Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001078.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001078.php on line 91
February 16, 2004
I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, but if physicists don't know that an oval, oblong, or oblate spheroid, to be pretentious, shape packs more closely than a perfect sphere, then they need to . . . I don't know. Find another line of work? What kind of "expert" gets away with taking some amazingly obvious fact and releasing it as though it were some astounding new discovery?

Better question - can I get a job as that kind of "expert"? Announcing the merely obvious in a tone of breathless fervor . . . I think I could handle that.

Also, let me tender an apology, on behalf of my species, to the ground squirrel. You see, we just sort of assume anything that eats plants is going to like our plants better than any other plants and that's why we put a bounty on you and killed off several million of your friends, neighbors, and family members. Now that we realize you don't, in fact, like the crops we plant and that there are only about 350 of you left, we're really, really, really sorry. If we had a prairie left, we'd let you live on it. Honest.

(While I'm at it, let me apologize for the mindless stupidity of automatically generated "related advertising links" that attached the "Rat zapper kills rodents" ad to the bottom of that column.)

I'm sorry for all of the hearing-impaired people in the country whose television viewing is limited to what the government, in its infinite hubris wisdom decrees is "suitable" material for closed-captioning.

It seems that such programs as Bewitched, CNN (in Spanish), I Dream of Jeannie, Nancy Drew, JAG, Law and Order, and Women We Love (women in film) have been deemed inappropriate places to spend funds. PGA Golf also failed to make the cut.

I was unaware that such picking and choosing took place, but Ryan has much to say on the subject, not all of which I agree with.* I doubt, for instance, that this is some massive conspiracy to keep all but the blandest, most "puritan" content from the eyes of the hearing-impaired. The post is interesting reading, though.

* I'm happy to say that I was wrong. Not that I like being revealed as a 'skimmer' instead of a 'reader' yet again, but it gives me an excuse to use one of my favorite words. Pursuant.

Pursuant to a brief exchange with Ryan, I'd like to correct this. Ryan was not, in fact, decrying censorship on the part of the government. (Knowing his political views, I'll admit that that first reading of his post didn't make sense to me - which should have clued me in that I was missing something.) Hew was arguing there's no actual sign any censorship is taking place.

And, in any case, he's also right about the "new" Scooby Doo. It should be censored. As a mea culpa I am, at long last, getting around to adding his blog to my sidebar.

And, in keeping with the theme of this post, let me say, "I'm sorry."

But I'm leaving the rant up becase, in spite of the New Scooby Doo fiasco, I think everything, even the trash should be treated equally. Not that I care for the quality of "entertainment" we're getting these days, but it's no one business to decide that one program is more worthy than another of being accessed by all citizens.

I know, I know. These things cost money. Should I suggest that for the cost of one war, you could pay for a heck of a lot of domestic programs?

Posted by AnneZook at 11:51 AM


Comments

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my post, but I *also* don't think it's some puritanical conspiracy to limit deaf people's access to TV. That's what the NAD is saying, not me. I'm just pointing out that the grant decision the NAD is complaining about is meaningless, because the closed captioning is going to happen anyway. There is no lost access.

I *am* happy to know that someone's reading my post, though :)

Posted by: Ryan at February 16, 2004 12:41 PM

Actually, I check your blog every day. :) The next time I get my lazy self around to updating my blogroll, I'm adding yours.

I'll have to re-read your post. I certainly came away from it with the wrong impression.

Posted by: Anne at February 16, 2004 01:12 PM