Sarah and Carrie
It is very interesting that Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean (the former Miss California) have come on the scene at about the same time.
- They are both better than average looking, and they both have a history as beauty queens.
- They both talk very fast (Carrie not quite as rambling and incoherent as Sarah), and although neither one of them is stupid, neither one of them carries around a lot of knowledge.
- They have similar denominational religious backgrounds.
- They both have difficulty sticking to the truth.
- They both have opinions which would deprive other people of their rights, while suggesting that they (themselves) are being deprived of their rights.
- They both appear to be homophobic.
- They both seem like they are trying to be the son their fathers never had.
- They both adhere to the standards of a political party that tends to minimize the importance of women's rights.
- They both seem to think that they are stronger, smarter, better, more capable and more important than other women, while pretending to be advocates of women's rights.
- They both characterize themselves as victims, while at the same time characterizing themselves as rugged individuals.
- They both have a tendency to project their own characteristics onto other people, while denying that they (Sarah and Carrie) have these characteristics.
- They both claim that the don't like drama, while generating constant drama.
- They both seem to have a need to make themselves look ridiculous without realizing it.
- They both seem to have a hard time finishing what they start.
- They both proclaim that they have Christian values, while carrying around a lot of past and current dirty laundry and displaying behavior that is the antithesis of the teachings of Christ.
- Neither one of them practices what they preach.
- In spite of all of this, they both seem to be able to fool about a quarter of the adult population of the United States.
RVTV belongs to us
Regarding Southern Oregon University's suspension of the RVTV show "Wilde Life" because producers Scott Clay and Dennis Vickoren have been indicted on charges relating to child pornography (see Oct. 29 Daily Tidings article):
All of my life I have been deeply offended by pornography with its implications of disrespect and disregard for human life — the preciousness and fragile nature of being. In particular, I have been offended when lost innocence is at stake.
Distinguishing poor taste from First Amendment rights is a whole other consideration. It is my right to speak; it is not my job to censor.
There are millions of Web sites with billions of pages, but less than 1 percent of these pages are pornography. Approximately two-thirds of all Internet traffic is porn related. We are not a healthy group by these standards.
The First Amendment is health promotion at the most foundational level — the founding fathers were hip to this — we must be able to speak that which ails us, however darkly sometimes.
RVTV is a public, education and government access television channel owned by the city of Ashland (paid for with franchise fees that are mandated by law and paid by Charter/Ashland Television to the city of Ashland).
These monies are passed through to RVTV for the public, the government and the educational facilities to make television in partnership.
Frankly, SOU is the operator of RVTV, NOT its owner!
(For your information, Grants Pass, Jackson and Josephine counties, Medford and the Rogue Valley Transportation District contribute funds to SOU for RVTV.)
SOU is a public institution supported by tax dollars, your money.
Through these two revenue streams, franchise fees and tax dollars, you, the community, pay for and support RVTV public, education and government access television.
I called a friend of mine, who is a young felon, to make sure that he still had access to libraries, loans and the ballot box. And, felons do. As well they should; emotional healing needs access to tools of society, particularly those that educate and promote democracy.
By the way, whatever happened to that old tenant of democracy that went something like "innocent until proven guilty" or not "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."?
It seems as if SOU believes that two wrongs might make a right.
RVTV belongs to the community, plain and simple. I hope that the community has enough starch to tell SOU that it is way out of line.
Finally, according to the agreement between SOU and Ashland, "SOU shall immediately report to the city upon becoming aware of any unexpected development or problems regarding programming ... which may jeopardize the provisions of service under this agreement." Did SOU honor their covenant with the city in this case?
Competition = jobs
"Competition is as American as apple pie." A monopoly stymies competition by controlling the market.
The wealthiest companies of the health care insurance industry are a monopoly that controls 94 percent of the market. Executives of each company sit at a long rectangle table and collude as one. They decide on how high to raise their premiums to increase their bottom line and the dividends of their shareholders before deciding what company gets the market of which state.
The health care insurance industry monopoly is bad for the economy. The spirit of entrepreneurship is stymied, affecting new smaller business/job growth. The only difference between it and what OPEC does to set the price of a barrel of oil is the oval dimension of the table.
"Ma Bell" controlled the telephone product/service market, stymieing competition or the growth of the industry. A great diversity of entrepreneurship was freed when it was broken up, generating competition from numerous new smaller businesses which created millions of jobs throughout the marketplace (just look at it now!). Similar progress will occur over the next 10 years once the health care insurance monopoly is broken up, as it has benefited far too long from the anti-trust exemption since 1945.
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Millions of jobs will be created directly from health care reform. Competition from an affordable, cost-effective public choice insurance plan will do what the "no" people don't want to do — lower the costs of health care premiums and free up money for the middle class consumer and create innumerous jobs indirectly.
No legitimate health care insurance industry regulatory reform and no legitimate public insurance choice (safety net) without a "trigger" for the uninsured initiated in a timely matter — means no health care reform! The next right-wing president will simply repeal the weak regulation at the behest of the wealthy health care insurance industry.