Things That Just Piss Me Off

This post by Lou Dobbs makes some really good points related to my recent blog post on The Religious Right and Politics so I wanted to share it here.

Dobbs: Keep religion out of politics
By Lou Dobbs, CNN

Editor’s note: Lou Dobbs’ commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com

The political strategists, campaign managers, and the partisan savants will be working overtime to excite their conservative, liberal, Republican and Democratic bases, trying to get at least 50 percent of us who’ve registered to vote to actually go to the polls.

Which is one of the biggest problems we have. When less people vote, special interest groups find it easier to get their way. They motivate their base to go to the polls while many independent thinkers don’t bother.

As in election years past, they’re going to have a lot of help, and not just from PACs, labor unions and 527 groups like MoveOn and Progress for America. Oh no, we’re going to be treated to something akin to, and as close as we should expect to get to, divine intervention. Evangelical Christians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims and Mormons are already getting rowdy, not only on their respective pulpits, but in the mail, on the air and certainly on the campaign trails.

Now I know you’re thinking that this is America, what is religion doing in politics and what is politics doing in religion. As it turns out, just about everything. And the politically correct orthodoxy would prefer you and I not take notice.

The First Amendment of our Constitution declares that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But the devil’s in the details, if you will, and the often demonized Internal Revenue Service has taken up the issue where other federal agencies and branches of government have feared to tread: This summer the IRS sent out a warning letter to more than 15,000 churches and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations throughout the nation. The letter is meant to serve notice that any sort of politicking could endanger their tax-exempt status.

This is what I was posting about in my blog post. Nonprofit organizations that are not listed as political organizations are not allowed to endorse candidates, yet you hear them doing it all the time and no one has been enforcing this against nonprofit religion-based organizations.

The IRS discovered a disturbing amount of intervention by religious groups in national politics in 2004. It determined nearly five dozen churches and charities violated laws against political activities, and there are now 40 active investigations into the politicking of various churches.

The mixture of religion and politics is on public display throughout the country. The Mormon Church rolled out the red carpet for Mexican President Vicente Fox, embraces illegal immigrants in the state of Utah and helped pro-amnesty incumbent Congressman Chris Cannon with a get out the vote campaign.

Apparently nobody in the federal government is too concerned that the Catholic Church has repeatedly lobbied on behalf of millions of illegal aliens and their supporters for wholesale amnesty and open borders. Until the Supreme Court ordered him to, the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, didn’t think he should cooperate with the law when it came to divulging information on priests accused of pedophilia, and he believes it is entirely correct to encourage his parishioners to civil disobedience in the case of legislation that secures our borders and punishes those who cross them illegally. The Cardinal disavows the will of the people in opposition to current law. Ironically he’s now spearheading a drive to register a million new voters by 2008. Where he’ll find them, only heaven knows.

The role of religion in politics and the role of politics in religion in this country has never deserved more attention and merited more intense examination than now. Religion is dominant in the lives of most Americans: The latest Gallup Poll reveals that nearly two-thirds of us are members of a church or synagogue and about one-third of us attend church or synagogue at least once a week.

Surveys show as many as 250 million Americans are Christian and 70 million of us describe ourselves as evangelicals.

That is a lot of votes and in my opinion as long as christians are voting their own opinions on who is best to serve our country in political office, then there is no reason they should not have this influence. It’s a democracy. Majority rules. Like it or not, that is our system.

However, when any type of organizations conspire to influence the voters, it skews the results. When religion is used to push people into choosing the candidate their church or nonprofit religious organization tells them which candidate is the moral choice, it exerts even more influence. Many of these church leaders use guilt to drive people to vote the way they want them to.

Now that it is legal for religious organizations to get federal funding, there is a conflict of interest for these nonprofits. You have to ask if they are choosing a candidate based on religious and/or morals or they are choosing the candidate that promises to keep federal funding available to them.

These guys used to be a favorite topic of mine because they so clearly represent everything that is wrong with the republican party today. Republicans may take offense but today’s republican party represents wiretapping, crime, gay politicians, terrible foreign policy, suppression of privacy, suppression of freedoms this country stands for, and unjust or unreasonable wars.

Redstate.com personifies this as a neo-con website. I used to go there and post. My last post was to defend freedom of speech. A politician had said something they did not like and I said he had the right to say what he wants. It’s freedom of speech. They banned me for defendinmg that politician’s right to say what he wants and exercizing his freedom of speech.

This story will go a little further so you know I’m not exaggerating about these people;

From Wired
By Sarah Lai Stirland

Conservative Blog Limits New Ron Paul Supporters

RedState.com announced Tuesday that all but veteran users are henceforth prohibited from posting messages supporting the long-shot Republican presidential candidate, whose fans have emerged as an usually vocal and motivated presence on internet forums.

“Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion,” wrote Leon Wolf, one of RedState’s bloggers. “Not in comments, not in diaries, nada.”

“If your account is less than six months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul,” he added. “Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.”

“These people are not part of the Republican coalition. It’s somewhat naive to think that these people will stay in the race with Republicans when Ron Paul is no longer in the race,” said Erickson.

“This doesn’t hurt Paul’s credibility as much as it does Redstate’s,” wrote blogger Ed Morrissey on his blog Captain’s Quarters. “While Paul’s supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that RedState lacks that ability.”

However, redstate.com uses banning people to control their content all the time. They want the republicans who go there to only be able to read what they want them to read. This is not a blog. This is a propaganda machine plain and simple.

The online equivalent to fox news, the fake news show that takes the republican and the george bush side all the time and used to put out the joke about being fair and balanced.

On a recent fox news program about the fires in California, fox news representatives blamed Al Gore for not being there and once again raised their petty jealousy about him winning the nobel peace prize for environmental concerns. They keep saying that they don’t understand why he won since it was the environment and not about peace as if that is the first time it ever happened.

They want people to believe that democrats now control the nobel peace prize and gore won because of politics and that this is the first time the nobel peace prize was awarded for enviromental work when in fact it has been awarded at least twice before to people involved in working to improve the environment. So this is no precedent and had a republican been awarded the peace prize, (highly unlikely but use your imagination), fox news would have had tv specials honoring the recipient and all the republicans would be cheering.

I’ve never voted democrat. I have voted republican. But with the current atmosphere of fear and intimidation by republicans and places like redstate.com. That and the false information our government, the republican party, fox news, and other republicans keep feeding the public will make me decide to change parties this time around.

I will no longer support pre-emptive wars, meddling in the affairs of other countries and dictating to them, torture, wiretapping of amercian citizens, suppression of freedom and privacy, or any of the other things the current administration and the current republican party stands for.

The Republican View of the Bill of Rights. Click the picture to enlarge it.

First of all, let me say I am proud to be a follower of Jesus Christ, a christian. However, being a christian and being associated with the so-called religious right are two very different things.

I do not believe that churches should be involved in politics at all. I do not believe that as christians we are supposed to attempt to get any laws passed by man at all.

Jesus did not try to get the romans to change the law. Jesus did not endorse one king over another king. Jesus did not endorse governors or other political offices or candidates.

Jesus taught people how they should live. He gave them a choice as to whether or not they should follow him and his ways. He still gives us that same choice.

The thinking that christians should attempt to have laws made to force people to live the way they believe they should live is not what Jesus taught or asked us to do. Show me any place in the bible that says we should enact laws to force people into morality.

If we as christians do our job of teaching people as Christ did, there won’t be a need to make those laws.

Here is an article I wrote related to the topic.

Religion: Institution or Revolution?
by Chris McElroy

In writing any article about religion you run the risk of people not agreeing with you or the risk of offending people. Does that mean we should not write about religion? Absolutely not.

Should we worry that people might be offended? No. We should not go out of our way to offend people, but as long as you write your true beliefs, then you are doing what is in your heart and should share that with others.

For many churches, Christianity and religion have become institutions. Power, politics, money, and other worldly things have become the focus of these institutions.

Many people who read this article will find what I have to say uncomfortable. Jesus never promised that you or I would be made comfortable in this life and in this article I don’t promise to make you feel comfortable either.

Jesus calls the church to reach out to the community, to the poor, the sick, and to those who do not know Christ. Jesus promised that He would provide for our needs as long as we use what he provides to do His will and to bring Him glory. He taught us to believe him for this promise and to act as knowing that He will fulfill that promise.

Instead, these days many churches focus on survival. They plan their budgets to make sure they bank enough money for a rainy day, hire business managers and treat the church as if it is a business entity rather than a church whose mission it is to do GOD’s work.

Politics is one area that many churches and religious institutions have focused much of their attention. They lobby politicians, get involved in campaigns, and donate money that does not belong to them to politicians who promise much but deliver very little.

Does not belong to them? What do I mean by that? Tithes do not belong to the church they belong to GOD. Tithes are to be used for GOD’s purposes. Nowhere in the bible can I find where helping politicians get elected is a proper use for money tithed to GOD.

Jesus did not lobby the Pharisees and the Roman government for laws that force people to follow His way. Jesus taught people right from wrong, then gave them a choice of whether or not they would follow Him. Through the bible, Jesus still teaches us right from wrong and offers us that same choice.

It is our job as Christians and as church leaders to teach GOD’s word to others and let them know that Jesus has offered them that choice. We cannot rely on governments to pass laws to do our job for us. Saying that we need to lobby for those laws to be passed to force people to do what is moral is saying we as Christians and the church cannot or will not do the job GOD intends for us to do.

Most people have an image of Jesus Christ as meek and mild, a healer of the sick, a helper to the poor, and our Lord and Savior who loves us. Jesus is all of those things, but Jesus was and is also a revolutionary!

Jesus stood up to those in power in both religion and in government. Jesus challenged them. Jesus told them they had no right to oppress His people. Jesus went out and consorted with the poor, the sick, prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners. He ministered to the unbelievers. He did not spend all His time at the sanctuary preaching to believers.

Rather than churches becoming institutions they should be leading revolutions. Rather than just surviving and preserving traditions and rules, they should be throwing all of GOD’s money forward to help those in need and to reach those who do not know Christ as their Savior.

Rather than worrying about building new roofs, buying stained glass windows, and buying new carpet and pews, we should be worrying about breaking down walls and calling unbelievers to join us.

Church is not just a place where believers gather to worship, it is also a place where believers gather to teach unbelievers about Christ.

So many Christians today think all they need to do is attend church, pray, and do good things, then wait for Jesus to return. Jesus charged us with much more than that. Jesus charged us to change those around us, to change communities, to change the world. He charged us with teaching his word and to bring more people to him so they can have everlasting life.

Cowards hide and wait to be rescued and GOD despises cowards more than any others. Become the revolutionary that Jesus called you to be. Allow Him to use you to achieve His purpose rather than praying that he will help you achieve yours. It is not about you.

About the Author: Chris McElroy did things his own way to benefit himself most of his life. After joining Mosaic Church in Miami a couple of years ago and asking Jesus to come into his life, he now devotes much of his time to learning more about Jesus and the purpose He has for all of us. The views expressed by Chris McElroy are his own. Visit www.mosaicmiami.org and mosaicmiami.blogspot.com to learn more about Mosaic.

I would also like to add that IF the religious right is going to be involved in politics, lets’ be concerned about more than just the abortion issue.

The religious right has consistantly swayed there vote strictly based on whether a candidate is for or against abortion.

Yet they continue to support those who use torture on human beings. They continue to support those who start wars. They continue to support those with no morals at all.

Take it from someone who has crossed the border to and from mexico more than most people. The increased funding for more agents at the border is disguised as being for homeland security purposes and to look for terrorists.

The white house has sold this to the american public based on that lie. The increased scrutiny at the border is about confiscating more drugs. The white house knows the public got tired of a war on drugs that has accomplished nothing in years and that it would be much easier to get that funding based on the threat of terrorists crossing the border.

They use that fear for everything else, why not for the drug war too? Where are the results if the white house isn’t lying about what the funding is really for? Drug confiscations and arrests at the border are up. That is a good thing. But how many terrorists have been caught or stopped due to the billions in new funding? Show me some stats.

From the NYTimes
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 21, 2007

United States border agents have stepped up scrutiny of Americans returning home from Mexico, slowing commerce and creating delays at border crossings not seen since the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The increased enforcement is in part a dress rehearsal for new rules, scheduled to take effect in January, that will require Americans to show a passport or other proof of citizenship to enter the United States. The requirements were approved by Congress as part of antiterrorism legislation in 2004.

The second real goal of this extra funding is because many americans now live in mexico. Many retired to live there because they cannot live in the US on what social security pays them.

This results in loss of revenue in the US. Many on social security now live under a new rule that says if you withdraw more than 50% of your social security check while you are in mexico, you could lose your social security altogether.,

The US does not want these retirees living in mexico and are doing their best to keep them from doing so, including the hassles listed above in this article. They want to track them and the number of times they go to mexico and come back. Many of them have to bank on the US side of the border so their visits to the US will correspond with the withdrawals from their accounts and this information can be used against them.

Funds for the Border Patrol, which scouts the border between entry points for illegal immigrants, increased by 70 percent since 2005 to $3 billion. By contrast, financing for border station agents, who processed nearly 300 million travelers entering the country legally by land last year, rose by 30 percent since 2005, to $2.1 billion.

Also in August, border officials said, the Department of Homeland Security issued a directive designed to unify inspection procedures for all the border agencies under its umbrella. It set an eventual goal, with no fixed deadline, for agents to conduct a database query for every person crossing the border.

If it was just about stopping terrorists why would they need to stop every single person that crosses the border for a database query? Grandma over there looks like a terrorist?

You know with all of the republicans avoiding serving in the military, it amazes me that they are the ones who support going to war so often and the ones who are critical of soldiers who don’t agree with them.

We all know bush dodged going to war. His daddy protected him there. But there are many others you may not know about. Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney got deferments, so they never served this country.

Kenneth Starr got out of serving in the military because of dandruff . . . oops . . . psoriasis I meant to say.

Jack Kemp got out of serving in the military because of a kneee injury. Although he played as a quarterback in the NFL for 8 more years receiving a good paycheck for doing so.

Pat Buchanon escaped military service due to arthritic knees, which he also seemed to overcome since he is an avid jogger.

Rush Limbaugh dodged military service because of an anal cyst or an ingrown hair on his oversized ass.

He had the nerve to criticize soldiers as phony soldiers if they did not support the Iraq war?

The letter written to him by senators denouncing him for this just sold for 2 million dollars and the money will go to a worthwhile charity to help injured soldiers. That is commendable that something good came out of it.

However, these republicans who tell you “support our troops”, “support the war in Iraq”, “we will protect you”, “we are the ones to trust when it comes to defending this country” should not ever be believed.

If they felt so strongly about protecting this country and supporting our troops, why did they dodge military service?

Maybe that headline should read, especially to the president since he is supposed to be an example for others to follow.

From the NYTimes Today

Asked, for instance, if the president was free to violate a law enacted by Congress, (President Bush’s nominee for attorney general) Mr. Mukasey said, “That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.”

The authority of the president to defend the country and act on his own applies to an immediate threat, such as on the day of and the days after 9-11 or pearl harbor. One incident that allows the president to exercize complete authority does not mean he can continue to exercize that authority for as long as he wants.

It’s like giving your babysitter the phone number to your doctor in case of an emergency. The babysitter can call the doctor or 911 without calling you first. But as soon as possible, the babysitter must call you for further instructions. Your babysitter would not also think they had the authority to authorize surgery on your child without notifying you first.

That analogy works for this perfectly. Bush had the authority to do things without congressional consent during the emergency. But he also wants to claim that the emergency is ongoing and that he should be able to continue to exercize the authority that was meant to be used just during the emergency.

It would be like your babysitter saying, well the child is still sick while under my care so I should be making all the medical decisions until the threat is over with and that the decisions made by the babysitter cannot be interfered with by the parents.

Previous supreme court decisions uphold the right of congress to curb executive authority.

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court said “Whether or not the president has independent power, absent Congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing Youngstown.

That is pretty plain. The law says that if congress has put limits on the president’s power in a specific instance, then the president is bound by those limitations.

But, like many attorneys general of both parties, Mr. Mukasey indicated that he understood Youngstown to leave room for presidential power even in the face of Congressional action. “I would certainly suggest that we go to Congress whenever we can,” he added.

What text is he reading? Go to congress whenever we can? It’s a law that you do so, not something you do IF you feel like it.

The administration has in recent years met with substantial success in Congress, obtaining legislation on surveillance, military commissions and the treatment of detainees that authorized almost all of what it wanted.

Bush supporters try to say that the reason the president does this is because congress is hindering his ability to defend the country. The congress hasn’t refused this president anything he has brought before them so that argument is a lie.

Bush wants to be King George. Not President Bush. And people are allowing him to be a king. Let’s say Bush is a good king. Let’s say all of his decisions have been and are completely sound, (A stretch, but let’s say he makes good decisions for the sake of argument), and let’s say you think he should have this extreme power.

Are you prepared to give that same power to Hilary Clinton? Barack Obama? Rudy Guiliani? Thompson? McCain? And give complete authority to act without congressional approval to any nutcase that gets elected in the future?

By allowing king george this authority, you grant it to every president elected from this point forward. Are you absolutely sure they will all act in our best interest?

Still on my tv pisses me off kick here, but dr. steve-o really takes the cake when it comes to network tv reaching for ever dumber and dumber content to fill time slots.

What’s next? TV shows hosted by real mental patients. Episodes like drool and all the uses for it. How to sit comfortably in a straight jacket? And this week an all new episode, “How to save up all that lithium for one big party!”

One thing is for sure, it would be a lot more interesting and would appeal to aa more intellectual audience than dr. steve-o does.

I received this article in my email and found it after I finally got rid of all the emails wanting to help me make various organs larger and those who want to help me make money in the stock market and the other ones where I’ve won all of the lotteries that I never entered.

The Modern Marketing Reality

First, I always love it when someone starts out by saying that THEY have the reality of things down pat. This article is about marketing. This guy already started out marketing with the title of the article. He wants you to believe whatever he is about to write is fact, before you even read it. It’s good marketing.

Remember back in the good old days when TV commercials showed blind-folded people tasting different colas or washing dirty laundry, only to discover that one product was better than the other?

Marketers still do this.

Remember when such blatant product claims met with acceptance from the viewing audience? Remember when we actually believed the claims made through advertisements? Well, those days are long gone.

No they aren’t. The marketers and advertisers are still doing it because people are still dumb enough to believe what they see on tv or read in a magazine or newspaper.

The proof is that people still respond to the nigerian scam emails and phishing attempts that ask them to log in to their bank account on a website that does not belong to their bank.

People still order nothing down real estate books. They still believe that there are millionaires out there that are selling programs for $500 that can make them rich and that these millionaires are just doing it out of the good in their hearts.

There are even people that believe George Bush is telling the truth when he says something. he has marketers working for him too.

Over the past few decades, advertising had increased steadily to the point where the average person sees literally thousands of marketing messages each day. And that’s had an effect. Today, the average consumer no longer believes the claims communicated through marketing and have grown suspicious and skeptical of marketing in general. The average consumer has been fooled too many times to let another scam pull the wool over their eyes.

Again, not true. People are still clicking popup ads that say they are going to get rid of unwanted spyware on their computer while in reality these programs ARE spyware. Many people even believe that pharmaceutical companies run those drug ads on tv because they want to help us.

There are actually a few specific reasons why this evolution has taken place and we’ve already mentioned the first one. The fact is that there’s simply too much marketing out there. Between TV ads, radio ads, magazine ads, billboards, product placements, celebrity endorsements and the internet, our world has simply become over-saturated with marketing messages.

I agree with him here.

The second thing is that modern advertising has become deceptive.

Modern day advertising? Adverttising has ALWAYS been deceptive all the way back to the medicine man shows that traveled through the old west. Then the cure-all drugs throughout the thirties, etc. etc.

It’s long since been known that the easiest way to lie is to use statistics. There are so many different ways to interpret data that someone could probably convince you of just about anything and have detailed statistics backing up their argument. Marketers have taken advantage of this reality and made incredible claims that appear to be verified by legitimate research. Once the consumer discovers the figures were correct but misleading, the trust level disintegrates. That’s what’s happened these past few years. Consumers no longer believe what the research marketers present.

No, they just go on to believing the next marketer with similar claims because people want to believe there is an easy way to achieve anything. That is why the pill that claimed to help you lose weight while you sleep sold so much.

The third thing that’s happened is simply that the marketing messages no longer get noticed. Consumers have become desensitized to marketing messages so most go unnoticed by consumers. Now, the reality remains that the subconscious mind continues to be affected by these messages even if the conscious mind isn’t engaged but the impact of a marketing message on the conscious mind of a consumer has diminished significantly.

The marketers who will succeed in the new era are those who give consumers a sample of the product before a purchase decision is required. This phenomenon started with the increasingly unconditional return policies of retailers. Before long, it crossed the purchase threshold such that potential customers could actually sample the product before they made a purchase decision.

This is no different than the sampling stands you find in Costco. People are hired to prepare products and give shoppers free samples so they can make an informed decision. In fact, in more and more product categories, consumers are demanding samples first; value first; benefits first. And if the product meets their expectations, they can consider a purchase thereafter.

The downside is that marketing has become more expensive. Companies have to provide more value before revenue can be expected. But the upside is that customer loyalty is alive and well. You just have to earn that trust directly. If you can do that, the rest of the selling proposition becomes much easier.

I agree with the writer of the article that marketers who are honest will win customer loyalty in the long run. But don’t expect the other type of marketing to go away. The old saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute” is still true and consumers will always buy anything that promises miracles and the easy way out.

People are lazy and don’t want to believe it takes hard work to succeed so they will always buy get rich quick schemes. People don’t want to exercize and eat right to lose weight so they will always buy anything that promises to help them lose weight without much effort.

About the Author: Tactical Execution with Patrick Schwerdtfeger is a strategic company focused on growth marketing and program implementation across business markets. Visit the website for more specific tips to start generating revenue today.

See, some of you were about to click that link even though the author says, “Visit the website for more specific tips to start generating revenue today.”

Do you really think that if you click that link and go to his website, you will start generating revenue today? If so, you prove everything I wrote in response to this article.

I know I’ve been on a tv kick lately, but tv is getting so bad it prompts me to post about it.

Today it’s paid programming.

I know networks need to make money. The Internet is breaking them. They do not know how to adapt it seems. They just keep making tv worse rather than better in response to the revenue the Internet is taking away from them.

It seems like networks have the ability to hire the best and brightest people, but they obviously don’t. If the networks were smart, they would find ways to make tv better so they can compete with the Internet. Instead it just keeps getting worse.

Don’t want to compete for a time-slot? Just put on a reality show that costs little to produce or sell it to someone who wants to sell the latest diet craze, the latest exercize equipment no one will use even if they buy it, nothing down real estate dreams, or the latest item you don’t need from RONCO.

These paid programming shows are ridiculous infomercials, yet people must be buying from them or they wouldn’t put them on. So it’s the people that buy these ridiculous products and schemes that are at fault right along with the networks for us having this many of them on the air.

The one I saw last night really got me. “You can buy 10 websites for just $39.95!. No need to know html. Our website editor is easy to use. You could making as much as $2500 per day just by building these 10 websites on our server and domain name! You don’t have to know anything about promoting your website! You probably don’t know how email works, but you know how to send and receive email. This is just as easy. You don’t need to know how it works, just buy these 10 websites and start making money today! Then they follow with all the fake testimonials of people getting rich from their $39.95 websites.

If you buy from these paid programming infomercials, you deserve to lose all of your money because you’re just too stupid to keep it.

Ok, it used to be that when there was a series on tv, there was a new episode each week. It was normal and expected. If so, why do all the networks now advertise that “This Week! A Brand New Episode of Whateverjunktheyareshowingnow? As if this is a special thing they have done for us.

That goes right along with World Premiere Movie! Even though it’s a movie that millions saw at the box office, hundreds of thousands rented it at the video store, others saw it on hbo and cinemax. Now it’s finally on tv so it’s a world premiere of the movie? Do they really think that low of all of us? Do they think we’re that dumb? Are we that dumb?

They give us reality shows because they are cheaper to make than real entertainment. They give us news shows like fox news that isn’t even real. Fox News will never have to worry about low advertising sales because the republican party would give them all the money they need if it came down to it.

But we still watch? Why? I’ll admit there are a few tv series that are still around that might be worth watching because the networks feel they can’t do away with using people with actual talent altogether.

I like House. I still like Law and Order, even the repeats. Monk is ok. Without a Trace is pretty good. That’s about it for me.

CSI is the most ridiculous show I’ve ever seen yet it’s very popular. For those of you who love this show, one note you really should know. Nothing they do on that show is based on any reality in this dimension.

CSI Techs do not get to interview suspects. They do not get to make arrests. As far as labs go, the CSI units on TV are the only CSI units that have that much high tech gear all in one place. Maybe the CIA or FBI come close. But the budget for a CSI like the one they show on this tv series would be almost as much as the Iraq War.

Just those big high def display screens in every department of the lab would be more than it costs to build another condominum project in Miami. The fingerprint lab has a big screen. The DNA lab has one. The ballistics lab has one. The blood lab has one. On and on.

When you consider the number of techs that work on each case in each episode, a city like Miami would have to have 100 techs on each shift to put that much time into each murder.

But then of course it only takes about 3 minutes to match a set of fingerprints against the entire crime information database for the whole country plus interpol. I know that’s true because I saw it on CSI.

Then it only takes slightly more time, say 5 minutes to use the facial recognition software and match a face in the entire national database.

For those real CSI Tachs out there, I commend you for the work you do. The pressure to get all of the information processed and examined is tremendous. The workload is huge. And for the most part, those techs do a great job.

But if life is to imitate art, you are going to have to start interviewing suspects and making the arrests too, leaving detectives with nothing whatsoever to do besides eat donuts.