Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Kill your television!

Last week, via Stacy McDonald's blog, I learned about a news story posted on ABC News's website. It had been announced that the Duggars are pregnant with their 19th child and that their eldest son and his wife are pregnant with their first.

The ABC news website story was a hearty congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Duggar. Right?

Umm, no, it wasn't. Instead of congratulating them and writing with wonder and a little bit of awe that they can keep their brood clothed, fed, clean and well-behaved, ABC posted the most hateful, spiteful, rude and gutter-language laden criticism of the Duggar family. One presumes that the authoress (of course, it was a woman) considers herself something of a feminist and yet she treated Michelle Duggar as if she doesn't have a brain cell to her name and is utterly incapable of speaking for herself.

Since ABC news was the last of the three broadcast networks with any hint of a fig leaf of balance covering their liberal bias, I decided I'd had enough.

I killed my television. Sort of. I removed the digital converter box and hooked up the dvd and vcr.

And then I celebrated by watching, "Waking Ned Devine"


Michael said...

> criticism of the Duggar family.

Totally disgusting. I imagine it gives a hint where we're headed. "Free government healthcare? Not for over 2 children, buster! You're irresponsibly endangering the planet!"

> I killed my television. Sort of. I removed the digital converter box and hooked up the dvd and vcr.

There are some good, worthwhile educational shows on PBS -- history, nature, travel, etc. That is one of the few stations I consider worth watching regularly, though I don't even do that. I did see Part II of a series on the "Grand Lodges of the National Parks" last night, since they were visiting the 1905 "El Tovar" at the Grand Canyon. [Fred Harvey!]

What you could do is tell your converter box to disable the networks and anything else not even worth flipping past, and just keep a station or two.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

At merely having THREE (JUST THREE,mind ya!) I was informed in one by one of my school lessons YEARS ago (42 now) that having more than the statistical level for the US of about 1.7-1.8 rugrats per couple, is endangering the planet.

Though in those days the issue was food resources, and Paul Erlich's BS was still hot off the press and the ink barely dry.

These days it's Global Warming as the nifty, fill-in-the-blank answer to every third question about why the US is a danger to the world (other than military presence, which one presumes fills in the other bubbles on the exams of today...)

Three cheers for procreation...hooray...

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Three sons, that is.

And at that, we may be creating gender imbalances here to boot, in addition to Carbon demons being released at record levels.