Well, here we are again. It was only a couple of summers ago that I was writing about the standoff between cable company Suddenlink, and media giant Viacom. Well, the boys who brought you the annoying,walking and talking sponge are at it again. As I understand it, Viacom is demanding a thirty percent rate increase from Direct TV, for the privilege of providing its list of cable channels like MTV, Nick and Nick Jr., TV Land and quite a few others; this despite sinking ratings.
The Satellite provider has refused the higher rates and has stopped broadcasting the extra networks until such a time as a deal can be struck, but its not going well. Neither side is willing to budge. Now I am not necessarily an opponent of big companies. The person or group who provides goods and services has the perfect right to ask what they want for those goods and services. I’m fine with media, cable and satellite providers making money.
A rising tide lifts all boats. I get it. But I’m increasingly opposed to what I see as Viacom’s shakedowns of every cable and satellite company who carries their channels. The fact is the network giant does the same thing to the carriers as they do to us. They sell their networks in packages, forcing them to pay for unpopular, low rated channels and programming in order to obtain programs that actually sell. Thus, we as customers can’t pick and choose our own lineups.
Now I should say that this is all perfectly legal, however, I read a few different articles in order to better understand the issue, and numerous authors cite the probability that the loss of channels will drive more customers to the likes of Netflix or Hulu where they can not only pick their networks but their individual programs. I’m certainly no expert on how these markets operate, but it seems to me that Viacom is working hard to get as much milk as possible from a dying cash cow, before she finally expires. The company would do better (in my humble opinion) to find a way to give as much choice to the consumer as possible before they go somewhere else entirely.
Houston Pastor Can Use Christ’s Name on Memorial Day
May 29th, 2011I was trolling the area events calendar this morning, looking for a good Memorial Day topic on which to write, and I came upon a story that, to my own discredit I had yet to read about. Every year, a Memorial Day ceremony is held at the Houston National Cemetery, at which, area pastors are asked to participate by saying prayers and making speeches. This tradition has been practiced for over thirty years.
This year’s ceremony was to include an invocation by Pastor Scott Rainey, who has delivered the invocation a couple of times in recent years. This year was different however as he was asked by cemetery director Arleen Ocasio to please submit his prayer in advance. While it seemed unusual, the pastor complied with the request. Upon reading the prayer, director Ocasio notified Pastor Rainey that while the prayer was well written “…I must ask you to edit it …The tone must be inclusive of all beliefs and non-denominational in nature.” Stated clearly, she objected to the prayer because its close was in Christ’s name. This despite the fact that his prayer specifically stated “While respecting people of every faith today, it is in the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord that I pray…” But evidently this precaution was not enough for Ms. Ocasio who told Pastor Rainey that he would have to edit the prayer and remove the offending name of Jesus Christ before he could offer his prayer in public. Failure to make the changes would result in the pastor losing the privilege of speaking at the event. Wait, wasn’t Mr. Rainey chosen on the basis that that he is in fact a pastor, and thus does have a particular religious belief?!
When Mr. Rainey took his case to the Veterans Affairs Department, he was told that cemetery policy was to be non-sectarian, and that they couldn’t intervene. Finally the pastor took his cause to the Federal courts. Fortunately Judge Lynn Hughes agreed with the pastor citing the fact that despite the ceremonies location it was a private event and that forcing Mr. Rainey to edit his speech amounted to a violation of his free speech rights.
The frustrating thing to me (although in my opinion the story ends well), is that the military families scheduled to be present are predominately Christians, who strongly object to the exclusion of their faith, in favor of a tiny minority. No disrespect to Military families of any stripe! But why should the vast, vast majority be required to sacrifice their beliefs to the god of absolute inclusion? The case only illustrates the intellectual chasm that exists between the litigious bureaucratic class and average Americans who are not in fact trying to offend any minorities, but simply want to remember their loved ones in the context of a tradition that happens to be the majority tradition in the United States. I hate to see things like this go to the courts. But when they do, it’s nice to see traditional American values win one on occasion. All that being said, Happy Memorial Day East Texas! We honor our fallen servicemen this weekend. May light perpetual shine upon them.
Tags: 2011 memorial day, Discredit, Federal Courts, Houston Pastor, Invocation, Jesus Christ, Lynn Hughes, Memorial Day, Memorial Day Weekend, Name Of Jesus, National Cemetery, Pastors, Prayer Director, Precaution, Privilege, Public Failure, Religious Belief, Scott Rainey, Sectarian, Speeches, Texas memorial day weekend, Thirty Years, Veterans Affairs Department
Posted in Socio-Political Commentary | No Comments »