Why in the first place did they shut off analog because digital reception is ify. Any weather change and its not clear your lucky if you get one channel let alone all the channels you would receive with analog and if you have satilite it completely shuts down. This is just another way the rich are trying to control the poor ie: politicians lining their pockets with the money they receive from the networks or rather kick backs from lobbyists that work for the politicians that have passed this requirement to have only digital TV. Some Networks that pay politicians to monopilize the airways. Slowly the government is gaining control of everything. Social security, medicare, healthcare, taxes, and now our freedom to watch tv you cant tell me they dont get enough money from their sponsores to support the networks. I've had both cable which give you a deal to lure your in when you first get their service but when the contract is over they double the price without any warning shut you off if you dont pay then charge you when you havent even got their service anymore for up to 2 monthes even after the contract is up this is true it happened to me. Satilite tells you get your equipment free and hook up is free then increase you rate without telling you and even charge more for service you already have. Then wonder why poor people, more the young group, hack into their internet connection and airwaves. WHO CAN AFFORD IT REALLY?
Our small-business employer in Memphis recently informed us that our BCBS-T insurance premiums are going up a whopping 23% the first of the year. This is on top of a 10% increase the first of 2011. Unbelievable! We will not be able to afford insurance in the very near future.
Anyone who believes that nuclear power is the answer to what ails them should read Dr. Helen Caldicott's book, "Nuclear Power is NOT the Answer." Dr. Caldicott, M.D. is an australian doctor who has been campaigning for rational discourse about, and responsible treatment of, nuclear power for decades, and her book points anyone who wants to know the health consequences to sources other than government of industry.
The authoritative sources she cites reveal the very real dangers and the astronomical costs of boiling water with radioactive substances that are routinely released into our air and water. We do not possess the technology contain them, and we are not treating the threat with the care it deserves. She describes how and why radiation and radioactive contamination gives rise to disease, mutation, malformed babies and corruption of our future at the hands of those who seek short-term profit. We are perpetuating some of the most irresponsible behavior ever dreamt of by man when we allow the concentration of radioactive elements without the capacity to control their dispersal or protect the biosphere effects.
If we could contain the radioactive materials we use, if we could protect each other from their use as weapons, if we could ensure the long-term best responsible use and security of future generations, then the use of nuclear power might be acceptable. But at the moment we do not possess the capacity to utilize Uranium, Plutonium, Thorium, Cesium or any of the more than 200 byproducts of fission-for-power in the hands of those who seek to minimize 'expenses' and maximize profits. Your health and that of the all future life should not be treated as an externalized cost-sink for the enrichment of corporate balance sheets.
Even if you can't put the genie back in the bottle, you don't have let it twist your wishes into avoidable consequences.
Seriously, you have been "hearing" about voter fraud because it has become a partisan talking point designed to create cover for this effort to disenfranchise millions of potential voters. No one said you were stupid just because you have bought into the hype.
Rather than feel unintentionally insulted, I challenge you to present any significant and documented evidence of the claims about people rounding up homeless or drunk citizens to vote in Wisconsin. The fact is that people still have to be registered to vote or be able to demonstrate that they live in the precinct (and people who have lost their homes may not have money but they still have a right to vote if they can show some documentation of where they reside).
You have been grossly misled about the statistical odds of voter fraud versus the more widespread problems that have been documented in recent years of people's votes being accurately counted before winners are declared.
Please feel free to post any evidence you have about prosecutions for voter fraud in Wisconsin in the past three, five, ten years or more. You will discover, contrary to some claims, it to be exceedingly rare. To stop something that might have occurred in perhaps .000001 of all votes, millions are likely to be denied the right to vote across the country.
In most states, before this wave of changes to the law (changes that are part of the ALEC agenda and also part of the Karl Rove plan to shed a couple percent of likely voters in swing states), a person could present proof of residence (a recent utility bill) or an expired driver's license (which only means you cannot drive, not that you are not who you are), and be able to exercise a core right in a democracy, the right to vote.
The changes to the law were designed to make it more difficult for many people, mainly people considered likely to vote Democratic, more difficult to vote. People in cities who use public transportation, who don't drive or don't have a car, often do not have a driver's license. The elderly and people with disabilities often do not have a driver's license but use other forms of identification to obtain benefits or medicine.
The bill was also deliberately written in ways to make it difficult for a college student to vote where he or she lives most if not all of the year. Many college students do not change the driver's licenses they got at age 16 from their parents' home, but have been able to establish identity and residency to vote where they live during college through showing a lease, for example. The bills would basically require poll workers to turn away student voters away even if they are obviously citizens who reside in the district where the voting booth is located.
Like a magician's use of sleight of hand, the focus on the boogeyman of voter fraud distracts from other more pressing problems in our democracy, and it has been used to cover the most wide-reaching voter disenfranchisement effort in recent decades.
Isnt that quaint you have to approve my comment hmmm
Why in the first place did they shut off analog because digital reception is ify. Any weather change and its not clear your lucky if you get one channel let alone all the channels you would receive with analog and if you have satilite it completely shuts down. This is just another way the rich are trying to control the poor ie: politicians lining their pockets with the money they receive from the networks or rather kick backs from lobbyists that work for the politicians that have passed this requirement to have only digital TV. Some Networks that pay politicians to monopilize the airways. Slowly the government is gaining control of everything. Social security, medicare, healthcare, taxes, and now our freedom to watch tv you cant tell me they dont get enough money from their sponsores to support the networks. I've had both cable which give you a deal to lure your in when you first get their service but when the contract is over they double the price without any warning shut you off if you dont pay then charge you when you havent even got their service anymore for up to 2 monthes even after the contract is up this is true it happened to me. Satilite tells you get your equipment free and hook up is free then increase you rate without telling you and even charge more for service you already have. Then wonder why poor people, more the young group, hack into their internet connection and airwaves. WHO CAN AFFORD IT REALLY?
Pages