by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday December 06, 2004 @07:25PM (#11011988)
PTC lost a LOT of their political clout after WWE kicked their ass in court [washingtonpost.com] a couple years ago. Other targets should repond the same way.
These people just got the president re-elected. They have more power today then they have ever had. Not only does the president agree with them pretty much 100% he is indebted to them for his election.
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
I'm replying to this anonymously, becasue I've lost enought karma over this election.
Frankly, I think the "The Christians put Bush in the white house" argument is a bunch of bull and just another excuse why Kerry lost without pointing the finger at Kerry himself.
If that was the case, then how the hell did Clinton win against Dole in 96? The Christian fundemantilist movement wanted Clinton out so bad it wasn't even funny. They saw Clinton as a Morality Void soul that killed babies, smoked dope, loved Gays
Dole was a horrible canidate, and Perot took away alot of his votes.
Carter was an Evangelical... but he was a liberal one... he probably pissed off the fundies more then Clinton did, one of the reasons Reagan was elected.
The man could not do sincere, and being a senator, with the public voting record, made it easy to determine his policies, regardless of what came out his mouth.
Perot didn't take any that many votes from Dole. You are thinking the PRIOR election, when Perot killed GB 41's chances of re-election by capturing 20% of the national vote. Perot was pretty marginalized by the 1996 election. I can't think of any state that Clinton won by less than the margin that Perot recieved, thus making Perot's showing irrelevent.
I was one of those that voted for him in 92 and worked for United We Stand as a founding member. Before discovering he was basically a nut, and wasn't ju
It is pretty obvious that a huge block of the people for Bush (including all Bush supporters I know) were more concerned about Terrorism or economic policies or taxes or the free market than about "moral issues". They believe that Bush would be better for the economy or their safety or for their future, and the extreme conservative social values are a *problem* with Bush, but don't outweigh their desire for Bush's other policies. Trying to claim that Kerry lost because of a small group of religous bigots is just an attempt by the left to pretend that only crazy people disagree with them.
The best proof of the unimportance of the "moral majority" is that they are starting to go crazy with attempts to kill any change to the constitution to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to be president. You would think the liberals would be the ones trying to stop it, but they are not. The "moral majority" knows that Arnold would easily win the Republican nomination despite the fact that he disagrees with their "majority" on virtually everything.
Arnold is a California Republican. He'd be a democrat in most of the rest of the states.
I oppose ammending the constitution to allow him to run. I especially dislike the one that simply makes it so that you have to have been a resident of the USA for fourteen years(which is already there, you can't be president if you've been a US citizen living abroad until fourteen years later). I'd rather change the age requrement to a "Has been a United States Citizen for at least thirty-five years" than that one.
Yes, and I think a growing population with preferences similar to yours exists, and will become the next large voting block of the Republican party. That is if the evangelicals currently running things realize that they'll need new blood to stay in power and shift toward the center. If the Democrats don't do the same, I'd imagine that these people will break off and make a new party. We saw the possibilty of that with Perot in 92, I think given the current state of things, buy the 2012 elections, there w
I'm just curious... Are you pro-death penalty as it's implemented in this country, or just in theory? In an ideal world, I think that there is true justice in a fair and reasonable application of the death penalty. If a person is convicted by a jury of their true peers, then once they've exhausted their appeals it's toasty time for them.
My problem with the implementation in this country is that it seems all too often that if you've got enough money to pay a good legal team t
Yes, but that doesn't mean that everybody who thinks George Bush has better morals than John Kerry is an Evangelical Christian. Nor does it mean that everyone in a Red state is one as well. Nor does it mean that everybody who voted for Bush is one again. I think that greater mobilization among Evangelicals is responsible for Bush being relected, but to say that even 20% of americans are that hard line is silly. ( and I believe it was 22% that stated morals, but nearly as many said the economy 21% and ter
"Yes, but that doesn't mean that everybody who thinks George Bush has better morals than John Kerry is an Evangelical Christian"
I think it does. Why else would somebody claim that Bush has better morals then Kerry? Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in both iraq and afghanistan and opened up the guantanamo concentration camps.
"Nor does it mean that everyone in a Red state is one as well."
No, not everybody but most. Have ever traveled in the south? I have, most towns have more churc
The exit polls disagree with you. Christian/moral values were the reason most sited by bush voters.
I hate that people keep interpreting the poll results this way. It's a possible explanation, but still a significant leap.
The poll was multiple choice, for one thing. So, let's say I hate most of GW Bush's policies, and I think he's made some horrible decisions, but... I don't trust Kerry. His voting record is horrible and his character is more than questionable. His running mate made his fortune as an ambulance chaser, and these guys' most vocal supporters are folks like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.
So... let's see... Why did I vote for Bush?
Taxes... no
Education... no
Iraq... not really, no
Terrorism... no
Economy/Jobs... um, no
Health care... what? no
Moral values... well, ok, I guess that's the best fit
Civics lession 101: We live in a contitutional democracy in which people vote. more people voted for Bush in more states representing more of the population of the united states so that george bush did win a 3% margin over his opponent.
The American people just got Bush elected. Not some group that you want to make a boogyman.
And he is also a religious fundamentalist. During his vice presidential campaign he did not leave his house on saturdays. He made a joke about it on David letterman.
There are not a lot of democrats that are religious fundamentalists but he is one.
So? Democrat and conservative are not mutually exclusive, as Lieberman and Zell Miller (who was a key speaker at the Republican national convention) prove.
I think television has been going into the crapper for years. I rented 'Blues Brothers'. I had seen it as a kid, and remember the R rating... watched it, and decided it might have gotten a PG rating today.
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
"I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: 'Who in the world would watch this trash?'"
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
TV does suck - but it is also great. I will admit, I do watch some crap. But I try to learn from it. There is a show out now called "Nanny 911". An English nanny (not ho
I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
On the contrary, they have *NO* right to do this. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, it doesn't offer a person the ability to take away someone elses speech becuase they disagree with what is being said. They clearly have a right to complain if they wish, but there is no way that a fringe organization should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be heard/seen over the public airwaves becuase they find it indecent. You see, indecency is in the eye of the beholder, it is subjective and therefore one cannot say something is indecent becuase another may not find that same thing idecent. If they care about what their childern watch on T.V. then they should sit with their children and monitor what they watch, and if the find it innapropriate, TURN IT OFF.
Well... they're using their right to express ther will to curb what other people can see on TV. I think this right is protected by the first amendment too.
Isn't that the underlying principle of the democratic and political processes? The first amendment protects the right to protest and use political means to get what they want. The problem is, IMHO, that those dissatisfied with this "censorship" are not organized and do not sound off.
Also, there's no doubt that they are censoring stuff on TV based on sub
just because I actually think there should be limits to what is shown on TV.
And therein lies the problem, you just said "I" think there should be limits to what is shown on T.V. and that was my point in the parent post, we as a control cannot fall into the trap of becoming controled by a few "I's" out there, instead there must be a unified "WE". Of course we may disagree on many things at many times, but my point, and the point of this article, was that th
And you Sir are one from the scary bunch of doublethinkers, who confuse a nanny state with a republic, censorship of "bad things" with freedom of speech, general authoritarism with freedom and coercion, force and a compulsory way of life with the "American Way".
People like you are responsible for ruining the values the United States of America stood and were respected for.
Freedom means being free to do whatever one wants while not hurting others. A free person can participate in the process of law making, own firearms, has inalienable rights against governmental force and sure as hell can watch anything he wants on his TV in his home.
If you're not someone from the former Soviet Union, that is...
The Herbal Essence Commercial is a 30 second spot having a woman recieving a "fully organic experience" from her shampoo, complete with a screaming organsim. Now, Explain a screaming organsim to a 5 year old.
See son, this comercial is designed to make you think that the product makes you feel good if you use it. This is one of the things that people do to try and sell you something. They try to make it seem like the product will make you something that you are not.
seems prety simple to me.
if your kids can recognize an orgasm then perhaps its time to be talking to them more frankly about sex. Other than that, you talk around it... Parents have been doing this for a very long time.
> Wait a minute you do believe in one man one vote don't you?
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
I was being sarcastic, I know there is no way for slavery to return in our current state. I was relying on that fact to make the point to the AC that just because 51% of the people vote yes on something it does not automatically make it right or constitutional.
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on
> Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
Oh, how I wish this were the case. There is no sex on tv, only implied wussy sexual suggestion. And occasionally janet jacksons boob. While mindless it would be more entertaining to have more sex like in Europe. As far as violence, well they do alot, but the cheasy bloddy special effects from cheasy horror movies(which is the only reason to watch them anyway) is always sensored out. Only the implication
Try watching it again. It was a PG movie. Not PG-13. I was shocked at how clean the movie was. My memory of the movie was it was a "pushing the envelope" type movie. How far the envelope has moved.
Perhaps I should have said Network TV/Cable/Any broadcast TV. I have the box, but only a VCR and DVD player.
For the record, it was about five years ago I watched the movie again. It was one of the events that lead to my getting rid of the access. Things that were "pushing the envelope" 20 years ago are considered tame today. I choose not to be programmed by it.
But thanks for jumping on the irrelevancy. I will be more careful in choosing my words for folks like you.
Yea, I do the same thing. I call getting rid of all broadcast TV getting rid of TV.
I am curious about your kids with Autism. If they are the right age, do they like 'Thomas the Tank Engine'? I know of others who do. I believe it has to do a lot with the mostly stationary faces.
I work with a lot of children on a volunteer basis, and worked with one before I knew anything about the condition. Was wondering what insights you can give...
What you're actually saying is you're not opposed to crap on TV. You're opposed to worthless parents. That's the real problem: parents who don't do their job. Don't blame "crap on TV" for the creation of mindless masses or violence in children. Instead blame the parents who are too lazy to give a damn about what their children watch. A parent is supposed to guide their children through their youth, teach them right from wrong, and raise them to be responsible adults. A parent that can't do that shoul
Just read matt 6:5-6 and then 7 caught my eye. "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Heh, no wonder catholicism started steadily declining as literacy increased--"that particular sin requires 5318 hail mary's".
I am personally the owner of four different versions of the bible, including a German translation from 1918, translated by dr. Menge. (Yes, I thought that was the other guy first... and I'm only writing this as a funny aside, especially since I am deeply agnostic)
Adelphia is run by greedy, largely ignorant assholes. These are the people who once cut my cable off because I wasn't sending them payments on the bills coming in marked "do not pay, this will be deducted automatically". When I confronted them, I was told it was my own fault because I wasn't explicitly looking at my bank statements for their autotmatic charges.
I imagine this has more to do with the fact that Adelphia - indeed, cable in general - is the worst, least customer-ce
Seriously, to generate this volume of bull, they must be using a common document template for all their complaints: 'Ms Crudgeworthy, would you fill in the blanks on the Leno complaint? No, the one for the 23rd - we've already done the 16th'. These people need to get some lives. Or maybe they'd be better off campaigning against people watching 'objectionable material'. The reborn masses are likely to be a more receptive audience - and broadcasters listen to ratings.
Wait, are you one of those right-wing nutjobs who thinks that things can actually be solved through market activism rather than crying to the government to hold our hands? You people make me sick.
I think everyone should use the http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/fcc/fcccomplaint2.asp [parentstv.org] Complaint Form on the PTC website to send positive fead back about all of the shows in the PTC worst 10 list to the FCC. If everyone on SlashDot did this we might be able to get the PTC some bad press (it would be bad press as far as they are concerned).
Congress were told, recently, that complaints to the FCC are rising dramatically.
In 2000 and 2001, the FCC only received 350 complains. In 2002, 14,000. In 2003, 240,000. Clearly TV is becoming much more offensive.
Until you discover that 99.8% of all complaints are from the PTC (Parents Television Council). If you do the math, the 0.2% of complaints that aren't part of a political lobbying body amount to... 480. That's right, an increase of 130 over 2000/2001.
So, while Congress are wringing their hands over how terrible TV has got, the reality is that it's barely changed at all - but a political lobbying group who want to censor TV is creating a vastly disproportionate impact by effectively spamming the crap out of the FCC.
The real truth is that there are roughly 1.5 complaints for every MILLION people in the U.S. - i.e. NO major issues with the content of TV. That a tiny minority interest group can so skew the figures as to make it appear that the ration's as high as one in a thousand is, frankly, disgusting. That Congress are being fed their lies, rather than having the truth pointed out, is even worse.
Though it does beg the question: What would happen if a small group - say a thousand people, sent a letter to the FCC each day complaining that shows didn't go far enough with their nudity, violence and profanity. They'd outnumber the conservative complaints 3:2 for even those small numbers.
Something appealed about the irony of using their own website to complain about their actions. As they helpfully noted: All five FCC commissioners have been sent a copy of your email.
It wouldn't be from Slashdot if it didn't contain a grammar error in the very first sentence, I suppose....
Congress were told...
FYI: "Congress" is a singular entity. 'Were' is the imperfect indicative plural of 'be'. You want 'was'.
Normally I wouldn't care, of course, but when you're sending things which you desire action on, it's best to be reasonably accurate when it comes to spelling and grammar.
That construction is perfectly valid and a commonly used idiom in English speech, and I suspect most people will recognize it as a reasonable alternative to the American standard of treating entities composed of people as singular.
Even though this is an American topic, don't forget/. != USA
The dialect used within America, however, is U.S. centric.
In short, you need to write appropriately for the intended audience. In this case, treating Congress as a singular noun is the appropriate way to handle the situation.
I noticed that the PTC has a "File a Complaint" Link on their web page. Could some/most/all of the complaints filed by the PTC really be from people who just filled out their form rather than find the real thing?
Just speculating.
It looses a lot of your intended impact due to using phrases such as "by effectively spamming the crap out of the FCC."
That will get the letter put in the 'loony left' bucket quicker than anything.
Also, using the phrasing of "Until you discover that 99.8% of all complaints..." The 'until you discover...' bit sound very amaturish and would be better worded in terms like : "However, if the statistics are investigated further it comes to light that 99.8% of all complaints..."
Quickly rushing out a poorly worded email does nothing for the cause I'm afraid.
Are you kidding? The FCC loves it. Why else would they hide that fact, rather than exposing the PTC as the resource-wasting whiners they are?
For decades, the FCC has had pretty much nothing to do on the "decency" front. Now there's all these complaints. More work means more jobs. They can get a bigger budget, have better parties, Mikey Powell can go meet lots of celebrities. Its awesome for them.
A small group of people is flooding the FCC with complaints. Instead of accusing the PTC of a "DDoS atta
I just sent the following email to PTC, from the link on their website:
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/arti cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656] brought your group to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to do something you seem to have taken on for yourself: Speak for Americans everywhere. It disgusts me that you would attempt to skew the number of complaints filed with the FCC to further your own views, and to attempt to regulate television as you see fit.
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
You're right, I don't. I have no authority to speak for Americans everywhere. But they don't either. My point is that if they can do it, so can I. Judging by the responses on Slashdot, I can say with some authority that my email spoke for SOME Americans, SOMEWHERE. Which is more than PTC seems able to do.
In addition, I'm asking them not to speak, rather than taking initiative and speaking out. I think the distinction is important. Were PTC to have a huge membership base, such that the 99% of the FTC claims
The grandparent post is absolutely correct in upholding the conclusion that "[the PTC] don't speak for Americans everywhere", and that this organization should at least cease to project that particular misconception - of pretending to speak on behalf of a community united in moral outrage.
They are a lobbying group. Their view of the world is fairly narrow-minded. Of course they make themselves appear bigger than they are.
I almost entirely agree with what the grandparent said in his letter--I only disagre
Why not just use the PTC form to send positive feedback about any show that care abut?
Another tact would be that every time you see something on television you like, send an email to: fccinfo@fcc.gov and let them know that you your feelings about the show and be sure to cc the network or station too.
Dear PTC activists,
We are of the bread of human being that through history promoted science, technology and new ways of communication. Things like The Internet, television, radio and many others exist because of the hard work of many free spirits before us that we admire and from whom we are always trying to take the flame.
In another hand you are of the kind who claimed that the earth was flat and that continue to claim that evolution is non-existent. Your puritan and conservative way of thinking comes
..if you want to be taken seriously. Fast and loose spelling and grammar is ok on slashdot, txt msgs to peers, but if you're writing a formal letter to a conservative organisation (a pressure group, the government, big businesses, etc) then check your grammar and spelling. If you don't, then they will just throw your letter in the bin before getting to the end of it. It will be a waste of your time rather than of benefit to anybody else.
There is a difference between having spiritual beliefs and being a fundamentalist zealot. The contributions of Christians to not only the rise of Science but also of society as we know it (schools, hospitals, libraries) is undeniable. Still, there was always a part of that same organisation that was trying to stop and sabotage the work of the great people you named. Like everywhere in society the church is composed of people with progressive tendencies and people with fundamentalist ones and the ones making
There is no grounds to suggest that we can attribute the great ideas of Faraday, Pasteur & Newton to a deep seated belief in Creation. At that time, everybody has such deep-seated belief because science has not sufficiently progressed to explain nature, and nobody dares to question the church authorities anyway. I am not disputing if Newton and Kepler are devout, but that the devoutness has nothing to do with the quality of their ideas.
Who knows if they might have progressed further in science if they
Actually, oh ye who art misinformed... The contributions of Christians to the rise of Science in the 1500 and 1600's is vastly documented
Only if one ignores the 1,100 years that Christianity practically (and in some cases, actually) banned rational thought and reason...Science and reason were doing just fine with the Greeks and Romans until the "I know better than you" religion gained political favor
My question is why complain about what the PTC is doing? I mean I looked at the website and they are trying to stop the marketing to children and show with extern violence and sex on broadcast networks. They are providing a way for people to make there voice heard. All in all isn't that how the system should work?
There's a difference between what they say and what they actuall do.
Look at the numbers. They are flooding a government agency with 500 times the normal workload in order to further their own political agenda at taxpayers' expense. 400 other voices are lost in the fray.
That is not how the system should work. It is an abuse of the system, and the FCC is doubly shameful for playing along.
I think everyone should use the http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/fcc/fcccomplaint2.asp Complaint Form on the PTC website to send positive fead back about all of the shows in the PTC worst 10 list to the FCC.
No, no. We should all file indecency complaints about the shows theylike. Clutter up the FCC with millions of bad complaints and show how arbitrary the process is.
Thanks for the attempt, but you shouldn't have told them you were Italian. Our government doesn't care about anyone who can't vote in our elections. They don't care much for those that can, but at least they care a little.
The people who are running the show right now view the rest of the world as adversaries. They are bullies, and they want you to be upset. It gives them a feeling of power.
But we have made a lot of progress in civil rights in the past 30 years since the big movement in the 60s with relative peace, the progressives were due for some friction, unfortunately.
If anyone is looking to kick the PTCs arse (I'm Australian) in court, they could try to get something out of (from the article):
tools developed by the PTC, including continual monitoring and
archiving of broadcast network programs
I have a feeling that archiving of broadcast television is against a whole bunch of laws, though my knowledge of American Law is nothing to speak up about.
I have a feeling that archiving of broadcast television is against a whole bunch of laws, though my knowledge of American Law is nothing to speak up about.
It's not.
I'm an american, not a lawyer, but if I was told that my archive of VHS tapes that were broadcasted that I only watch in my home was somehow illegal, I'd fight the fine all the way to the Supreme Court.
Were I to sell or rebroadcast any of it without the permission of four or five corporate persons I'd be screwed, but keeping it for my own use
Much as I hate to defend this turd of an organization in any manner, it looks to me like they are only showing snippets of a show in order to present criticism. This is defensible under fair use, the same as a book critic quoting a passage of a book in a review.
The networks would give a group permission to archive their content for use as evidence against them?
But that's how the tyranny of the "moral" works: If a network refuses, PTC launches a giant campaign about "What are they afraid of? What are they trying to hide?" as well as "They're picking on us, a right-minded fair group." News outlets would, hand-wringingly, report on the accusations because they are "news" (because other news outlets say they are). The network takes a re
I saw a chart of IQ vs. who each state voted for. The top 12 or so all were blue states. Most of the rest voted Bush. I'd prefer to think that most of your country isn't THAT stupid, to support the PTC.
As an outsider who has only visited the US a couple of times, it always seemed to me that the attitude, opinion, rules, what you can and can't do on tv, did not reflect the people I talked to. I mean, if someone said or did something on TV, the reaction would be "they can do that on TV?", rather than being truly offended. It seemed to me that the rules and culture on TV and what was acceptable or normal, were very different from the real world.
Keep in mind the cultural identity we have. America was founded by Puritans who were offended by the moral depravity of 17th century England, for Chrissake.
1. So WTF was behind the Quakers? The Mormons? The Salem Witch Trials? The context for The Scarlet Letter?
2. So what? Millions of people have immigrated all over Europe over the last 500 years. Germany is still Germany, Spain is still Spain, and America is still America.
3. What's your point? There's some unnameable magical force at play that makes America the way it is? Something "special" about America that makes our culture so radically different from Europe's when it comes to sexual stuff on TV?
Careful here. Are you looking at Americans as a whole (there are nearly 300 million of us), or the small group you hang out with. It is quite likely that you are looking at the latter, and also quite likely that the crowd you hang out with, is not the type of crowd that would be offended by what would offend the "typical American".
Maybe you mean that as a joke, but there are indeed subcultures in this country where objectification, degradation and subjugation of women is the norm.
You are, of course, talking about the Republican Party?
As long as it's individuals doing the filtering, and it's not being handed down from above, I'd still agree with them. They can have their clean channels, I can have my more risque channels. IMO, it allows a pretty decent technical facilitation of "If you don't like it, don't watch it." It's a "V-Chip" with a price savings, and we can only hope it keeps "them" of messing with "our" programming on "our" channels (no matter who "we" or "they" might be). What's not to like?
Yeah, Liberman and Tipper Gore... when will a party have the balls to stand up and go, I am a card carrying ACLU member, and damn proud to support the constitution, why are you against the constitution?
Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology.
-- R. S. Barton
PTC (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I think the "The Christians put Bush in the white house" argument is a bunch of bull and just another excuse why Kerry lost without pointing the finger at Kerry himself.
If that was the case, then how the hell did Clinton win against Dole in 96? The Christian fundemantilist movement wanted Clinton out so bad it wasn't even funny. They saw Clinton as a Morality Void soul that killed babies, smoked dope, loved Gays
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Carter was an Evangelical... but he was a liberal one... he probably pissed off the fundies more then Clinton did, one of the reasons Reagan was elected.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
And Kerry was a horrible candidate too.
The man could not do sincere, and being a senator, with the public voting record, made it easy to determine his policies, regardless of what came out his mouth.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I was one of those that voted for him in 92 and worked for United We Stand as a founding member. Before discovering he was basically a nut, and wasn't ju
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is pretty obvious that a huge block of the people for Bush (including all Bush supporters I know) were more concerned about Terrorism or economic policies or taxes or the free market than about "moral issues". They believe that Bush would be better for the economy or their safety or for their future, and the extreme conservative social values are a *problem* with Bush, but don't outweigh their desire for Bush's other policies. Trying to claim that Kerry lost because of a small group of religous bigots is just an attempt by the left to pretend that only crazy people disagree with them.
The best proof of the unimportance of the "moral majority" is that they are starting to go crazy with attempts to kill any change to the constitution to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to be president. You would think the liberals would be the ones trying to stop it, but they are not. The "moral majority" knows that Arnold would easily win the Republican nomination despite the fact that he disagrees with their "majority" on virtually everything.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I oppose ammending the constitution to allow him to run. I especially dislike the one that simply makes it so that you have to have been a resident of the USA for fourteen years(which is already there, you can't be president if you've been a US citizen living abroad until fourteen years later). I'd rather change the age requrement to a "Has been a United States Citizen for at least thirty-five years" than that one.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just curious... Are you pro-death penalty as it's implemented in this country, or just in theory? In an ideal world, I think that there is true justice in a fair and reasonable application of the death penalty. If a person is convicted by a jury of their true peers, then once they've exhausted their appeals it's toasty time for them.
My problem with the implementation in this country is that it seems all too often that if you've got enough money to pay a good legal team t
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I think it does. Why else would somebody claim that Bush has better morals then Kerry? Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in both iraq and afghanistan and opened up the guantanamo concentration camps.
"Nor does it mean that everyone in a Red state is one as well."
No, not everybody but most. Have ever traveled in the south? I have, most towns have more churc
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate that people keep interpreting the poll results this way. It's a possible explanation, but still a significant leap.
The poll was multiple choice, for one thing. So, let's say I hate most of GW Bush's policies, and I think he's made some horrible decisions, but ... I don't trust Kerry. His voting record is horrible and his character is more than questionable. His running mate made his fortune as an ambulance chaser, and these guys' most vocal supporters are folks like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.
So... let's see... Why did I vote for Bush?
Ok, yea, I'll say moral values, then, Bob.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
The American people just got Bush elected. Not some group that you want to make a boogyman.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
in one breath, these people are a tiny minority that the FCC should ignore.
in the next, they're a monsterous force that got the president elected.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are religious fundamentalists. It's no surprise that a fundamentalist like Leiberman was on their board.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Earth to killjoe: Lieberman is a Jewish Democrat.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
There are not a lot of democrats that are religious fundamentalists but he is one.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
The rule is that any group with a family related word in it isn't really about the family at all.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
Re:I think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know? You haven't watched TV in four years.
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun.
No, he/she is someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else, and should therefore make their decisions for them.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing
PTC is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
TV is not all crap, and crap != crap (Score:3, Interesting)
TV does suck - but it is also great. I will admit, I do watch some crap. But I try to learn from it. There is a show out now called "Nanny 911". An English nanny (not ho
Re:I think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, they have *NO* right to do this. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, it doesn't offer a person the ability to take away someone elses speech becuase they disagree with what is being said. They clearly have a right to complain if they wish, but there is no way that a fringe organization should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be heard/seen over the public airwaves becuase they find it indecent. You see, indecency is in the eye of the beholder, it is subjective and therefore one cannot say something is indecent becuase another may not find that same thing idecent. If they care about what their childern watch on T.V. then they should sit with their children and monitor what they watch, and if the find it innapropriate, TURN IT OFF.
-kaplanfx
I don't (Score:2)
Isn't that the underlying principle of the democratic and political processes? The first amendment protects the right to protest and use political means to get what they want. The problem is, IMHO, that those dissatisfied with this "censorship" are not organized and do not sound off.
Also, there's no doubt that they are censoring stuff on TV based on sub
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
just because I actually think there should be limits to what is shown on TV.
And therein lies the problem, you just said "I" think there should be limits to what is shown on T.V. and that was my point in the parent post, we as a control cannot fall into the trap of becoming controled by a few "I's" out there, instead there must be a unified "WE". Of course we may disagree on many things at many times, but my point, and the point of this article, was that th
Re:I think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
People like you are responsible for ruining the values the United States of America stood and were respected for.
Freedom means being free to do whatever one wants while not hurting others. A free person can participate in the process of law making, own firearms, has inalienable rights against governmental force and sure as hell can watch anything he wants on his TV in his home.
If you're not someone from the former Soviet Union, that is...
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
See son, this comercial is designed to make you think that the product makes you feel good if you use it. This is one of the things that people do to try and sell you something. They try to make it seem like the product will make you something that you are not.
seems prety simple to me.
if your kids can recognize an orgasm then perhaps its time to be talking to them more frankly about sex. Other than that, you talk around it... Parents have been doing this for a very long time.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Oh, how I wish this were the case. There is no sex on tv, only implied wussy sexual suggestion. And occasionally janet jacksons boob. While mindless it would be more entertaining to have more sex like in Europe. As far as violence, well they do alot, but the cheasy bloddy special effects from cheasy horror movies(which is the only reason to watch them anyway) is always sensored out. Only the implication
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
For the record, it was about five years ago I watched the movie again. It was one of the events that lead to my getting rid of the access. Things that were "pushing the envelope" 20 years ago are considered tame today. I choose not to be programmed by it.
But thanks for jumping on the irrelevancy. I will be more careful in choosing my words for folks like you.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
I am curious about your kids with Autism. If they are the right age, do they like 'Thomas the Tank Engine'? I know of others who do. I believe it has to do a lot with the mostly stationary faces.
I work with a lot of children on a volunteer basis, and worked with one before I knew anything about the condition. Was wondering what insights you can give...
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
but I live in Oklahoma
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't like something, so YOU shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Nice
N.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
OT (Score:2)
(Yes, I thought that was the other guy first... and I'm only writing this as a funny aside, especially since I am deeply agnostic)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
Never attribute to malice....
Adelphia is run by greedy, largely ignorant assholes. These are the people who once cut my cable off because I wasn't sending them payments on the bills coming in marked "do not pay, this will be deducted automatically". When I confronted them, I was told it was my own fault because I wasn't explicitly looking at my bank statements for their autotmatic charges.
I imagine this has more to do with the fact that Adelphia - indeed, cable in general - is the worst, least customer-ce
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. - repressed sexuality (Score:2)
Seriously, to generate this volume of bull, they must be using a common document template for all their complaints: 'Ms Crudgeworthy, would you fill in the blanks on the Leno complaint? No, the one for the 23rd - we've already done the 16th'. These people need to get some lives.
Or maybe they'd be better off campaigning against people watching 'objectionable material'. The reborn masses are likely to be a more receptive audience - and broadcasters listen to ratings.
Re:I don't think so. - repressed sexuality (Score:3, Funny)
settled out of court (Score:3, Informative)
Re:PTC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PTC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PTC (Score:5, Interesting)
Congress were told, recently, that complaints to the FCC are rising dramatically.
In 2000 and 2001, the FCC only received 350 complains. In 2002, 14,000. In 2003, 240,000. Clearly TV is becoming much more offensive.
Until you discover that 99.8% of all complaints are from the PTC (Parents Television Council). If you do the math, the 0.2% of complaints that aren't part of a political lobbying body amount to... 480. That's right, an increase of 130 over 2000/2001.
So, while Congress are wringing their hands over how terrible TV has got, the reality is that it's barely changed at all - but a political lobbying group who want to censor TV is creating a vastly disproportionate impact by effectively spamming the crap out of the FCC.
The real truth is that there are roughly 1.5 complaints for every MILLION people in the U.S. - i.e. NO major issues with the content of TV. That a tiny minority interest group can so skew the figures as to make it appear that the ration's as high as one in a thousand is, frankly, disgusting. That Congress are being fed their lies, rather than having the truth pointed out, is even worse.
Though it does beg the question: What would happen if a small group - say a thousand people, sent a letter to the FCC each day complaining that shows didn't go far enough with their nudity, violence and profanity. They'd outnumber the conservative complaints 3:2 for even those small numbers.
Something appealed about the irony of using their own website to complain about their actions. As they helpfully noted: All five FCC commissioners have been sent a copy of your email.
Re:PTC (Score:3, Informative)
It wouldn't be from Slashdot if it didn't contain a grammar error in the very first sentence, I suppose....
Congress were told...
FYI: "Congress" is a singular entity. 'Were' is the imperfect indicative plural of 'be'. You want 'was'.
Normally I wouldn't care, of course, but when you're sending things which you desire action on, it's best to be reasonably accurate when it comes to spelling and grammar.
Re:PTC (Score:2)
That construction is perfectly valid and a commonly used idiom in English speech, and I suspect most people will recognize it as a reasonable alternative to the American standard of treating entities composed of people as singular.
Even though this is an American topic, don't forget
Re:PTC (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain the FTC, however, is U.S. centric.
Re:PTC (Score:3, Funny)
It does now, baby!
Re:PTC (Score:2)
In short, you need to write appropriately for the intended audience. In this case, treating Congress as a singular noun is the appropriate way to handle the situation.
Re:PTC (Score:4, Insightful)
It looses much of its impact... (Score:5, Informative)
That will get the letter put in the 'loony left' bucket quicker than anything.
Also, using the phrasing of "Until you discover that 99.8% of all complaints
Quickly rushing out a poorly worded email does nothing for the cause I'm afraid.
Re:It looses much of its impact... (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
For decades, the FCC has had pretty much nothing to do on the "decency" front. Now there's all these complaints. More work means more jobs. They can get a bigger budget, have better parties, Mikey Powell can go meet lots of celebrities. Its awesome for them.
A small group of people is flooding the FCC with complaints. Instead of accusing the PTC of a "DDoS atta
Re:PTC (Score:3, Informative)
Please keep in mind that we will not post letters that contain vulgar language and/or non-constructive comments.
Read: If we're going to censor things we disagree with, dammit, we're going all the way!
Send PTC an email (Score:5, Insightful)
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/art
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
Go away. You are not wanted here.
-Jared Kling"
I feel the same way, and I'm going to email them. (Score:2)
I setup a macro to hit "submit" 240,000 times in a row.
That'll teach them.
Re:Send PTC an email (Score:2)
In addition, I'm asking them not to speak, rather than taking initiative and speaking out. I think the distinction is important. Were PTC to have a huge membership base, such that the 99% of the FTC claims
Re:Send PTC an email (Score:2)
They are a lobbying group. Their view of the world is fairly narrow-minded. Of course they make themselves appear bigger than they are.
I almost entirely agree with what the grandparent said in his letter--I only disagre
Re:PTC (Score:2, Insightful)
Another tact would be that every time you see something on television you like, send an email to: fccinfo@fcc.gov and let them know that you your feelings about the show and be sure to cc the network or station too.
Dear PTC activists (Score:3, Interesting)
In another hand you are of the kind who claimed that the earth was flat and that continue to claim that evolution is non-existent. Your puritan and conservative way of thinking comes
Sort out your grammar and spelling! (Score:2)
Re:Dear PTC activists (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dear PTC activists (Score:2)
Of course there is. However, one must remember that by the standards of the 1500's, "today's fundamentalist zealot" is quite a liberal thinker.
As an example, keep in mind that in 1500, the Question : Creation or Evolution? hadn't even been conceived.
Re:Dear PTC activists (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no grounds to suggest that we can attribute the great ideas of Faraday, Pasteur & Newton to a deep seated belief in Creation. At that time, everybody has such deep-seated belief because science has not sufficiently progressed to explain nature, and nobody dares to question the church authorities anyway. I am not disputing if Newton and Kepler are devout, but that the devoutness has nothing to do with the quality of their ideas.
Who knows if they might have progressed further in science if they
Re:Dear PTC activists (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Look at the numbers. They are flooding a government agency with 500 times the normal workload in order to further their own political agenda at taxpayers' expense. 400 other voices are lost in the fray.
That is not how the system should work. It is an abuse of the system, and the FCC is doubly shameful for playing along.
Re:PTC (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no. We should all file indecency complaints about the shows they like. Clutter up the FCC with millions of bad complaints and show how arbitrary the process is.
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
But we have made a lot of progress in civil rights in the past 30 years since the big movement in the 60s with relative peace, the progressives were due for some friction, unfortunately.
Re:PTC (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PTC (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not.
I'm an american, not a lawyer, but if I was told that my archive of VHS tapes that were broadcasted that I only watch in my home was somehow illegal, I'd fight the fine all the way to the Supreme Court.
Were I to sell or rebroadcast any of it without the permission of four or five corporate persons I'd be screwed, but keeping it for my own use
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Much as I hate to defend this turd of an organization in any manner, it looks to me like they are only showing snippets of a show in order to present criticism. This is defensible under fair use, the same as a book critic quoting a passage of a book in a review.
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:3, Informative)
But that's how the tyranny of the "moral" works: If a network refuses, PTC launches a giant campaign about "What are they afraid of? What are they trying to hide?" as well as "They're picking on us, a right-minded fair group." News outlets would, hand-wringingly, report on the accusations because they are "news" (because other news outlets say they are). The network takes a re
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
Either way, I'm glad I don't live in the US.
It does explain an awful lot. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, if someone said or did something on TV, the reaction would be "they can do that on TV?", rather than being truly offended. It seemed to me that the rules and culture on TV and what was acceptable or normal, were very different from the real world.
Re:It does explain an awful lot. (Score:2)
Re:It does explain an awful lot. (Score:2)
2. So what? Millions of people have immigrated all over Europe over the last 500 years. Germany is still Germany, Spain is still Spain, and America is still America.
3. What's your point? There's some unnameable magical force at play that makes America the way it is? Something "special" about America that makes our culture so radically different from Europe's when it comes to sexual stuff on TV?
Re:It does explain an awful lot. (Score:2)
Careful here. Are you looking at Americans as a whole (there are nearly 300 million of us), or the small group you hang out with. It is quite likely that you are looking at the latter, and also quite likely that the crowd you hang out with, is not the type of crowd that would be offended by what would offend the "typical American".
Re:It does explain an awful lot. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:PTC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:PTC (Score:2)
As long as it's individuals doing the filtering, and it's not being handed down from above, I'd still agree with them. They can have their clean channels, I can have my more risque channels. IMO, it allows a pretty decent technical facilitation of "If you don't like it, don't watch it." It's a "V-Chip" with a price savings, and we can only hope it keeps "them" of messing with "our" programming on "our" channels (no matter who "we" or "they" might be). What's not to like?
Re:PTC (Score:2)