Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Bashing the FCC and Bush...Old Habits are Hard to Break

Sorry if this post seems a bit schizophrenic, but I have to address two different issues that have really got my blood boiling today. First, we have the FCC, now under the activist leadership of Kevin Martin (with his favorite female Christian wacko assistant). It seems this outmoded organization has set its sights on its favorite punching bag again: Howard Stern.


In this article, it is revealed that the FCC's Enforcement Bureau is looking into a February broadcast that supposedly contained "indecent material." More specifically, the FCC is investigating material aired on the February 4 broadcast at about 8:55 a.m., when The Stern Show was airing the Stupid Bowl, a contest featuring women golfing with strap-on dildos on their foreheads, followed up with the contestants attempting to sing "Amazing Grace" with a four-inch sausage stuffed down their throats. The complaint is from idiotic Floridian Jack Thompson. [text paraphrased from the article].


First, let us look at how the FCC defines "indecency."


"The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.' Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. Indecent programming may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience."


This, my friends, is truly embarrassing. In this country, the ONLY material that can be deemed indecent is something related to sex or excretion--two perfectly natural bodily activities. This idiocy betrays the pathetic ideology of our founders, the Puritans. After all this time, we still enslave ourselves to their archaic conception of morality. Is violence indecent? No. It never has been. Indeed, that kind of sentiment might preclude slaughtering the Native Americans, and the self-righteous Puritan prigs could never let that happen.


Morality is subjective. Indecency is subjective. Obscenity is subjective. The government making sweeping declarations FOR US is statism, and statism sucks.


Excellent Free Speech activism resource: Here


And, moving on to cover the next topic of the day, Bush sucks too.


Maureen Dowd wrote a tremendous editorial today, completely damning Bush's response to the horrors of Katrina. His ineptitude on this front is no surprise, however, to those who have watched him mismanage an Iraq War that would not be worth it even in the best-case scenario. To read Maureen's take, click Here. Here's a salient quote:


The Bush administration bungled the Iraq occupation, arrogantly throwing away State Department occupation plans and CIA insurgency warnings. But the human toll of those mistakes has not been as viscerally evident because the White House pulled a curtain over the bodies: the president has avoided the funerals of soldiers, and the Pentagon has censored the coffins of the dead coming home and never acknowledges the number of Iraqi civilians killed.

But this time, the bodies of those who might have been saved between Monday and Friday, when the president failed to rush the necessary resources to a disaster that his own general describes as "biblical," or even send in the 82nd Airborne, are floating up in front of our eyes.

In the spirit of letting those who are more qualified than I do most of the condemnation, here is another great link. Once again, a salient quote to whet your appetite for truth:


But even as President George W. Bush denounced the brutal Islamic fundamentalist regime in Kabul, he was quietly laying the foundations for his own fundamentalist regime at home. For the first time far right Christian fundamentalists had one of their own in the White House and the opportunity to begin rolling back decades of health and family planning programs they saw as un-Christian, if not downright sinful.

Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress. Three years later this administration has established one of the most rigid sexual health agendas in the Western world.

And here is another truly scary article. A representative passage:


Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.


I've said it before and I'll repeat it: This country is crumbling faster than did the Gulf Coast from Katrina. I'm not hopeful for the US' prospects with these fanatical theists/statists in control. Indeed, it will take nothing less than a total societal shift to drag the US from the depths of the toilet bowl.


~TLD

4 Comments:

Blogger Aaron Kinney said...

Very nice. Yes, the FCC is truly a bunch of grandpas and self-ashamed retards who think nothing of broadcasting a simulated DEATH, but shriek like madmen when a broadcast of a poop or orgasm occurs.

Although I dont think that morality is relative, I DO think that concepts of "indecency" and "artistic good taste" are relative.

I think that these ideas should be pushed to their logical conclusions. What is the FCC protecting us from? Indecency? Well, what would happen to America if indecency were not kept in check by the FCC? What tangible, quantifiable negative results would happen due to Howard Stern being allowed to play golf with dildos on his radio show without restriction? Would another Hurricane appear? Would people lose thier jobs? Would crime skyrocket?

No! I contend that not a single quantifiable negative thing would happen to America if Howard Stern were allowed to do his indecent bit. The GNP would not plunge. Retirement savings would not dissapear. Terrorists would not be more likely to attack. Everything would be just fine.

We are paying through our taxes to have the FCC provide no tangible product or quntifiable benefit through their censorship service. We are pissing our money away.

11:54 AM  
Blogger The Libertarian Defender said...

Nice response.

Yes, I know that my position that morality is subjective is a very controversial one. However, I'll outline my logic.

Premise 1: Humans are fallible, particularly with respect to the intangible.

Premise 2: Morality is highly intangible.

Conclusion: Human perception of morality is fallible, and thus unreliable.

Conclusion 2: Though an objective morality might exist, humans are far too flawed to discover it through our fallible senses.

Here's a good example: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/abcline.html

This is just one prime case of humans being easily fooled. And, that example is fully tangible. Imagine how easily we can be fooled by intangible notions like morality!

7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I heard about dildoes on Howard's show, I might actually watch it. But my tastes don't run to idiocy; pornography, hell yeah. I've got a set of tits, it hardly scares me -- never has -- to see a pair that aren't mine. It's asinine to believe that seeing them even as a child will somehow turn you into a rapist or a molestor.

And it seems outright fucking ridiculous that the FCC went batshit over a breast-and-nipple-shield during the Super Bowl, but have no problem airing Clinton's dirty laundry or allowing half of the shit that occurs on cable -- which is, despite being paid programming, still 90% censored. Have you ever seen the movie "Orgazmo"? It's about a Mormon-turned-reluctant porn star, and it's cleaner than almost any R movie I've ever seen, but was slapped with NC-17 because of a fat woman in a bikini wobbling in an attempt to simulate sex.

Again: A FAT WOMAN IN A BIKINI ATTEMPTING TO SIMULATE SEX.

Moronic. If people weren't raised in a Puritanical mindset, they'd be perfectly fine. Does Japan have an outflowing of problems with sexual abuse and molestation? Old men grope girls on the train, but do they become sexual fanatics? Naked breasts are allowed on the news, but do children become depraved? Of course not. Because it's nothing more than what we see in the mirror daily; if it weren't for the medieval mindset that nudity is dirty and wrong, there'd be no problem. Just like the drug problem here versus the legal use in Amsterdam.

Why is Europe kicking our ass?

And Maureen Dowd continues to be my hero.

2:28 AM  
Blogger The Libertarian Defender said...

Great comments! Thanks for posting!

"If I heard about dildoes on Howard's show, I might actually watch it. But my tastes don't run to idiocy; pornography, hell yeah."

LOL.

"I've got a set of tits, it hardly scares me -- never has -- to see a pair that aren't mine. It's asinine to believe that seeing them even as a child will somehow turn you into a rapist or a molestor."

Personally, I've been bathing for years. That's FULL FRONTAL NUDITY and sometimes FULL BACKAL NUDITY. And, surprisingly enough, I've never been emotionally scarred by taking showers. Hmm.

"And it seems outright fucking ridiculous that the FCC went batshit over a breast-and-nipple-shield during the Super Bowl, but have no problem airing Clinton's dirty laundry or allowing half of the shit that occurs on cable -- which is, despite being paid programming, still 90% censored. Have you ever seen the movie "Orgazmo"? It's about a Mormon-turned-reluctant porn star, and it's cleaner than almost any R movie I've ever seen, but was slapped with NC-17 because of a fat woman in a bikini wobbling in an attempt to simulate sex.
Again: A FAT WOMAN IN A BIKINI ATTEMPTING TO SIMULATE SEX."


Saw the movie and enjoyed it...

This shit is just stupid, archaic, embarrassing, childish notions of decency and morality run amok. In the '60s, the people had it exactly right: Make love, not war. Now, the theocratic statists say: Make war, federally regulate love. It's just disgusting.

"Moronic. If people weren't raised in a Puritanical mindset, they'd be perfectly fine. Does Japan have an outflowing of problems with sexual abuse and molestation? Old men grope girls on the train, but do they become sexual fanatics? Naked breasts are allowed on the news, but do children become depraved? Of course not. Because it's nothing more than what we see in the mirror daily; if it weren't for the medieval mindset that nudity is dirty and wrong, there'd be no problem. Just like the drug problem here versus the legal use in Amsterdam."

Beautiful articulation of my exact views. This theocratic statism stems from our pathetic Puritan founders and from religious activist wackos like Pat Robertson and Fatass Falwell. They support Bible-based law with no practical or logical purpose whatsoever. They try to actually make us ashamed of the human body.

Hope you will continue to post here!

~TLD

8:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home