The experiences and exploits of a college grad trying to make it in the "real world:" leaving school and friends in New England, moving south, and living with her boyfriend. Watch as I pretend to be an adult.
Or, I debate the merits of public broadcasting with a libertarian part 2. While (if) you try to read this exceptionally long post, enjoy a song from one of my favorite albums of all time. ------------------
Ok, let me first say that the thought of non-stop, 24-7 educational programming bores me to tears. Dear lord, how dull. Of course, without doubt, there should be plenty of mindless drivel to go around- sometimes after a long day of work all you want to do is sit down and watch Desp Housewives or Cops or something. It's nice to turn off your brain. My point is that we have this sort of entertainment in spades. I'll go out on a limb and say 90% of prime-time programming falls under the "fluff" category. Also, I think you're taking my comment about not supporting gov't funding of NPR/PBS if they were vehicles of gov't propaganda a bit too far. My point there was that if I felt these were "biased" or "worthless" sources of information, I wouldn't listen to/watch them any more, or care about their existence. I would come to view them as I do much of mainstream media, ignore them, and turn my attention elsewhere. I suppose the idea of a government funded media source doesn't really bother me the same way it seems to bother you. Most countries have at least one (Russia (ok, ok, don't get excited), England, Germany, Italy, Ireland...those are just off the top of my head). That doesn't necessarily mean I'd be up in arms to cut gov't funding to them (this is a bit of a tangent, but I'll get back on track soon)...it can be useful to see what sort of propaganda a gov't spews, and why. And, incidentally, the government uses your tax dollars to produce "entertainment" stuff all the time. What about those army/navy/AF recruiting commercials with the happy shiney all-american men and women climbing cliffs and such? Historically, what about "Uncle Sam" posters, "Rosey riveter" adds, and Vietnam-era TV spots? All paid for by taxes, my friend. This is nothing new. Who pays for the local country- and city-level public access info channels? It may be different in Mass, but here in VA (at least in Fairfax county), they get you twice. If you get cable, even basic, it's part of the given channels that you start with. You can't take it off to reduce your bill, so you're "forced" to pay for it that way. If you don't have cable, well, guess what. They still receive public funds (tax dollars!) to help w/ their overhead, so you pay for it there too. As far as being 100% impartial...well, heh, I won't go that far. But I will say they are IMO much better, and certainly no worse, than any top five news source you get. As far as the "dictionary channel" goes, it's interesting that you bring that up right after college. The theoretical purpose of the dictionary channel is essentially education, yes? Well, guess what- we're "forced at gunpoint" to pay for education through taxes everyday. I went to a public elementary school and a public highschool, and I'm willing to bet you did too. Your parents' taxes weren't enough to pay for that education, it requires the combined taxes of aprox 3.2 working adults per year to pay for one year of one child in primary or secondary school. (This is in Frfx county, may be slightly diff in your area...). So you're forced to pay for other people's education anyway. And don't get me started on college- dude, I paid out of state tuition AND mass state taxes three of the years I was there, lol. Ah well, some lucky deserving valedictorian can go to school free on part of my dime (ok, ok, a very small part). I think what we come down to is a fundamental difference of opinions on the purpose- or perhaps proper use- of taxes. As far as I'm concerned, taxes are a necessity. \ They can be a necessary evil, or a necessary good, depending. Because I'm a staunch, bleeding heart liberal, I'm more than happy to serve up my dollar for education, health care, wellfare, environmental conservation efforts, international aid, scientific research, urban development and infrastructure maintenance (roads and highways, aw yeah), even the poor ailing SSC, if we can resurrect it. Hey, no one wants a bunch of sad old people on the street! I'm less happy to pay for, but recognize the need for, military maintenance and improvement (to a degree). Our taxes here in America our lower than any other developed/first world nation, and while I might wince a bit when I see the big gouge it takes out of my paycheck, I'm fine with paying it. Taxes mean a balanced budget and a happy economy. I suppose I consider PBS and NPR closer to education than entertainment, and perhaps that's part of our difference of opinions as well. I will always be happy to pay for education. I would most likely be a bit upset if the gov't announced I had to pay extra for the privlege to watch TV or listen to the radio, although probably more because I've gotten used to it being free. I mean, I pay for the privilege of accessing the internet and reading a book, which are my other major forms of entertainment. I pay to buy a CD or rent/buy a movie (when I don't pirate it). I even have money taken from me "at gunpoint" by the government for such luxuries- I pay sales tax, damnit! I suppose the difference is rather minimal in my mind. I'm going to pay taxes for things I'll never use either way. I don't want children, but I guarantee I'm paying money so that other people's children can go to school. I'll never be on medicare, knock on wood, but I'm paying so other people can get affordable health care when they need it. I'll probably, the rate things are going, never get a penny of the money I'm putting into SSC, but hey, oh well. I don't feel bad wanting some tax money going towards something I actually want to use and enjoy, so there!!
After 22 posted at 1:25 PM
