September 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm (law, Rant, society, Television)

I pay 14 bucks a month for basic cable. I get the networks, football without static, public access, and a few randoms line E!, Discovery Channel, and C-Span. I have heard about the concept of a la carte cable, where you pay only for the channels you will actually watch. When that happens the American Revolution will finally be over. I know that I end up watching crap I wouldn’t otherwise, on random weekday nights. Exhibit 1: The Scrubs Rerun Network (which probably has another name). Exhibit 2: The Girls Next Door. I originally thought it was a documentary on Why The Terrorists Hate Us, but it is apparently a real series. Exhibit 3: I am watching C-Span. Check that, C-Span Two.

Why? Because the tag line on the bottom of the screen says “Cable TV must allow a la carte content rules.” OMG! I am so excited. Except they are talking about bandwidth limitations that prevent effective nationwide deployment of Wireless Enhanced 911 Services. Huh? Who cares about 911? I just want ESPN and Comedy Central.

I went to the FCC website to view the agenda from Tuesday’s meeting. I don’t see anything on there about me not having to stream pirated Jon Stewart monologues. But I am smart, so I used thinking and decided that the following agenda item is what I am after:

Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution, Section 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act, Sunset of Exclusive Contract Prohibition (MB Docket No. 07-29); and Review of the Commission’s Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements.

But that is item 5! This thing just started; it will be hours before they get to the good stuff! Why is C-Span resorting to sensationalism to attract viewers? I don’t know what irks me more, that they blatantly lie about what is being discussed to make it seem interesting to channel surfers, or that it works. I am still watching it.

In related news, the Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007 has in fact been introduced in Congress. Thank you, Janet Jackson’s nipple.


Permalink 2 Comments

Best signature ever

April 5, 2006 at 9:57 pm (law)

I took a law class last term, and I recently got an email from the prof, which concluded with this line:

Unless expressly stated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this
communication (including attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot
be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties.

I would like to know under what circumstances he would expressly state that any information in the communication CAN be used to avoid federal tax penalties. Lawyers, I just don’t get em sometimes.

I also award O’Hare the coveted Quote of the Year award: “Please do not leave your bags unattended at O’Hare International Airport. Please do not leave your bags unattended at any airport.” I have to wonder, while clearly an afterthought, is that based on altruism, or some lawyer worried about a lawsuit? “Ramzi bin-yousef al-jalalabad Hamadi acquitted of blowing up Midway, thought leaving bombs in bag only prohibited at O’Hare based on PA announcement,” the headline in the Tribune will read.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Quote of the day

June 24, 2005 at 4:52 pm (law, Quote of the day)

“As Raich taught us that growing pot in your backyard for personal consumption is ‘interstate commerce,’ Kelo informs us that taking people’s homes to hand over to private developers building an office complex is a ‘public use.'”


Permalink 2 Comments

Stop killing kids who kill kids, Court says

March 2, 2005 at 7:15 pm (law, Philly)

The Supreme Court has ruled that executing people who commit crimes as minors is cruel and unusual.
Anthony Kennedy again invokes international norms in his opinion.
Antonin Scalia basically accuses him of treason. Someone should tell
Scalia that being on a plane with Saudi Arabia is not a good thing, and
this isn't 1789 anymore. International standards do matter.

That doesn't mean I agree with the opinion. This means that Domenic
Coia will now live. I had been looking forward to seeing that guy fry.
If you are unfamiliar with the case you can find details here.
The kid who died lived 2 blocks away from my old place. Perfect example
of why these things should be left to the states and decided
case-by-case. If old Dom had waited 6 months to mastermind the
merciless slaying of an innocent person, he all of a sudden is beholden
to his actions? Give me a break. 18 is a completely arbitrary standard.
Some people are mature, physically and emotionally, long before they
are 18. Others are 27 and still act like 12 year olds (I'm thinking
about a certain Fraggle I know) Pretending that all cases like this are
the same is not only stupid, it's irresponsible.

Permalink 11 Comments