The Market Coalition

In last week’s column, I argued the merits (or rather the lack thereof) of extending decency regulations to cable and satellite TV. This week, I’ll point out just how much of a quagmire this would actually be and how difficult it would be to implement, regardless of the merits.

Regulating cable and satellite TV would not be as clear-cut as it might seem on the surface. Remember, we are talking about the regulation of indecency which, unlike obscenity, is protected by the First Amendment. The complexities of such an undertaking are quite formidable, to say the least. There are several key issues that would have to be dealt with and overcome. Like they say, the devil is in the details.

For one thing, Congress would need to determine the scope of what is to be regulated. Would it be cable and satellite TV only or all forms of pay-TV?

If Congress sets out to regulate all forms of pay-TV, the term - “pay-TV” - would have to be legally defined. Besides satellite and cable, would it also include the new IPTV technology in which TV channels, programs, and movies are delivered to TV set-top boxes from the internet? Would internet video viewed on a computer also be included? Or would everything originating from the internet be automatically exempt?

Would wireless pay TV services also be included?

Would videos, whether rented or purchased, also be defined as a form of pay-TV? One could make a case for them being included because videos, both VHS and DVD, are ultimately played on a TV.

What about video delivered by cell phone? Couldn’t that also be considered a form of pay-TV?

Now, if Congress decides that the new regulations will only apply to cable and satellite TV, there are still problems. Would all channels on every cable and satellite TV system be regulated or would the regulations just apply to the so-called “basic” channels. Would the term, “all channels”, include pay-per-view and video-on-demand (VOD) programs and movies? If so, how would the safe-harbor hours be enforced with VOD, since the subscriber determines when the programs and movies play?

If only the basics are to be included, some definition would be have to be devised to determine the difference between a basic and a premium channel. Would any channel that could be purchased as part of a package of channels be defined as a basic channel? If so, then most channels we currently think of as premiums would be included because they can be packaged together with similar channels. For example, HBO is sometimes packaged with channels like Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, or even other multiplexes of HBO.

Or would basics be limited those channels available in the first tier or two? Since this packaging varies from one cable and satellite system to the next, how would anyone know which channels are the real basics? Would premiums be limited to channels that could be subscribed to individually at an additional price? If that’s the case, would a multiplex channel like HBO Signature will treated like a basic, since it cannot be subscribed to individually? Also, the channels that one can subscribe to individually vary slightly from one cable and satellite system to the next, so how would anyone know which channels are the real premiums? When things like that differ from one cable and satellite system to another, would the rules be based on how the majority of the systems operate? Or would some other method be used to resolve this matter?

Perhaps the presence or absence of commercials could be used to separate the basics from the premiums. Under that system, all channels that are advertiser-supported would be considered basics and those that are not would be considered premiums. However, there are potential problems with this methodology as well. Congress would have to come up with a definition for advertiser-supported. Would it be based on the amount of advertising a channel carries? If so, how much advertising would it have to carry to be legally considered advertiser-supported? Or perhaps it would be based on the amount of revenue a channel derives from advertising. If so, what would that threshold be?

Even the term, “advertising”, would have to be legally defined. Would product placement found in movies and TV shows be included in the advertising equation? What about promos run for shows on related channels? Would those count as ads?

Even when all of that is sorted out, this methodology still leaves us with the problem presented by channels like Turner Classic Movies, Fox Movie Channel, and the Independent Film Channel, which don’t carry commercials but are included in many basic packages.

Now, assuming that all of the issues surrounding the scope of the new regulations could be worked out, the penalty issues would then have to be resolved. Who would pay the fines? Channel owners? Cable and satellite operators? Performers? All of them?

If internet audio and video are included in the scope of the regulations, would internet service providers and/or IPTV operators also have to pay?

If cable and satellite operators have to pay, couldn’t large fines potentially limit some smaller cable companies’ ability to expand and implement new technology like high-definition channels?

Then there’s the issue of license revocation. Cable and satellite channels don’t have licenses like broadcast channels. How could a habitual offender’s license be revoked if it doesn’t have license to begin with? Or would it just be put out of business? But wouldn’t that limit the channel choices available to cable and satellite customers?

Could cable and satellite operators be put out of business? Wouldn’t that leave people in some areas with no cable franchise? Wouldn’t it squash competition for cable service in areas that currently have it? Would the FCC actually shut down Directv and/or Dish Network and render thousands of backyard dishes worthless?

As you can see, there is a mountain of complicated questions that would have to be answered before the decency regulation of pay-TV could become a reality. Obviously, there would be lots of i’s to dot and t’s to cross. As this legislation is being considered, lawyers throughout the Capital area are already licking their chops!

About the Author

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

The multiple tithes and offerings of ancient Israel were collected by the priests and distributed as social welfare by the Levites, who were the civil administrators of their times. Those who handled the funds were known to the people as righteous men, concerned with matters of social justice. They could be and were trusted by those who gave and those who received. In modern societies civil government has replaced the Levitical priesthood and can not be trusted by givers or receivers. The reason is the ease with which laws are changed - this year the law is one thing; next year, another. Proud people tell us we are a nation of law and not of men. And whose laws do we obey but the laws of rich and foolish men - men who study law and know no justice. Men who make laws for many to benefit few.

In ancient days, the basic annual tax was ten percent of increase, due at the beginning of the harvest. Increase was essentially net profit. If a citizen spent a thousand dollars in materials to earn ten thousand, he knew God expected him to offer up ten percent of nine thousand dollars. It was a voluntary tax because scripture said to withhold it from the poor was to rob God and robbing God would be considered grand theft and cause for curses. There was no civil penalty or judgment against one who withheld the tithe because his future depended upon divine grace, Karma. He would be rewarded according to his works or lack thereof.

Today civil government pretends they can require whatever they wish, from whoever they wish, to create whatever they wish. In their thinking they are gods and they are righteous gods. Every day, more and more of those they rule over are made increasingly aware that leadership does quite the opposite of their claims. Eyes closed by many years of repetitive indoctrination, slowly open in the weariness of obedient, unquestioning compliance and service.

In ancient days, there were no standing armies providing nothing but a false sense of security at great public expense, to the detriment of rich and poor alike. Trained militias allowed voluntary service a man could render a few hours of each month until more was required to secure the social order. No great space explorations to be financed. No debt burdens on which interest must be paid. No professional lawmakers thinking themselves worthy of great salaries in exchange for their exclusive services to the highest bidders. There were not great infrastructures to create, repair and maintain. Civil administration was simple, voluntary and cheap, like charities.

Now it does not matter what is just or what is practical. Public servants have become masters with the consent of the masters they are supposedly serving and the consent of the money masters they are truly serving. Roles are reversed and the new servants make few demands upon the new masters. Confusion becomes the only certainty in such an arrangement.

In ancient days, the tithe was collected to ease the burdens of the poor. Today, we have a far more global consciousness and tithes are collected to be disbursed among the poor who are not exactly among us, yet often in much greater need, such that a dollar has a much greater value to them, than those we used to consider “our own” - our domestic poor.

Due to the unmerited blessings of great wealth, the rich nations have received over the past two centuries, we can see that a tithe of twenty, thirty percent or more is appropriate if we are to show gratitude, continue our wasteful practices and also support the third of us in abject poverty.

A Christian national government would give no less than ten percent of its annual revenues and it would be the very first ten percent collected - to relieve the great need of people in other nations. Had this been the case in “Christian” America over the past two hundred years, the poor of the world would not be driven to come to America to have a better life. But this tithe has been rejected in America. The present budget for foreign aid comes in at seven tenths of one percent. A so called Christian nation officially robs God by ninety three percent per year. We are a nation of “Christian” thieves. We lend on usury and we borrow on usury. Christian America is deathly ill. Christian America is terminally ill. And so what!

All that matters to America as a nation is appearance. Let us present a pretty picture to the world that hides the underlying rot. Fooling the world is so much easier than loving it and caring for or about it. Let convenience reign. It is time for someone else to do the hard work. We will cheer them on.

The sentiment expressed on U.S. currency; “In God we trust” is only that - sentiment. For the measure of trust is the national tithe. We can give any amount because we know God will not only replace what we give but will multiply it both for giver and receiver. The niggardly people in authority are certain this is not so. They trust in nothing but their own “sacred” law and the opposition of nature to their good intentions. The sickness of the nation makes a growth industry of medicine. An industry with minimal trust in God.

I have heard my whole life how generous Americans are and I would be surprised if personal giving collectively surpasses seven tenths of one percent and that would be due to the great philanthropy of perhaps seven tenths of one percent of our number. As a society, we do not trust in God, cannot trust the men of God and only half trust the men of science. As a result we neither trust our intuitions nor our neighbors. We are free. We are free from trust, filled with doubt - the wellspring of fear, which is the wellspring of violence, foreign and domestic. We have become the prisoners of freedom and most of us would not have it any other way. To do so would be un-American. Get all we can while the getting is good. Hire an Army to help us keep it and get us more. It’s the American thing to do.

About the Author

Freelance writer published in newspapers and many websites.
justanotherview.com

BEAUTIFUL AGATES

WHAT DO AGATE ROCKS LOOK LIKE.
Alas, in the natural state they are quite unprepossessing, resembling dull looking potato-shaped rocks to the untrained eye. However, with some experience you will be able to spot one with maybe a translucent, coloured patch, showing the underlying agate through the eroded rock surface. Hunting on a sunny day helps accentuate this feature. Agate-bearing rocks often have a pitted exterior, or maybe a waxy appearance.

at a broken area of rock. Agates can often be found in stream beds or on lake shores where the waters tumbling action over the millennia have ground away the rough exterior and polished the agates into bright, easily recognisable gems. Best join a Rock-Hound club and learn how to search for agates from the old timers!

HOW ARE AGATES FORMED.
It all starts with volcanic rock containing a lot of carbon dioxide & water which bubbles out leaving a “Swiss cheese” texture. When water containing dissolved silica with alkalis percolate through these holes, the minerals are precipitated out slowly in the rock voids, producing those glorious patterns & colours of Agates (agate is a form of Chalcedony, which in turn is a form of Quartz, one of the most common minerals on
Earth). The alkali in the solution can attack any iron in the rock, producing bands of iron hydroxide in spectacular forms and combinations with other minerals present in the saturated solution. Agates have also been found in Dinosaur bones, so high temperatures or pressures are not required for their formation, just patience. These agates often maintain
the host original shape, after the host (tree, or root etc.) has eroded away, hence their name of Limb Cast Agates

SOME COMMON AGATE TYPES:-

ONYX is a form of agate where the bands are white, alternating with other bands of mainly black, but also of brown or red, depending on the mineral composition of the surrounding area.

MOSS AGATE is a Dendritic Agate, looking like it has vegetative inclusions (similar to Amber) but in reality, the Dendrites (from the Greek Dendron - Tree) are usually minerals like oxides of Manganese or Iron, which have percolated into cracks in the agate and then deposited out.
The transparency of the agate allows these dendrites to be seen within the agate.

TURRITELLA AGATE are formed from the Turritell shells, a fossilised marine gastropod with an elongated spiral shell or many whorls.

PETOSKEY AGATE is an agatized coral found in the Ottawa region of Canada, chiefly around the town of Petoskey, in river beds.

AGATES are truly one of the most beautiful minerals, to be found in a fantastic variety of colours, shades & patterns. When sliced and polished, they are the “Crown Jewels” in any mineral collectors display!

Mike loves rocks! Gems & minerals are Nature’s masterpieces of art that must surely touch everyone’s soul! http://www.trekking-hiking-outdoors.co.uk/article-10-what-do-agate-rocks-look-like.html