1, but I hear that Time Warner will, for those customers who have only basic cable but can't live without their city council meetings (and I suppose there are some like that) can get one free converter box from Time Warner.  The catch:  you have to go to one of their locations and pick it up; if you have them come to install it, they'll charge you.  Luckily, the converter boxes are not difficult to install.  But I still don't want one.

And you may have noticed, if you are a Time Warner Cable customer, that in the past few evenings, especially last Friday and Saturday, that some channels had a nasty tendency to pixelate or go completely black.  Jim McNabb expressed his annoyance with the situation and Time Warner's seeming lack of concern about it.  But I noticed one strange thing about the problems I saw while I was watching KVUE Saturday night:  while there were problems multiple times during the pre-game show, there were no problems at all during the Texas-Texas Tech game.  The problems magically disappeared once the game started.  I'm sure that's a coincidence.

Update:  KVUE, as predicted here, will not be dropped.  More information may be found here.

Tea Party revisited

Funny, I thought by now everyone understood what the Tea Party stood for, and what policies it supports.  But recent events have convinced me that this is not the case.

I cross-post many of my articles at the Austin Post (such as this one, which I totally expect to be rated about (-3) within 24 hours of its approval...this is Austin, after all), and that site has featured, in the last couple of months, multiple articles about the Tea Party.  But as I have not written for the site lately, I thought it might be good to have an article at the Austin Post about the Tea Party by someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

For example, a recent article on the Post's site made the following assertion in its very first paragraph:

The NAACP made a good stab at defining the values of the Tea Party by calling them racists. It’s a simplistic judgment but fair, considering that the Tea Party’s main activities are 1.) opposing every issue supported by a black president, and 2.) hating immigrants of color.

Do you see the logical fallacies at work here?

Let's start with point 1.  "I oppose President Obama's policy stances, ergo, I am a racist."  No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.  (But then, we've heard this argument since before the presidential election.  Somebody ought to write about that particular issue.  Oh, wait:  someone did.)   Yes, I definitely oppose President Obama's policies; they represent an unprecedented-in-peacetime grab of power by the federal government.  But that certainly does not mean I am racist, or that I would not support any black president.  (I hear some people are trying to convince Herman Cain to run in 2012; having heard him talk about policy before, I could get behind his ideas.)  I would have been just as opposed to these policies if they had been implemented by Hillary Clinton, for example.  (But that would have made me a misogynist, wouldn't it, though of course all the people who so virulently hate Sarah Palin are never called that, except by conservatives, who of course have no standing to speak on anything.)

No, these policies include a quadrupling of our budget deficit (with similar deficit numbers over the next ten years) via countless stimulus packages that do not appear to have stemmed the tide of unemployment.  Remember when the unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if the first stimulus package were passed?  Neither do I.  But with unemployment firmly entrenched above 9%, our government continues to spend as if there is no tomorrow.  Since the federal government apparently hasn't the will to cut any government spending (except, of course, for defense), the only other way, in the minds of many, to raise federal revenue is to raise taxes.  A lot.  More on that momentarily.

The policies I oppose also include a healthcare plan that tells my employer exactly what has to be included in our health insurance plan, regardless of whether we want all of it or not.  It keeps people who have been using health savings accounts for years from using them for certain items.  It also does a bunch of other things that burden individuals and employers, including small employers in many cases; see here for more information.

Our president's policies also include, though it hasn't been passed yet, a cap-and-trade (referred to by many, including me, as "cap-and-tax") plan that would drive utility rates up quite a bit.  Don't believe me?  Maybe this will convince you:



And since we're talking about costs to the consumer, let's add taxes into this discussion.  Now, we could debate the Laffer curve all day and try to determine where the midpoint is for balancing tax rates and revenue growth, but the fact is that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (referred to by most as the "Bush tax cuts") spurred growth and job creation in what was becoming a economic slowdown.  Let's see...we're in something a little greater than just a "slowdown" now; what do you think allowing these tax cuts to expire (in effect, raising taxes) will have on job creation?  Hmmm...

(Yes, there's still time for Congress to attend to the issue of whether they want to raise everyone's taxes...a few people have spoken about where we currently stand, including one Sarah Palin.)

Oh, and before you get the impression that I'm just a selfish so-and-so who doesn't want to help anyone, let me say two things:  1) I worked, and continue to work, very hard to get myself out of the debt I've run up, following (for the most part) the fairly simple ideas put forth by Dave Ramsey; and 2) I've addressed in a previous post (which did not appear on the Austin Post) what I believe my responsibilities as a Christian are to others.

Then there's the incredible government intrusion into the car industry under the guise of "saving" GM and Chrysler.  Word to the wise:  they weren't too big to fail.  If it had come to it, parts, or all, of the companies would have been sold to more profitable automakers, many of whom probably could have done a better job of running them.

And, of course, there is the federal government's stubborn refusal to do one job specifically given it in the Constitution:  to protect our borders.  Per Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

But instead of protecting our borders against illegal immigration, the federal government has sued a state that tried to solve their own problem.

And this brings us to the other main assertion made about the Tea Party:  that we "hat[e] immigrants of color".  Personally, I don't hate anyone, and I don't think anyone has a problem with immigration--as long as it is legal.  The author of this Austin Post piece, in saying that the Tea Party hates immigrants in toto, has made us into a bunch of white supremacists.  Far from it.  But there is a proper way to enter this country, just as there is a proper way to follow every law in this country.  How would the author of these defamatory accusations like it if I and, say, 12 million of my best friends all decided not to pay our taxes for, oh, ten years or so, and then we all held rallies to demand that our tax liability be totally forgiven?  No?  Then why should others be allowed to break existing laws with impunity?

And since the person in question also wondered why "the Tea Party can’t formulate a convincing argument why immigration is harmful" (I will assume he meant to say illegal immigration), I'll answer.  First of all, I'll refer this person to the article I wrote three months ago in which I pointed out the following:

• Phoenix is the "number two kidnapping capital of the world" (Mexico City is #1).
• Suspected human traffickers shot a deputy in Arizona.  Just the shooting is bad enough, but human trafficking is reprehensible.
• Some other stuff.  Read the article.

What wasn't in that article was that I know someone whose family was affected by a kidnapping relating to a Mexican cartel.  Thankfully, the kidnappers in that case were totally inept, and so the person affected is fine now, albeit a bit shaken up, I would imagine.

I'm not gonna say any of the stuff that has been said for years such as "they're taking our jobs!!!!11!" because I'm all for people working.  But there is a correct way to do it.

In closing, I welcome discussion about these topics.  To borrow a phrase from the person who wrote the previous Austin Post article, get to know some tea partiers; they're great folks.

Or keep calling us names.  But just realize that it says a whole lot more about you than it does about us.

Time Warner moves more channels to digital-only; no one cares

Gee, it's been two months; it must be time for more channel rearranging from Time Warner Cable in Austin.  This time around, TWC is moving no fewer than seven channels to digital-only, which, as has been stated before, means that they can only be viewed on a TV equipped with one of Time Warner's spiffy set-top boxes or with a CableCARD-equipped device.  (Set-top boxes and CableCARD-equipped devices were covered in my last Time Warner update.  And yes, my last update mentioned the removal of KADF-LP, channel 14; that apparently is still going to happen, eventually.)

Honestly, I can't imagine too many people in the greater Austin area caring a great deal about most of the channels that Time Warner is moving this time, as they consist of six access channels (10, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 22) and Channel 6, the city channel.  (Hey Snowed, didn't you report that 19 was being moved a year and a half ago?  Yes, I did.  And it was gone for a while, but for some reason it reappeared on my basic cable.  Go ask Time Warner.  And don't try the "legal notices" link in the old post; it's no longer good.)

If anything, I'd bet the most missed out of those seven will be Channel 6, as Austin has experienced the occasional heated discussion in a city council meeting.  But--and be honest--will you miss most of the programs that air on the other access channels, specifically 10, 11, and 16?  (The other three deal with organziations such as ACC, Travis County, and AISD, but 10, 11, and 16 are true public access channels.)  I just can't picture anyone saying, "Gee, I sure do miss seeing Perry Logan and his seizure-inducing 1980s-era video effects coupled with incoherent rantings with the gain turned up way too high!"  (Yes, it's a real access show in Austin.  No, I'm not giving him a link.)

The only thing I'd take from this development is the inevitability that eventually, all channels on Time Warner Cable will be digital only, if they're taking the trouble to change the access channels..  Multiple commenters have pointed out to me that transmitting channels digitally is a lot cheaper, and I certainly won't argue that point.  Plus, cable systems are, last I heard, only required to downconvert broadcast channels until 2012, at which point I totally expect to see my basic cable package discontinued.  (Sure, I'll bet Time Warner offers some discount at that point for people who will be forced to upgrade, but I'll also bet that the price given for whatever package they push during that promotion will not include the $8 a month for the converter box.  Of course, by then it'll probably be $10 anyway.)

So, maybe in 2012, after I lose my basic cable, I'll catch up on my reading list.  Or maybe I'll do something else.  Whatever it is, I'm fairly sure it won't involve upgrading any Time Warner services.

Update:  Kevin writes:  "The channels you mention are remaining on the basic tier, just being switched to digital only. You do not have to have a Time Warner set top box or CableCard to receive them, nor do you have to subscribe to the digital cable package. All you need is a TV equipped with a digital tuner or digital converter, the same equipment required to pick up digital broadcast channels with an antenna."

And Kevin is right, and I misread this originally.  Oops.

With that said, these moves by Time Warner still bode ill for subscribers like me who, due to budgetary concerns, still have a standard definition television, no set-top box (because cable is supposed to convert channels at least until 2012, as I understand it), and basic cable.  Maybe I'll just end up with the broadcast channels and nothing else.  And when that happens, the set-top box will pay for itself after just a few months of no cable television.

Obama, Hayward take leisure time...guess which gets reported?

When it comes to the gulf oil disaster, Barack Obama and Tony Hayward have basically been two sides of the same coin.  Neither appears to be helping the situation very much, at least for the residents of the gulf coast states affected.  Just ask Bobby Jindal.

Well, what did I see shouted at me as the top AP headline when I checked my mail this morning?  (Yes, I use a web-based mail a lot...that way spammers leave my home address alone.)  The top headline, complete with a picture of Tony Hayward looking embarrassed at the recent congressional hearings, read "As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief at UK yacht race".  Oh, here's a fun passage from this totally impartial article:*

In a statement, BP described Hayward's day off as "a rare moment of private time" and said that "no matter where he is, he is always in touch with what is happening within BP" and can direct recovery operations if required.

That is likely to be a hard sell in Gulf states struggling to deal with the up to 120 million gallons of oil that have escaped from a blown-out undersea well.

So, apparently Mr. Hayward took a bit of leisure time and attended a sporting event (I'm not going to debate here whether yachting is a sport).  

The coverage Mr. Hayward's excursion has received, of course, is as opposed to the coverage of President Obama, who, it has been said, has been fully engaged in this mess since Day One.  And how did he choose to engage himself in it last night (that would be Friday, June 17, 2010, or Day 60, for those keeping score at home)?  That's right:  he attended a sporting event!

After hunkering down for several weeks to deal with the oil spill, President Obama finally made it out of the house for some fun – and showed up at the Nationals game on Friday night.

(It should be noted that the preceding quote came from the Washington Post's Nationals blog linked by Liberty Scout through the link above.  The blog goes on to point out that coming soon on President Obama's agenda is to congratulate the Los Angeles Lakers at the White House.  Busy times, indeed.)

So, Tony Hayward gets pilloried for attending a yacht race, and Barack Obama gets his usual fawning coverage for attending a baseball game.  That doesn't quite seem fair, does it?  I mean, if either of them were effective at all in solving this huge problem in the gulf, I suppose the disparity in coverage would be justified.  But they haven't been.

And, while this is apparently Mr. Hayward's first leisure time in quite a while, that can't quite be said for certain other people:



Draw your own conclusions as to what I think of the media coverage of this mess.

*Sarcasm detectors for reading articles on my blog may be picked up in your grocer's freezer, if you don't already have one.

Time Warner update: May 2010

Time Warner Cable in Austin, a topic that got me a link (to this post) from Wikipedia, has been rather silent in recent months, which, I suppose, is a good thing for those customers tired of seeing channels disappear from basic/standard cable unless they rent a set-top cable box from Time Warner for $7.99 a month.  But that still doesn't mean that Time Warner cares a great deal about its non-digital customers.

As an example, consider channel 21, WGN.  For three days in April, basic/standard customers (I cannot speak for digital customers, as paying $8 for a set-top box is well below the line) were treated, when tuning to channel 21, to some weird picture of an orange circle surrounded by blue bars.  Even worse, according to Mrs. Snowed, the picture was not symmetrical.  Anyway, our first call to Time Warner yielded someone who, apparently not knowing better, told us that the loss of WGN's signal was due to a blackout of WGN's baseball coverage.  (National superstation coverage cannot be blacked out in Austin, Texas, as we obviously do not have a major league baseball team.)  It wasn't until the second call that we were finally able to reach someone who knew that Time Warner was aware of a problem with WGN's signal.  We were told at the time that once the channel was restored, we could call for a partial refund, and today, I got one.  (As a convenience to my readers, Time Warner's customer service line is (512) 485-5555.)

And then, I've learned that Time Warner is once again preparing to drop another channel from basic cable.  The culprit this time is channel 14, KADF-LP, an Azteca America affiliate.  Now, as my Spanish is rusty at best, I don't normally watch channel 14, but I'll bet some people in this city do, and they're going to be surprised when said channel disappears from their service.  (Source:  this page, though you can always access upcoming lineup changes here.)

In a recent talk with Time Warner, I was told that things are moving toward a point at which every cable customer will need to have a set-top box.  Cable channels are starting to transmit solely in digital format, and even the local over-the-air channels, currently still supported in analog format by cable companies until at least 2012, will eventually only be available digitally.

Now, Time Warner still only rents their boxes, but customers can also use CableCARD-equipped devices of their own to get around that.  Just understand, as per Time Warner's page, that some programming options may not be available for some people with CableCARD-equipped devices:

The new services listed below cannot be accessed on CableCARD-equipped Unidirectional Digital Cable Products purchased at retail without additional, two-way capable equipment.

Pick your poison, I suppose, if you are wanting all the programming available through Time Warner Cable.

Sarah Palin addresses the eeeeeevil of incendiary language

(Note:  if you have come here looking for information tying Sarah Palin to the Tucson massacre of 8 January 2011, please continue to this link.)

Sarah Palin, as only she can, light-heartedly knocks the "Palin used incendiary language" argument (you know, the one about which I wrote at great length the other day) right on its ear with a Facebook post about, of all things, March Madness:

March Madness battles rage! My family and I join millions of Americans enjoying college basketball’s finest through March Madness. Underdogs always get my vote as we watch intense competition bring out the best in these accomplished teams.

The Final Four is an intense, contested series (kind of like a heated, competitive primary election), so best of luck to all teams, and watch for this principle lived out: the team that wins is the team that wants it more.

To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season’s targets! From the shot across the bow – the first second’s tip-off – your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won’t win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win.

Focus on the goal and fight for it. If the gate is closed, go over the fence. If the fence is too high, pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, parachute in. If the other side tries to push back, your attitude should be “go for it.” Get in their faces and argue with them. (Sound familiar?!) Every possession is a battle; you’ll only win the war if you’ve picked your battles wisely. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!

- Sarah Palin

Of course, I'm sure that the people in the media with nothing better to do, such as, for example, the entire lineup of MSNBC, will spend hours wailing about such imagery as a group of volunteers beset by bulldogs,to say nothing about mountaineers being attacked by (gasp!) blue devils.  The horror!

We're all racist thugs now

Almost since the moment Obamacare passed the House on Sunday night, the predominant narrative in the MSM has been how eeeeeevil those awful Tea Partiers are.  I mean, from the way the news has been presented, everyone opposed to the healthcare bill hates blacks and gays (and enjoys using really nasty slurs against such groups publicly) and wants to kill all Democrats.  And, of course, it's all the fault of the usual subjects.

What was the big story on Monday?  (Yes, I mean other than the passage of H.R. 3590.)  Why, those Tea Partiers yelled the N-word at a black congressman!  Oh, wait, they didn't?  But someone heard it!  They wouldn't make that up, would they?  Well, multiple people were taking videos of this little setup, possibly in the hopes that someone would say something damning.  And yet, I have yet to see a video in which you can clearly hear someone shouting an epithet.  Yes, I'm aware that people commenting on the following video elsewhere are hearing what they want to hear, but there are no epithets clear enough to distinguish without question.  Watch it for yourself and decide:



In the same WaPo article as linked above, Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed to have been the object of anti-gay epithets.  No video exists of this.  None.  There were something like--and keep in mind this is an estimate--eleventy zillion people in and around the Capitol on Sunday, including, one would suspect, the media, and no one got video of this?  It seems suspect to me.

In any case, many media sources are reporting these epithets having been shouted as fact.  Fine.  Whatever.  The part that really riles me is that some in the MSM are using incidents which--if they even occurred--were totally isolated incidents to try to paint all people opposed to Obamacare as racists.  MSNBC ideologue Keith Olbermann, for example, went so far as to say (per Hot Air, since I'm not linking to Olby), "If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others..."

(Aside:  Keith Olbermann, in trying to paint a caricature of Tea Partiers, is apparently unaware that he himself has become little more than a caricature himself.)

So, the first truth of this week in the MSM is:  Tea Partiers, Republicans, conservatives, and you--yes, YOU--are all racists.  (More on your status as a racist from Jim Treacher may be found here.)

(Obvious disclaimer:  If, in fact, someone was yelling epithets at people, then they are (words not acceptable for publication edited).)

But after all the portraying of anti-Obamacare types as racists, there was more stereotyping left to be undertaken by the MSM.  You've probably heard about bricks being thrown through Democrat office windows.

Well, they were.  This wasn't made up.  Some people think so little of their opponents that they resort to this type of reprehensible behavior.  Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Party organizers have all condemned these actions. 

And who is encouraging these attacks?  It's the Republican Party leaders, right?  No, it's not.  It's some guy whose name I had never heard before yesterday named Mike Vanderboegh.  I'm not linking to his blog, as he's already crowing about his "enemies" sending him traffic, but I will link to this article in which he boasts about the damage his comments have caused.  (If you want to pursue the same strategies as Mr. Vanderboegh, please leave this blog now.  In fact, turn off your computer and please try to reground yourself in real life.  Kthxbye.)

I have no problem with these attacks being reported by the MSM.  They should be reported.  What bugs me is that two narratives have appeared:  1) only these saintly Democrats are the ones who are ever oppressed in such an egregious way; and 2) it's the leaders of the Republican Party that are inciting this.  (The Republicans have leaders?  Who knew?)

Let's start with a really easy item to refute.  Of course both sides have their extremists who advocate violence.

For example, courtesy Big Government, here is a typical Democrat extremist embracing this sort of violent talk:

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

That would be taken from...CNN.  ("This is CNN...conservatives can go take a flying leap.")

Here's another:

You’ve given it your best shot, you’ve tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It’s time you break kneecaps (bold in original). It’s time to destroy the Republican Party. They don’t deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No.

And that would be from the Huffington Post.  (I refuse to link to the Huffington Post; go back to Big Government if you want the link.)

As I said, it's now pretty much accepted as fact by the MSM that Republicans, in stating their anger with the way the Obamacare bill was forced through, are actively encouraging this week's violent offenders who are vandalizing offices, making threatening phone calls, and so forth.

A common theme in this, in addition to the usual suspects (Rush et al), has been the referencing of so-called "incindiary language" by Sarah Palin.  All these stories refer to a particular tweet, which said:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.

Does anyone with half a modicum of rational thought really believe that Mrs. Palin is referring to reloading actual rifles and such?  Of course she isn't (though the aforementioned Mr. Vanderboegh sure is).  I would hope that the regular readers of this blog, including some who don't care much for the policies of Mrs. Palin, can distinguish the true meaning of what she said.

And if one were to continue to her Facebook page, one would find the same post previously mentioned in this space.  Does it have to do with targeting Democrats?  You betcha.  Of course, it's talking about targeting them for defeat, not violence.

(But Snowed, she had a map with crosshair symbols!  Yeah, she's targeting them for defeat.  I believe I just said that.  What did you want her to use, little pink hearts?  Maybe fluffy white clouds?)

This whole narrative is yet another attempt to paint Sarah Palin as an extremist who only appeals to people who like to throw bricks, or something like that.  It's not going to work.

Watch, for example, how NBC's Ann Curry tries to maneuver Sen. John McCain into condemning Gov. Palin for her language.  And watch, too, how Sen. McCain deftly deflects criticism of his former running mate.  I may not agree with Sen. McCain on everything, but he did a great job defending Sarah Palin's remarks here.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You can see more coverage of this interview over at NewsBusters.

Incidentally, one Democrat extremist once expressed a wish to "kick [Sarah Palin's] [edited]".  Who's advocating violence again?

But never mind that, it's all about making Tea Partiers, Obamacare opponents, and Sarah Palin look as bad as possible.

For further reading on the continued smearing of Sarah Palin, please check out "Lying Liberals Target Governor Palin" by Adrienne Ross, who's been mentioned in this blog before, I believe.  Well worth the read.

Incidentally, I'm curious as to what sort of reception this article will get at the Austin Post, where I tend to cross-post some of my blog articles.  The last article I posted was edited to remove the term "Obamacare", so I'm not sure this one will even make it onto the site, and if it does, I imagine I'll get a few negative votes for it.  Such is the price for being conservative in Austin, Texas, I suppose.

Dallas Tea Party to Olbermann: Show up or shut up!

Courtesy Fox Nation:

Keith Olbermann, for the uninitiated (and, honestly, I envy you uninitiated types in this instance), think that tea partiers are racists, among other things.  Apparently the folks at the Dallas Tea Party saw an easy opportunity to:  1) disprove Mr. Olbermann; and 2) be snarky at the expense of Mr. Olbermann and his employer, sometime-news network MSNBC.  The result is the following video inviting Keith Olbermann to come to the Dallas Tea Party rally on Saturday, February 27.



And will Mr. Olbermann come?  I'm guessing he won't, given that he thinks all Texans are idiots.



At this point, though, I don't think Keith Olbermann cares enough about the truth to want to hear or see it, when it's much easier to be a bombastic ideologue.

An exercise in how NOT to make friends: Time Warner Cable Austin

Let's face it:  Time Warner Cable in Austin has not done a great job of keeping customers happy in recent times.  From the KXAN/LIN TV debacle to the continual removal of channels from non-converter-equipped homes (highlighted by what used to be called KLRU2), Time Warner has developed a habit of cutting services for those not willing to kowtow to Time Warner's demand to rent a converter box for the newly raised price of $7.99 a month.

So you'll understand if I am not surprised by Time Warner's latest staring match, this time with KTBC/Fox.  I don't need to write much about this, as pretty much everyone else has already covered it, from the Statesman to Jim McNabb (who writes much better media-related stuff than I do) to the Austin Business Journal.  Both sides have websites up denigrating the other party.  Fox's website is full of testimonials from people promising to dump Time Warner if they drop Fox, and Time Warner's site proudly states that a vast majority of their 500,000 unique visitors told them to "get tough" with Fox.  (The site does not state whether all 500,000 visitors voted.  I sure didn't.  Mrs. Snowed asked me to click "roll over", and the site's response was "are you sure?"  Nice push-polling, Time Warner.)

(I will point out, and you can see here for confirmation, that I did correctly predict the exact date that the KXAN issue would resolve.  I am not currently making predictions regarding the Fox issue.  I also don't know the winning lotto numbers or whatever else you might want to know; otherwise, I wouldn't be begging people to hit the tip jar.  It's right there on the right of this page, you know...)

So with the potential loss of the Fox stations hanging over their heads, what does Time Warner propose to do next?  Well, first of all, they raised their prices again (my basic went up from 16.95 (my information last year saying 19.95 was erroneous) to 19.99, and I've already mentioned the converter price going up a dollar a month as well), and on top of that, they are back to their old games of moving channels to digital only (see note below).  On the chopping block for those without converters* this time are:  ABC Family, CMT, Oxygen, Style, and TruTV.  No date is given for the changeover.

Yes, I know Time Warner Cable is a business, and I further know that transmitting channels only via their digital package is much more economical for them.  That doesn't mean I have to like how basic/standard cable customers are treated by TWC.  As I've said before, about the only thing keeping me with them is WGN America.  If WGN ever gets pulled, I may finally dump Time Warner, as I've only been threatening for over a year.

But before I forget, there is a silver lining:  Time Warner has heard your agonizing, and to show you their appreciation, do they have a deal for you!  (Warning:  NSFW/language.)

*The page linked says customers can also use a "CableCARD-equipped Unidirectional Digital Cable Product", which, as far as I know, for most people, means absolutely nothing.  Is your set so equipped?  Neither is mine.**

**Of course, non of my sets are even HD-ready.  Have I mentioned I have a tip jar?

Edit: The Time Warner PDF page linked above is updated every so often, and so the channels listed are no longer shown at that link.

An open letter to Chris Matthews: Give it up already!

Dear Chris Matthews:

You are obviously getting desperate for something, be it attention, validation, I don't know.  When you aren't experiencing leg tingles, pining after President Obama, or openly musing about the death of a political opponent (in your mind, as he probably couldn't care less), you apparently have some sort of fixation regarding Sarah Palin.  I truly don't understand why seeing her gets you so wee-wee'd up.

But seeing her certainly does have that effect on you, to the point that you are grasping for straws in an attempt (usually futile) to make her look bad.  But, really, critiquing her signature?  Get a grip, sir.  I know you have a remarkable propensity for insulting or generally looking down on conservatives--see, for example, this video in which you badmouth Bobby Jindal before he has even spoken a word:



So maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you are saying things about Sarah Palin such as "She doesn’t write the book, and then she scribbles some indecipherable sign on the book as a signature."  Again, read the story at this link.   While it goes into much more detail, I invite you and anyone else to compare the following two signatures and tell me your thoughts:

 

Maybe it's just me, but one of those signatures does indeed look like an indecipherable sign.  It isn't Sarah Palin's.

Mr. Matthews, have you considered that perhaps looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to go after conservatives has made you appear to be, well, incredibly petty?  Or are you so bitter that this is the only enjoyment you still get out of life?  Either way, I pray that you find peace this holiday season, along with some good old human kindness.

(Via @ChiBarb per this tweet)

Entertainment Tonight whines: Sarah won't talk to us!

Remember Diane Dimond?  She is probably best known for breaking the Michael Jackson scandals that dogged him for the last 15 years of his life.  She worked on a couple of reputable news networks (or quasi-reputable, in the case of MSNBC) for a while.  But now poor Ms. Dimond has fallen on hard times, apparently, as she is slumming with that bastion of hard news, Entertainment Tonight.

Currently, ET has Ms. Dimond following the Sarah Palin Going Rogue tour.  (Here's the link one more time.  Disclosure:  if you buy using the link, I get money.  So buy it!)  For the past several days, Ms. Dimond has reported on the thousands of people waiting to greet Governor Palin at these stops, and has talked about how much people love her...

...until today, that is.  Today's report featured Ms. Dimond complaining that Sarah Palin is staying away from the media, that she's not talking to them, blah blah blah.  (From there, she went right into saying that Gov. Palin had talked with Barbara Walters, and others, completely destroying her previous point.)

Gee, I don't know...why wouldn't Sarah Palin want to talk to Entertainment Tonight?  Surely it couldn't be because of stories like this one (a story teased multiple times by Ms. Dimond on yesterday's show), could it?

Note:  I have only been watching Entertainment Tonight this week because of Sarah Palin.  So there.

Entertainment Tonight Spotlights Palin-Hater

Sure, anyone who has watched Entertainment Tonight recently has seen that they have covered Sarah Palin's book tour.  (Also, anyone who has watched this show in years has my sympathy.  But that's another story entirely.)  Of course, every episode I have seen that showed the Going Rogue book tour (have I mentioned I get paid if you buy through this link?) just had to include clips of Levi Johnston, publicity hound and father of Gov. Palin's grandson.  (Hey, did you know he did a photo shoot for what's essentially a porno mag?  Who freaking cares?)

But their show tonight (19-Nov) appears, at least to me, to show where ET's political leanings lie.  Sure, they spent a couple of minutes highlighting the many, many people who waited to see her today, but they spent most of the show hyping an article about a "new book" that would supposedly shed some light on what Gov. Palin is really like.  The title: The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power.  (If for some strange reason you don't like Palin but frequent my blog--hi Dad--you can click that link to buy the book, and I'll get paid for that link too.)  As far as I'm concerned, spotlighting this book is not equal time (Levi got enough of that this week); this is simply a cheap shot at Sarah Palin during her moment in the sun.

Why do I think it's a cheap shot at her?  For starters, the book doesn't even come out until April.  Secondly--and ET didn't think this was worth mentioning--the author, Geoffrey Dunn, is a frequent contributor to the ultra-left Huffington Post.  This casts a bit of a shadow, at least in my mind, on the idea that this book could display anything resembling impartiality.  I see this book more as a smear job.

And why do I think it's a smear job?  Mr. Dunn has, in recent weeks, had an obsession rivaling that of self-described conservative Andrew Sullivan (no, still no link, Andi) with Sarah Palin.  He has already posted columns on HuffPo detailing so-called lies from Going Rogue that he managed to determine despite not having read the book.  And no, I'm not going to link to them, either.  Instead, I will direct you, dear reader, to Conservatives 4 Palin's takedown of Mr. Dunn on all counts.

So with this kind of track record, what has Mr. Dunn done to deserve a multi-minute spotlight from Entertainment Tonight?  Apparently, the only criteria for getting such attention is not liking Sarah Palin.  Such is the state of our media at present.

Robert Stacy McCain writes so I don't have to

Fellow blogger (a much more well-known one than I am, of course) Robert Stacy McCain describes what he expects the media to do in covering the book tour of Sarah Palin (hey, did you know she has a book out, and did you know I get paid if you buy through this link?) in this American Spectator column.

Salient points, which Mr. McCain fleshes out quite a bit more than I will here:

1. They (the MSM, that is) will ignore Gov. Palin's popularity (even as people are lining up hours in advance for her book tour events).
2. They'll focus on the crazies.
3. They'll postulate that this means that the Republican Party is in trouble.

All this is par for the course for most of the media, I suppose, but we may as well call them out on it.

As an added bonus, Mr. McCain takes a well-deserved shot at self-described conservative (since no one else will still do it) Andrew Sullivan, best known these days as Trig-Truther #1.  Money quote:

We look forward to Andrew Sullivan's next book, Inside Sarah Palin's Uterus: The Most Shocking Scandal Ever.

It's worth a full read.  Check it out.