Skinny TV

I currently live in Korea and have but few viable television options. I am not much of a TV person anyway but occasionally my interest is spiked by Fashion TV (yes the wife laughs at me while I channel surf through the lingerie segments). There is one real problem; would someone please feed these girls!!! I like healthy women, in shape but shapely. Maybe someone else agrees:

The world's first ban on overly thin models at a top-level fashion show in Madrid has caused outrage among modeling agencies and raised the prospect of restrictions at other catwalk pageants.

"FEED THEM!!!

Speaking of television it seems that finally a big name has come to terms with a way to sell a service many of us enjoy for free (yep, I do have a friend with knowledge and a connection that has hooked me up with dozens of channels right on my laptop – if only I were really a TV person):

AT&T Inc. is launching an Internet TV service where subscribers can watch live cable channels such as Fox News on any computer with a broadband connection for $20 per month.

You can bet I will not be watching a lot of Fox News but it is an interesting concept all the same.

And what about the ancient technology of analogue television frequencies? It seems that many enterprising companies have their eyes on those abandoned frequencies for future use. I would like to see some of that bandwidth reserved for the amateur radio operators of the world. Those guys are amazing; unique and strange, but amazing: "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday set a roadmap for making airwaves between television channels available for other services by early 2009, when broadcasters are due to switch to digital signals." Of course I am not certain the Constitution even authorizes the FCC so there is that to consider.

Dr. Walter Williams asks what must be a rhetorical question:

Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on 'objects of benevolence'? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?

As usual he is right on the mark in this essay.

Darrell Dow hits on the Iraq/al-Qaida issue (sorry had to sneak one of those in):

On Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report scrutinizing Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion. "What was the gist of the report, Darrell? Boil it down," you say. Well, OK, the administration claims linking Iraq and al-Qaida were complete balderdash. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support."

Here is a pretty in-depth take on the same issue from a much more liberal fellow.

Finally, Johnny points out a link to an essay that answers the mail on the issues I raised in my last post, i.e. disconnect. This is pretty darn close to the armed neutrality theory of foreign policy so dear to most of us Paleoconservatives. It is simple: lock down the border to folks that are not coming here to benefit us, run any ruffians out, stay out of the affairs of other people and kick the stuffing out of anyone that actually presents the capability and intention to do us harm. (Not the imagined intent or made up capability but real capacity.)