Skip to main content

Americans now have the "right" to digital TV?

As we go into an election year spin-cycle, with the statists on both wings of the Demopublican Party competing to hand out bread and circuses with our tax dollars, THIS is just too much.

As the Snooze J reports, "Coupons offered to convert old TVs to digital".

Seems like the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (who knew we had one of those?) has been taking heat from Congress regarding its failure to properly prepare Americans with older TVs for the 2009 switchover to all HD broadcasting. So now it has set aside $1.5 Billion--let's see, thats $1,500,000,000 of OUR money--to send out $40 vouchers to defray the costs of converting an old TV into one that can receive Hi-Def. Converters sold on the free market will retail for $50-70, and the NTIA expects to pass out between 10-26 million of the vouchers (two per household, please).

What this amounts to is the US government essentially taking $5 from all 300 million American citizens and redistributing it in the form of TV vouchers to 26 million households. Want to know the cute part? There's not even a "needs test." You don't have to be poor or deprived or undocumented: you just have to ask for one. Or two. (And if you think I'm giving you the website address for this boondoggle, think again.)

I've been looking through my copy of the Constitution, even the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I just can't find "the right to high-definition television" listed anywhere.

Oh, wait, it's there in pencil in the "Election year addendum: you have the right to a properly functioning television, so that you can watch political advertising."

Comments

Brian Shields said…
What a steaming pile of poop.

I mean.. I don't quite think this is appropriate.

I don't even think there are that many people who are watching TV over the air anyway. Maybe 5% of the population.

Heck, down here all they'd be able to pick up is WBOC, and that's not even clear.

Poop, I say, a big old smelly pile of political poop.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...