NRK lisens

NRK lisensen er noe mange personer ikke liker å betale. Det er en avgift på TV-bruk, uansett om du ser på NRK eller ikke. Så hvorfor har vi NRK lisens? Grunnen til at den finnes, er at NRK skal være uavhengig. NRK skal ikke bli påvirket av profit, og private organisasjoner. Men være en selvstendig riksdekkende kanal. Dette er i seg selv noe som er veldig bra, men det praktiseres ikke fullt ut.

Gang på gang vises det reklame på den den ene kanalen som skal være rekalme fri. Ofte før og etter sportbegivenheter. Hvorfor vise reklame i forbindelse me noen programmer, men ikke andre? Hvorfor vise reklame på NRK i det hele tatt? Grunnen til at vi betale lisens er nettopp for å unngå reklame. Til og med på NRK sine nettsider er det reklame. Se www.nrk.no Nettsidene brude også være reklame frie som BBC sine nettsider.

Nå som vi er inne i den digitale TV hverdagen, trenger alle en digital dekoder for å få inn kanaler. Og alle må forsatt betale NRK lisensen, pluss kanalpakken de velger. Nå må alle velge hvilken kanaler de skal få inn. Hvorfor er det ikke mulig velge om man vil få inn NRK sine kanaler? Hvis man velger å betale lisensen så får du inn NRK. Og hvis du ikke betale får du ikke? Dette er mulig med dagens teknologi.

Det er flere borgerlige partier som samler seg mot NRK lisensen. KRF, Venstre og FRP går inn for å fjerne den. Jeg skjønner hvorfor de vil gjøre det, men er ikke enig i hvordan. Hvorfor ikke velge om man vil få inn NRK, ved å betale lisensen? Det er folk som sier at et alternativ er å gi penger over statsbudsjettet. Men her blir det akkurat det samme som før. Det eneste som er forskjellig er at du slipper å få en regning i posten merket NRK. Men må betale en økning i skatt verdt lisensen vedig. Da blir NRK mindre uavhengig. NRK blir da direkte avhengig av staten. Hvordan vil det påvirke NRK sin dekning av staten Norge og gjeringen? Vil NRK være villig å kritisere de som gir de penger? Jeg sier ikke at det vil skje, men det er en mulighet. NRK sin mulighet til å drive med uavhengig journalistikk vil da være svekket.

Derfor mener jeg at NRK lisens ikke bør fjernes, men være valgfri. Uansett må all reklame ut av vår Norsk RikskringKasting, både på TV og nett.

Er det ikke litt ironisk at rett under info om selve lisensen på nrk sine nettsider, finnes det mye reklame?

Hva er ditt synspunkt?

Frp vil fjerne NRK-lisensen i 2010

Big Brother Bush

On the 10th july 2008 George W. Bush approved a new surveillance bill. A bill that gives the telephone companies who helped the withe house wiretap americans -without warrants- a granted immunity. Immunity for helping the administration brake the current law. The bill also grants the US government to continue with this surveillance.

Quote from the BBC:

“Previous attempts to pass the bill – and allow the warrantless wiretap scheme to continue – had foundered on the issue of immunity for telecom firms.

Democrats had been reluctant to grant the firms immunity, saying the courts should first determine what the companies did.

President Bush – backed by Republicans in Congress – wanted to ensure that firms which had helped his administration would not be liable for prosecution.

The two sides reached a compromise, whereby telephone companies would not be automatically immune, but courts would be obliged to dismiss a suit against a firm if it was able to produce written certification that the White House had asked it to participate in the programme and had assured the firm it was legal”.

This is dangerous. One person in the administration said that “if the government tells you to do something, you should do it”. Even if they are asking you to brake the law? The wiretaps started after 9/11, when people would do anything to prevent a new attack. The telephone companies thought they were doing the right thing, but they were still braking the current law. 

Now they can also easedrop on outside of the US without a warrant. So how decides who to watch? As they don´t need a warrant, they don´t need any evidence to be able to wiretap anyone. The administration decides who, and can do so without showing any evidence that the person has done anything wrong, or has plans to. This is Big Brother at it´s worst. They can listen to everyone for no resoen at all.

Free speech it risk. Because anyone that apposes the current government can be a at risk of coming under surveillance. 

What is the pinot of having warrants is the government can overrule them? Lets say the police are investigating a murder, and want to go through suspects houses. That have to get a warrant to do so. They have to show evidence to a judge to be allowed to go through a house. They cannot just say i think that person may be the killer, they need some prof. So why can the US government be allowed to wiretap anyone they want, without prof.

Some people say that they don´t mind because they have nothing to hide. I would just like to say if you give someone vast amount of information, they are most likely to use it to help themselves.

Would you like allow someone to listening to your phone calls, se the internet pages you visit, read your e-mails? 

Your views?

Here are some links to news articles about this issue:

Bush approves surveillance bill

Bush signerte omstridt avlyttingslov

Bush fikk vedtatt avlyttingslov i Kongressen

Smoking ban in Netherlands

This july the Netherlands joined the growing number of countries, that ban smoking in restaurants and cafes also including coffee shops. There most important reason behind this new law, is that all employees have the right to a smoke-free workspace. But in the Netherlands there is one significant difference to the law than in the other countries. You can still smoke, but only marijuana. And only on it´s own. It is illegal to mix tobacco with marijuana. The Netherlands is well known for it´s liberal views and laws. So it may come as a surprise that they have a smoking ban, but still allow marijuana. I find this strange. Why not ban both? Why allow the strongest of the two? 

At least people can now go out and not breath secondhand smoke. Laws like this have helped bring down the amount people smoke, and number of smokers. People that cannot be around smoke can now enjoy life much better. At the same time I understand that the owners are not in favor of the new ban. Business is not going as well since the law came into place. My words to them are hang in there, it will take some time but people will be back. This is what happened in the other countries. 

Ireland (2004) was the first country to ban smoking in all enclosed workspaces. Norway (2004) followed not long after. New Zealand (2004) was the third country. The United Kingdom (2006) came  with a similar ban a few years later. Denmark (2007) passed a law the nest year. France (2008), followed the next year. Along with Sweden (2008), The Netherlands (2008), and Romania (2008). Some US states ban smoking in the workspace. Bhutan banned all sale and smoking of tobacco back in 2005. And they are the only country yet to do so. 

What are your views on smoking bans?