Maggie's Farm

"Apparently, neither does good English."

This is going to sound outrageous to the spelling and grammar dictators, but no it doesn't. The great pretention is that correct spelling and grammar requires discipline and intelligence. I'm here to tell you that English is the most illogical, inefficient and contrary language on the face of the planet (much like the fractional measure system I might add - metric is much better, but that is a whole 'nother discussion) and as such deserves to be treated with scorn. Any person who claims the contrary needs to be put in an asylum for the criminally insane.

For example - to, too, two. Threw, through. Fat, phat. Comma faults - who cares?

As long as the point being made is understood, then why is it important to make sure spelling and grammar are perfect? It doesn't. In fact, I call it Spelling-Grammar Derangement Syndrome. :>)

I have my reasons for this opinion, but it falls under the category of Too Much Information

"...but if I wrote a children's book, I'd want to read it to children, too."

Oddly, that is a good point. However, given that our President has a propensity to speak to Americans and the world in terms of "me, mine and I". And while most politicians have a healthy dose of ego, President Obama takes it to extremes - witness the Berlin speech, the acceptance speech, etc., and the use of the world "I" in most speeches and interviews. You can't blame people if they see it as "oh crap, here he goes again".

Besides, it is Christmas time - wouldn't a Christmas story be more appropriate?

NPR and PBS -- This Time It's the Fight of Their Lives

The problem with NPR and PBS is pretty simple. It used to be that CPB programming was innovative, fresh and entertaining appealing to almost everybody. PBS's NOVA for example was weekly "appointment" viewing with science and nature programming. "Dr. Who" was brought to the country via NPR (first) and PBS (second). Other programs like Masterpiece theatre, concerts, yada, yada, yada. And to be honest, "Morning Edition", "Saturday Morning Edition", "All Things Considered" when you remove the politics, are very entertaining.

The problem is that PBS programming is duplicative - meaning that there is nothing there you can't find on Discovery, History, BBCA, History's INTL in terms of PBS broadcasting. Frankly, there is no reason for PBS to exist anymore as the programming can be found elsewhere.

NPR is a different story - I think it is a valuable addition to the radio broadcast spectrum. The problem is that there are too many stations that use NPR programming. For example, Massachuetts - 16 member stations. CT has 8. Utah has - get this - 8 NPR member stations. Freakin' UTAH!!! Montana - 11!!! Seriously do we need that much replication in radio broadcasting?

The whole CPB system is bloated and inefficient. Restricting their funding will bring back some sanity, perhaps eliminate PBS and get NPR back to what it used to be - innovative, entertaining and enjoyable.

I'm all for it.

True enough. Maggie should start a PAC, donate to some pols and get some earmark money.

If they can earmark money for an studying dog fleas in outterspace, they can earmark money for the most eclectic blog in cyberspace. :>)