Are you familiar with the Channel Channel? Depending on the type of television service you have it varies, with the digital variety being the most state-of-the-art. It’s the channel that shows the schedule of television shows being offered on the other channels to which you subscribe (and to quite a few you probably don’t, or wouldn’t with a gun to your head).\nAnyway, I came inside after shoveling lots of snow recently (contrary to what some of the troglodytes who flame me think, I don’t have people for that) and the Channel Channel was on. Now, on a lot of systems the Channel functions as follows: Only the bottom half (or three-fifths) of the screen is occupied by (scrolling or viewer-scrollable) programming. The top half (or two-fifths) is reserved for distracting advertisements, short pop-culture features and celebrity news. Very highbrow.\nMethane Man was a minute or so clip of a guy dressed as a superhero (tights, mask and so forth) who performed “ in front of an audience and cameras “ various stunts using his own flatulence.\nOn the Channel Channel. In the middle of the day. For my kids to see. As if the periodic mini-deprogramming sessions in which my wife and I have to engage as a result of our children attending public school isn’t enough of a pain in the rear.\nExposure to the intellectual, spiritual, and moral decay in America has officially become inescapable. Of course I’ve installed filtering software on the computer my children use, because even safe websites generally have advertising or other links that eventually lead to decidedly unsavory material.\nWith regard to Methane Man, all I could think of was the proverbial ET mother-ship hovering miles above Earth. As the occupants, monitoring our airwaves view this, their commander gives the order: They’re funky. Destroy them.\nThe American Family Association, an organization that’s been monitoring media since the 1970s, recently shared a review of Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Culture Warrior with its members. In particular, they addressed comments concerning the machinations of billionaire banker George Soros and Peter Lewis, the Chairman of Progressive Insurance:\nFor traditional-minded Americans, George Soros is public enemy number one, the AFA newsletter read, quoting O’Reilly’s book. It went on to inform its members what some Americans already know relative to Soros’ and Lewis’ activities. Peter Lewis owns $1,176,130,144 worth of Progressive stock. That is over one billion dollars worth of Progressive stock! Some of you will remember Lewis donated $8.5 million to the ACLU about a year ago.\nWhat puzzles me to no end is that the people who are transforming America into the Disunited States of Pigdom are a tiny minority. Despite Republican and Democrat base voters and Independents sliding elections results between 60%-40% depending on the way political winds blow, the majority of Americans do not want an ultra-socialist nation that is soft on crime, accepting of all forms of individual self-destructiveness, deviance and debauchery, tolerant of early childhood sexualization, unfettered abortion, pedophiles, and which projects weakness abroad.\nThe search engine Yahoo!‘s Top Ten searches for December 29, 2006 were as follows:\n1. Britney Spears (Pop singer with rapidly disintegrating morals)\n2. Angelina Jolie (Actress, media hound and avowed bisexual)\n3. Lindsay Lohan (Actress, singer, teen icon)\n4. Beyonce Knowles (Pop singer, generic sex kitten)\n5. WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment)\n6. LimeWire (Music file sharing service)\n7. Paris Hilton (Heiress and exhibitionist slut)\n8. James Brown (Recently-deceased legendary Soul singer)\n9. Pamela Anderson (Actress and exhibitionist slut)\n10. iTunes (Music file sharing service)\nAll but three of these are, in my view, pretty scary results. James Brown is understandable because of his professional longevity, groundbreaking work and the fact that he recently passed away. LimeWire and iTunes are less threatening than the remaining seven, but still indicative of another example of social malaise: Our proclivity toward electronic isolation.\nAccording to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 88% of individuals 18-29 are online, 84% of those 30-49, and 71% of those 50-64. Only 53% of those making less than $30,000 per year are online; this curves up to 91% of those making $75,000 or more per year. Only 40% of those who didn’t finish high school are online, as opposed to 84% who responded Some College and 91% who finished college.\nSo it’s hard to credibly offer that the majority of people using search engines are simply morons, young and ignorant or far-Lefters. Yet, the values and interests promoted by the far Left political-entertainment complex seem to be permeating our collective consciousness quite effectively.\nIt’s a matter of public record that between media and political interests, billions are being spent by the far Left in the name of social activism to promote a valueless, morally suicidal culture.\nSo where’s our Soros?\nThe AFA is out there, and the more well-known (and well-excoriated) Focus on the Family, and scores of Christian organizations who decry what’s going on. Mustn’t there be at least one frustrated, morally-grounded billionaire in America willing to put his or her money where their mouth is?\nI’ve made no secret of the fact that given Soros’ cash, my solution to fellows like him and Lewis might land me in the penitentiary. I say might because there are obvious and proven advantages to having that level of financial clout which might serve to neutralize the likelihood of incarceration.\nStill, high-powered rifles aren’t being used by the Left’s billionaire benefactors in their attempts to completely disenfranchise most Americans, particularly the religious. So it stands to reason that the resources of an anti-Soros, similarly applied, could be employed with even more impact given that the majority of Americans are on the same page anyway.\nWhy hasn’t it happened?\nI have a theory: Fear “ like so much of what of what motivates humanity. Let me offer an example: Believe it or not, I frequently work in the area of print and broadcast media advertising. It’s on the production end, thank God, but there’s a phenomenon I’ve noticed that is both disturbing and indicative of how successful the Left’s propaganda machine has been.\nMany business-people who buy or place advertising media, whether conservative or apolitical, are loath to do so in venues they perceive might be considered too conservative. The same people conversely have no qualms whatever with regard to placing media in mainstream venues that are blatantly progressive-left. They hold the perception that everyone patronizes these outlets since they’re so plentiful and hold preeminence in the market. This is fallacious if one looks at statistics addressing newspaper sales, radio listener-ship and network television ratings.\nNewspaper circulation is down nationwide, as are major television network shares. Yet the two top radio markets are country music and talk radio, both of which have a majority conservative audience. Still, intimidated advertisers pussyfoot around the issue of reflecting majority values for fear some Greens, gay activists or the ACLU will descend upon them and take a flamethrower to their business.\nSo-called experts (politicians, academics and diplomats) like to present social issues as complicated so that Americans will continue to defer to their wisdom. The fact is that this one is very easily explained:\n1. Those on our side with the resources lack the stones to act as delicately as men like Soros and Lewis.\n2. We’ve been so inundated with (minority) far Left propaganda that we’re actually beginning to buy it “ hence the 2006 midterm election results, among many other things.\nIndividuals are afraid to express their opinions in the public arena, in the workplace, amongst friends, or via their buying habits; they’re fearful that some deluded, self-righteous, adrenalized far Left cobra might spray venom in their face.\nWell, to hell with that, I say. If I’m to be a voice in the wilderness, I’m going to be an earsplitting, goblet-shattering, seizure-inducing one. Perhaps between me, my colleagues and organizations like Focus and the AFA, we’ll eventually accomplish the same thing.\nWho knows? Maybe we’ll even inspire that anti-Soros out there.