Well, What Do We Have Here? The FCC, CBS and Kamala Harris

Is this sort of like a James Comey moment when he had just a small shred of integrity in 2016 when he announced just days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, supposedly on the merits?

Oh wait. No. It wasn't that at all. He was sure that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump, and he thought releasing that information would offer him some cover, just in case he was wrong about that. You see, if you remember, Trump had some very serious questions about Comey's actions, even suggesting some of them may be criminal, and if Trump would have control of the Justice Department, that could present some issues for Comey.

Well, that and his thought that if the information were to come out after Clinton was elected, she'd be considered an illegitimate president. According to Hillary, she contended that Comey's announcement, which came on October 28th, 11 days before the November 8th election, was part of the reason she lost.

Now we have a formal complaint filed with the FCC by the Center for American Rights regarding the recent CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that was found to be edited in a way that could be an effort to mislead the American people.

A serious accusation, by the way, and one that the FCC may have to also take seriously. But it also opens a broader speculation, which has always been clear to some people, but now may wind up being clearer to more people similar to Comey's announcement.

"Maybe Clinton did actually do something bad here. And even something very illegal."

"When broadcasters manipulate interviews and distort reality, it undermines democracy itself," said Daniel Suhr, who is the president of the Center for American Rights. The FCC must act swiftly to restore public confidence in our news media."

It's one thing to believe that the media has it "in the bag" for Kamala Harris. It's entirely another for it to be glaringly obvious and irrefutable. On top of that, it's dangerous that certain details be kept from the public in an obvious attempt to protect her.

When she was asked about American-Israeli relations, in the aired interview she answered, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end." What she actually said was, "Well Bill, the work we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in that region."

As Suhr put it, it's not about editorial considerations in the news media. It's about distorting the news, which falsely represents a candidate or otherwise causes people to potentially have a different view.

Gosh, where has he been in the past decade or so regarding Trump news coverage? But I digress.

The thing is that, and not that it's all that big a surprise, the news media is covering for Kamala Harris and have been for a long time, just like they were covering for Joe Biden. It's simply wrong. It's not the media's job to campaign for or provide cover for candidates. It's their job to report the truth, fair and simple. They owe it to the American people to do that because every time we turn on the news, we are supposed to trust them to give it to us straight, and that trust has been eroding for a very long time. Things like this just serve to speed up that erosion.

There's a bit of a deeper question here as well. So, that clip was found. Or was it leaked? Perhaps by someone within CBS who is not favorable to Harris? Hey, they can't all be die-hard liberals, can they? The clip came out before the "edited" interview aired. But unlike other interviews, CBS has thus far refused to release the transcripts of the full interview.

The question is why? What other answers were edited? Were there some word salads in there that someone thought, "Oh, we probably don't want to show that?" Or, worse, some worse answers that would cause some people to cringe a little bit at the thought of her being in the White House?

Because we know how she talks. We've seen it too many times to count in the past. And we know that she's had great cover since she was announced as the Democratic nominee, making a concerted effort to keep her well on script to reign her in as much as possible.

Whether or not the FCC does anything with the complaint is to be seen. But perhaps there may be some political considerations in acting or not acting similar to political considerations Comey made in 2016. Either way, the filing is in the news. People are going to know about it. Will this revelation of an edited interview have any impact in November? That's to be seen.

I mean, I do think we are reaching a tipping point of some sort here when it comes to the media. From wall-to-wall negative Trump coverage to the cover up of Joe Biden's health and hiding policy positions Harris had before she was the nominee and making her seem like an entirely different person than she was.

I think consumers of news are becoming a bit fatigued and are tired of the lies and misleading coverage.

What the FCC has to decide now is whether they want to ensure they have some cover no matter who wins in November. Because this kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and Trump wins and he might direct the FCC to do something, or Harris wins, and they have to look like they are acting in an actual regulatory manner as opposed to doing the bidding of a political party.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Can We Just Dispel the Trump Project 2025 Myth Once and for All?

You know, this whole Project 2025 thing irks me to no end, because here we have this document, that has been put out by conservatives in The Heritage Foundation, that has now become attached to Donald Trump regardless of whether Donald Trump has anything to do with it.

It's the latest buzz word on the left, and you hear it in the media, talked about by pundits and commentators, it's been mentioned several times at the Democrat National Convention—in their mind it's Trump's "world order," and that's that.

Even if it isn't, and even if the people saying it probably know full well it isn't.

Just like so many other things in the past launched against Donald Trump, nothing has to be true. Nothing has to have merit. You only need to say it happened and it becomes true.

Russia collusion, the impeachments, the indictments, the felony conviction—all of these are things the left will hang onto regardless of whether or not Russia collusion was proved to be a hoax, regardless of whether or not there was any real reason to impeach Trump, or regardless of whether a conviction actually followed a real crime.

There are still people wholly convinced Trump wants to be a dictator. "But he said it. It's on video. He said he wanted to be a dictator on day one!"

Only an idiot believes that, because when you add in the part where he said, "I want to drill baby drill and secure the border and then I won't be a dictator anymore," makes it clear that what he was saying is that he would simply use the powers of executive orders on day one to restore policies he had in place when he was president before.

To me, there is a real easy fix here. All the media has to do is scour through the Project 2025 document and match up Trump's former policy positions and current policy positions and see where things fall. They could easily do this and point out specific areas in the document that the former president clearly does not support.

Of course, that would require honesty and integrity in reporting. Something that the media abandoned probably decades ago by now. Besides, how can they try to use Project 2025 as some scary new world order manifesto unless they can simply tie it to Trump and leave it at that?

Wouldn't this be simple fact checking? I mean, we can trust the fact checkers, right? I digress. The reality is that even with most fact checking, it's not a team of people looking into something and saying, "Make it right." It's a group of people simply saying, "Make it so."

What makes matters worse is the power the media has over people's minds. Not so much on the right. Conservatives actually want to know what's going on. But the left will buy anything the media sells them without any question. 

Sure, some are going to simply say to me, "Well, you say Trump's not associated with Project 2025 because you support Trump." To that I say, I actually know what Trump's positions are because I have read them. I have seen them. I have heard them. So, I can look at parts of Project 2025 and know it does not align with Trump at all.

I mean, it may sound silly to suggest it, but what if we went all the way back to the formation of the KKK, which was formed by Democrats, by the way. Would we have automatically said that anything published by the KKK was a manifesto supported by all Democrats or the party itself? Would it have been a Democrat document? 

No. 

Sure, did some Democrats support parts of any KKK doctrine? Yes. Does Trump support some elements of Project 2025? Yes. But all of it? Hardly.

But again, that's the job of the media to tell us one way or the other how much of the claim that Trump is associated with Project 2025 is true. Beyond that, it's their job to point out specifically, especially the most radical parts of it, that are not true.

The reality is that truth is a really hard thing to come by these days, and never before in American history has it been more paramount for all Americans to shut off their TV's and start doing their own homework. Because no one's going to give it you straight anymore, and it's their word against ours. 

The fact is that Trump is not associated with Project 2025, and I say that because so much of what's in it simply does not line up with things Trump has said and done or is saying now. It's a document borne from a conservative think tank that is simply their idea of how things should be. It is not a mandate and certainly is not a directive that Trump is going to follow to govern by.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

You Won't Win an Election by Insulting the Voter's Intelligence

I have to ask, "How is insulting voter's intelligence a winning campaign strategy?" Because that seems to be entire strategy of the Democrat party and the media. Well, sham trials and a weaponized justice system notwithstanding, of course.

Now they are running with the latest Trump comment. Trump says he doesn't care about his voters in scorching heat rally.

Give me a break. Really? Look, there is video on this. Trump did say that. But one look at the video and anyone with even half a brain immediately makes out that he was speaking tongue in cheek. Not only was it a joke. He was clearly mocking the media.

As he was speaking to the crowd the wind blew and he praised the breeze. He said, in an after all sort of way, "I don't want anyone going anywhere. I don't care about you. I just want your vote." Which is as direct a jab against the media narrative that he is a narcissist dictator in the making as one can make.

He smiled and chuckled. The crowd laughed. The crowd got the joke. There is no, "Oh, there he goes again, gotcha," moment. But of course the media thinks it is. Biden thinks it is too, as I am sure his comment will make it into a Biden campaign ad somewhere.

A deep and ominous voice will boom on the screen, "Would you vote for a convicted felon who doesn't care about you?"

It's coming. Just wait for it.

Like almost everything the left is doing, I think this backfires on them just as bad as everything else they've tried has. And I think what they (the Democrats) are doing is simply wearing the voters out. People are getting tired of all of this Trump bashing and hatred. Because the reality is that the country is on fire, and no one is bringing water. They're just trying to point out the arsonist.

And by the way, we all know the real arsonist is the accuser.

It's just dumb. It's dumb to suggest Trump did anything but tell a joke and mock the media. He even said, "The press is going to take that and say I said a horrible thing." Because that's what they always do. The left and media think we're stupid. They think we will fall for anything they tell us.

Granted. Some might. Some will. Because there are die-hard haters out there so deep in their TDS they walk around like zombies. Instead of chanting, "Brains," as they wander aimlessly about, they chant, "Trump."

Trump did say he didn't care about his voters. But even if that's what he said, that's not what he said, and the context is everything. The smile and the chuckle is everything. It's the defining moment. It was when the joke was made clear as a bell.

I don't think the voters are stupid. Not the majority anyway. So, I say, let them run with this nonsense. Let them keep shooting themselves in the foot. Let them keep taking eggs to the face from their own inside throwers.

It's only going to more solidly seal Trump's win in November.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Are They Conspiracies or Simply Truth Being Hidden for Power?

I used to trust my government, and it was often that I sided with the government stating things like, "The government sometimes keeps secrets that are secrets for the good of the people and to protect our national security and other interests."

But recently there have simply been too many things that have caused me to be on the side of questioning everything. The bottom line is, "Who can we trust, and why should we trust them?"

Our government has never been by, for and of the government. It has always been by, for and of the People. But it seems like the government has turned that around to favor only their interests, and to function outside of the interests of the We the People.

To what end, is of course the question?

Not that certain government agencies haven't always been up to sometimes nefarious things. The FBI, for example, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, at a time when there was thought to be massive and clandestine infiltration of communists, gathered all sorts of information on certain Americans—mostly celebrities and public figures. But how do we know it never went farther than that? How do we know that this didn't just become the foundation for what is now the types of information that is gathered?

Not just on public figures. But on every single American? I honestly think not only is the FBI still doing it, along with other of our federal law enforcement arms like the CIA and NSA, but they have amped up the game and joined forces with other unscrupulous people either through coercion or cooperation, or even both.

How much information might Jack Dorsey, the former founder and CEO of Twitter, have offered to certain government agencies? Or how about Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook? Even Jeff Bezos can't be left out or even the late Steve Jobs with the introduction of smart devices and things like Alexa. 

Essentially the government could know everything about you. Including your opinions and political leanings.

It creates a very scary and dangerous world, if you ask me, and it seems so obvious some of these things are happening, and few people seem to be worried about it. It worries me to think about it because it's not where I came from regarding my thoughts and perspective.

Again, I trusted the government and felt that what it did was in the interest of us. We the People.

But the Justice Department isn't really working properly. We can see that with the fervor and tenacity by which they are going after former president Donald Trump. The FBI can be questioned in a great deal of their actions, motivations and intent.

Spying on political campaigns. Perhaps having some involvement in the coordination of January 6th. The persecution of all sorts of conservatives who questioned the election or had any association or involvement with Trump. It's either jail or we'll bankrupt you, take your pick.

The covid pandemic has brought numerous things to light as well. All of the information that was disseminated was kept centralized—trust the CDC and only the CDC. And just like election deniers, anyone who questioned where covid came from or how to deal with it were quickly shut down.

Did social media companies decide to simply go with the CDC and label any question that did not follow the CDC's directives as misinformation? Or was it an "or else" proposition forced by the government to comply and tell the story "as the government wanted it to be told?"

Even more regarding covid, how come we later learned it never came from a bat, but from a lab in Wuhan, and that it was funded by the U.S. government? What was their intent? Was there intent?

Was covid simply a last-ditch effort to get rid of a sitting president they felt never should have been sent to the White House? Was it an effort to test control over the population? 

As I have said many times previously about these things, including whether or not the 2020 election was above board or not, we will likely never have the whole story. We're never going to find the real answers. We may get bits and pieces, but the whole story will probably forever remain a secret.

But not to protect the people. To protect the government and their interests. Not ours.

Cynicism is something badly amiss in this country. Maybe more people are starting to get it? That we need to question our government more than ever? That we need a media that is not engaged in politics, and not supporting one side or the other, but engaged in getting to the truth.

When you think about it, beyond the powers of government, the founders of this great nation allowed the absolute, untouchable freedom of the press so as for it to serve as the eyes and ears to oversee all of the other branches of our government, and hold them accountable, and serve the public by telling the real story.

The Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment was perhaps the biggest and most powerful check and balance we could ever have been afforded.

And now we can't trust the media either.

It pains me to have to be branded a conspiracy theorist these days the more I find myself questioning things. But at the same time, I do wonder if the label "conspiracy theorist" is just another way to silence the questions and make rational thought sound crazier than it actually is?

Anyone can laugh it all off and call someone like me observing things from a rather cynical perspective just a tin-hat nutjob. That's their right, of course. At the same time, it is not something I feel or express because I want to bring down my government or shut down my country. These are simply questions I want answers to so as to preserve and protect the integrity and beauty of what our founding fathers created.

When government becomes more powerful and bigger than the people it serves, it can never remain one that is by, for and of the People. And it's not who sits in the White House who threatens our nation the most. It's the deep-rooted bureaucracies who truly control everything. 

If we, the People, allow them to.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Quick Shout: Aluminum Prices Are Down, Not Up

Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not! Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 6, 2018

IT MAY WELL BE A SHORT TERM EVENT. IT MAY EVEN BE AN ANOMALY. REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, THE FACT IS THAT ALUMINUM PRICES ARE DOWN, NOT UP, SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPOSED A 10% TARIFF ON IMPORTED ALUMINUM.

And POTUS is right to tout this, and to point that out, as he indeed did in a recent tweet.

I said a while back, after so much hoopla surrounding the president's decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs that he knows what he is doing, and that when you get right down to the brass tacks of the matter...

Tariffs are not what this is all about. (If You Think Steel Tariffs Are About Steel Tariffs...You Are Missing the Point)

It is being reported that aluminum prices are down 4% since Trump announced he would impose the tariffs. I also said that you shouldn't be surprised that not everyone gets what these tariffs actually wish to achieve...

And beware anyone selling anything made out of steel or aluminum will gouge you with no foundation whatsoever for what they are doing—that they will do this based solely on the IDEA that all tariffs are bad, and that the only logical conclusion can be that tariffs will drive prices higher.

And yes, there is historical data to suggest that that could well be the case if what Trump wished to achieve was only to impose a tariff.

And as I said, that's not what his intention was at all. In the most basic of terms what I said was that Trump's intent was to level the playing field, force bad players to play fair, and more importantly to open a dialogue.

Like I said before, any prices on the end product are simply false increases. Reactionary increases. And pure gouging. The president has this, and I think it will be clear on all fronts when all is said and done that the market will stabalize, jobs will be left intact, and all of this chatter that we're creating a trade war and sinking our own ship will prove to be...

A pack of jibberish.

Quick Shout: Hollywood Just Needs to Can It About Russia

I’m dumping my @facebook stock and deleting my page because @facebook profited from Russian interference in our elections and they’re still not doing enough to stop it. I encourage all other investors who care about our future to do the same. #unfriendfacebook pic.twitter.com/KHWgZzhhmp

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) February 6, 2018

WHEN WILL IT END, I WONDER? I am to the breaking point when it comes to this continuing narrative by the MSM and some of these idiots in Hollywood that the Russians essentially stole the election from Hillary Clinton. The thing is that we all know all too well that the facts just DO NOT BEAR OUT. They are beating a dead horse. And it's just making them look even more foolish than we already knew they were.

YES, it has been acknowledged that the Russians did pay for some ads. But what influence would that ultimately have? I mean think about it. What influence did the fucking polls have on swaying republican voters that Donald Trump had no chance of becoming president to stay home?

This is just becoming tiring and stupid. Puerile is a word that also comes to mind.

Quick Shout: Due Process Seriously Lacking For Accused

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2018

All along since all of this began, or at least became notable with the Harvey Weinstein thing, I never once wanted to discredit the victims of unscrupulous men in Hollywood, or anywhere else for that matter. Molesters, rapists, and wife beaters should never be held above the law regardless of their social status, political affiliations, or how much money they have in their bank accounts. At the same time I have also felt that somewhere along the line we have indeed lost something in the way of due process. It seems to me that these days people can easily make an accusation, and once that accusation becomes public, true or not, in the eyes of many, and especially within the MSM, becomes a truth that can never be proven false regardless of what evidence may be there to disprove it.

I want for people to be held accountable to the full extent when they do something untoward or vulgar. And I don't particularly care who it is. Democrat, republican, Hollywood elite on either side of that aisle, sports star, musician, or even the President of the United States. But due process should still be something at least available to anyone who is accused.

We begin to run down that proverbial slippery slope without due process since with all of the "popularity" of accusation in high profile circumstances, this could easily trickle down to the regular folks like you and I.

What is to stop a subordinate, for example, of simply telling someone higher in the echelon that you touched inappropriately? And what's to stop that company you work for of making a decision to fire you based solely on the accusation, regardless of whether or not there is proof to back it up?

People's lives and careers can easily be ruined. Something that is fair in the event that the accusations are true. But if there is no recourse for the accused to defend him or herself, and is only left to suffer the fallout of the accusation without due process, what kind of a world do we become? What kind of a society do we become? And just like how the left has virtually stymied the impact of real racism, before you know it the seriousness and impact of victims of sexual abuse and harassment becomes equally stymied.

The News Will Claim American Express As An Example of Trump Failure

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN NEARLY ALL BUT SILENT IN REPORTING THOSE MULTITUDES OF COMPANIES WHO HAVE REPORTED EMPLOYEE BONUSES AND WAGE INCREASES DUE TO THE TRUMP TAX CUTS. But you can bet there is one story that will make their news all day, and probably for a week or more, and that's American Express announcing that due to a $2.6 billion increased charge in taxes due to the Trump tax cuts, they will be suspending their share buyback program.

I say this even though in the eyes of liberals those share buybacks are just for the greedy shareholders anyway—that's not why they'll hit this one full force.

It's a negative story in their eyes, and they'll want to point this out as the leading example that they are right and the GOP is wrong that the tax cuts will benefit anyone. Even though STILL American Express has also said that they feel the tax cuts are a benefit in the long term, good for the company, and good for America.

The news media will assuredly leave that part out, or not highlight it nearly as much. It's what they always do.

Just another reason to make sure that when you are following any news source, it is not the only news source. And you also have to make sure to cut through the smoke to get to the real truth of the matter. Why is American Express incurring the extra charges? In a nutshell it is related to how they were dealing with accounting under the old tax laws—and as a result their capital ratios changed.

What else will not be reported? Invariably and assuredly the fact that they will also be making incremental contributions to their employee profit sharing plans to adjust for the differences. In other words...

American Express is eating the expense and NOT putting the burden on the backs of the people who work for them.

There is really nothing at all negative about this story at all. No one is getting hurt. Not really. But I bet you the news will not tell you that. I'd be willing to wager a bet in fact. Just watch, wait, and see. It'll be all they can talk about and point to when they get their panels gathered to talk about the evil corporations and the "Armageddon" Nancy Pelosi warned us about.

From Shitholes to DACA

THE DEMOCRATS WILL OBVIOUSLY STOP AT NOTHING TO TRY TO DENIGRATE AND DENOUNCE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And the latest accusation made against President Donald Trump that, in talks over DACA, referred to some foreign nations as shitholes is just another glaring example of this.

Whether or not the statement was actually made, to my mind, is not necessarily the issue. Granted, it is a bit of a poor statement to make. But, if you are thinking of it in more realistic terms, is it really that far from the truth?

The people of these countries, if the statement was made, is not what the president probably was referring to in any event. If the statement was made, it was more of a direct statement against the governments of these countries which defile their populace, and place their lives into chaos such that they potentially become less than desirable in their attitudes, and potentially even their impact in other communities in which they may become a part...

SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES IF THEY COME HERE.

Is it really racist to make such a statement? I don't think so. It merely points out the obvious in more ways than one. And what about the situation in, for example, Muslim countries. Are these people products of their environments? Their upbringing? Their religious and government leaders?

YES.

And so their attitudes toward life, liberty, economic status, societal contribution and any number of other things is influenced by the attitudes of their leaders, and the conditions in which they live in their own countries. If we make a statement about this it is not a racist statement. It is a simple observation of what are largely verifiable facts.

Democrat senator Dick Durbin of Illinois made remarks that he couldn't believe such racist and vile remarks had ever come from the Oval Office at any time in America's past history. But the reality is that there have been well documented reports of rather racist remarks made by even Lyndon B. Johnson. And certainly there had to have been rather colorful language even in the early days of the Office of the President, such as before the Civil War—granted, those were different times and this is now 2018.

But one can imagine what may have been more than a few comments during the Civil Rights Movement.

NONETHELESS, UNIMPORTANT.

The real reason the dems are launching, yet again, attacks against the president is because—and people should FINALLY be getting around to understanding this—trying to paint a narrative that the president is racist, vulgar, unfit, and even mentally unstable. None of which are particularly true. They so badly want this to be the reality that they will go to every length to make it seem apparent.

DO I APPRECIATE IT IF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY SAID THIS? Like I said before I think if he did, it was a very poor choice of words, even if I believe the underlying point of that statement would have some truth to it. Do I think it ultimately matters if he said it?

Look, if we weren't concerned over the content of the emails between Clinton and her cohorts which were actually downright mean, and if we weren't concerned with the events of Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, or four dead Americans in Benghazi, and all of the events leading up to those events which actually harmed people, I think the entire narrative trying to be forced down our throats about this are made moot.

The president is working with highly combative and uncooperative democrats who have no other desire but to discredit and disparage the president at every opportunity. In the DACA talks I would be absolutely shocked to learn that dems were not engaged, in some form or fashion, in making every effort to lead the president into a snare just so that they could come back afterwards and make a public stink about the effect without reporting the cause.

What's more, perhaps even if the statement was not made in the manner in which it has been implied, the question is still a good one. Yes. Exactly. If they, the democrats, are so determined and adamant that these people deserve to be here and stay here, tell us why. Drop the rhetoric and touchy-feely garbage and actually come up with a compelling reason in favor of their argument that we should have a different thought about the program, the people, and the benefits or lack thereof of the whole thing.

Really, at some point the democrats need to just move on, get back to the work of the American people as the president is trying to do—and quite frankly just grow the fuck up. Their temper tantrum has gone on long enough and it is getting more than a little old—and quite frankly is terribly distracting.

Something, however, tells me that the democratic party, still not able to fully comprehend their dramatic loss in 2016, is incapable of being the adult in the room.

There Is No History on History

SO, ONE MIGHT ASK WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE HISTORY CHANNEL ISN'T REALLY ABOUT HISTORY? Well, perhaps it is no different than what has happened to so many other "niche" cable channels before it, and presumably that will also come after it.

The Discovery Channel is far removed from what it originally was. So is TLC for that matter. And probably one of the first of the cable channels I can remember who made their mark that left their old purpose and format was none other than MTV.

DID YOU KNOW THAT AT ONE TIME MTV, ALSO KNOWN AS MUSIC TELEVISION, ACTUALLY AIRED MUSIC?

Yeah. MTV got its start doing 24 hours of music video presentation. So did VH1. Neither of those channels even compares to their former selves. They ditched that old programming what seems like a decade or more ago.

I am SURE it all has to do with ratings. Or, perhaps stated better, the lack of any. Maybe there is indeed another reason behind the changes these channels make to their lineups. But as republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put it once on Twitter, "Again no history. Change name of channel to 'Et Cetera.'"

AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO CARES RIGHT?

Yeah. I'll admit. There is some truth to that. Life is full of many more important things to get our panties in a bunch over. If nothing else, when you tune into The History Channel or Discovery or MTV, you ALREADY KNOW you're not going to get what the channel's name suggests as far as programming is concerned.

But I also think, despite the dollars and cents and the grab for ratings, why can't we simply have some channels in our cable choices that cater to smaller audiences who want specifically what those channels are offering? I mean, all of us certainly PAY ENOUGH to the satellite and dish and cable companies for all of those channels. 

Why do all 300 channels have to have the same, "most popular" content? Why do they all have to follow each other and all do the same thing? How is that choice? How is that better than what we had before? How does this differentiate one channel from the other? And then, if they are all going to have the same content, why have all the channels?

I really DON'T CARE AT THE END OF THE DAY what any of these channels decide to do with their programming. I generally narrow my choices down anyway. But one thing it DOES say to me is that eventually what it will do is push people more and more away from cable companies, and pave the way for either channels to individually compete on a separate basis, or will pave the way for alternative companies to set up shop and let people pay for the exact programming they are interested in watching. 

RIGHT NOW THESE CHANNELS GET PAID WHETHER YOU WATCH OR NOT. If things go a different direction and people pay for individualized content, channels like these won't be able to command as much from advertisers, and they will have to cater to very specific audiences with programming that matters pertinent to what they call themselves.