In the months since the 2008 elections I’ve been treated to a water-torture “drip, drip, drip” of stories wherein all sorts of allegedly knowledgeable people tell me that the GOP is a goner, a dinosaur slowly sinking in the tarpits, a hopeless relic that must become more… or, rather, less…. well, something other than what it is. In short, if the party wants to succeed, they’ve got to leave behind a number of positions that these people 1) think define us and 2) they don’t like.
Mike Murphy over a TIME (yes, a really Republican-friendly publication, isn’t it?) predicts a Republican Ice Age is coming and, if the party doesn’t evolve, it’s gonna die. (The article comes complete with a GOP-colored mammoth taking the place of the usual elephant. Clever.) After pointing out that Obama took normally-Republican Indiana in the elections and did so on the strength of the Latino vote, he finally gets around to telling us what he thinks needs to be done:
Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House. The pro-life movement can still be a central part of the GOP — it has support among all ages (and a slim majority of Latino voters) — but the overall GOP view on abortion must aggressively embrace the big tent.
So, the answer is (on these issues of some import to GOP core values) to become more Democrat. We’ll win like crazy, I guess, if we just take the opponent’s side on things. Now me, personally, I’ve got very little issue with gay rights. But I have to wonder what Murphy’s thinking here when more states who have put constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages on the ballots have passed them than haven’t – and that passage came with the overwhelming support of the Latino community. If all of these young voters were demanding a more “socially libertarian” GOP why are they voting the more conservative position when given the chance?
My issue’s not with whether the GOP should move to the left in these matters. It’s with pundits like Murphy once again calling us dead when the proof says otherwise.
June 12th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics, The Media |
2 comments
Today marks the day when TV stations around the country will turn off the analog signal broadcasting gear they’ve been running side-by-side with their newer digital stuff. Not only will the broadcast type be different, some stations are actually shifting broadcast frequencies. From Fox News:
Any sets hooked up to cable or satellite feeds are unaffected. Newer, digital TVs that get broadcasts through antennas — and older sets hooked up to converter boxes — should be fine, but they will need to be set to “re-scan” the airwaves, to find stations that move to new frequencies Friday.
Some people might also need new antennas, because digital signals travel differently than analog ones. While an analog station that came in imperfectly might have had static but remained viewable, digital generally comes in all or nothing. Indeed, one of Bruchalski’s newly available stations looked pixelated, and Ebling said she might have to get a different antenna.
The shutdown of analog channels frees up the airwaves for modern applications like wireless broadband and TV services for cell phones. It was originally scheduled for Feb. 17, but the government’s fund for $40 converter box coupons ran out of money in early January, prompting the incoming Obama administration to push for a delay. The converter box program got additional funding in the national stimulus package.
One of the facts that’s not well-known outside of technical circles is that analog TV broadcasts are very inefficient in terms of their usage of frequency spread and bandwidth. Digital signals can be spaced more closely on “the dial” and this offers a golden opportunity when all of those analog broadcasts cease. You see, the broadcast spectrum that analog TV takes up has been reserved for TV’s use for decades – the whole spectrum, whether it’s been in local use or not. So, even though your town only has broadcasters on channels 3, 5 and 9, all the frequencies belonging to channels 2 – 12 were still unavailable for use for anything else. Moving broadcasters to a narrower frequency range means we’ve got lots of available spectrum now for things like wireless broadband, navigational information, etc. All kinds of new information services can be delivered like that.
Should be an interesting few years as this gets sorted out.
June 12th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Human Interest, Politics, Technology |
no comments
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter