How else to explain the Republican and right wing Christian's obsession with everything sex? The Janet Jackson Superbowl flap meant pretty much nothing to Europeans. Americans went berserk. Why? Europeans actually know what a female breast looks like because they are humping each other all the time and don't really care that a breast showed up on tv. They've seen them before.
Okay.. now that I've set that up, here's the latest travesty of the Republicans and Christian right wing trying to take over your life.
Two top U.S. Republican lawmakers on Tuesday said they want to apply broadcast decency standards to cable television and satellite television and radio to protect children from explicit content.Not only are they imposing their morals on public airwaves, they are coming after channels that YOU PAY FOR. You spend your money specifically to receive certain content. These people are pushing to prevent you from doing that.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said he would push legislation this year to accomplish that goal and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton said he would back it if it does not violate free speech rights.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," Stevens, from Alaska, told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents hundreds of local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said, but noted that "no one wants censorship."
Stevens cited the discussion of masturbation and sex toys during prime time television as one example of content that bothered him. He told reporters he would extend the restrictions to premium channels like HBO as well.
Do you like to watch The Sopranos? Do you like that the creators make the show as an artistic vision, unconstrained by the government standard? I sure do. What if you want to have subscription satellite radio so you can hear Howard Stern say whatever it is Howard Stern wants to say without the government controlling his speech? What if you want to PAY for those services out of your own pocket, and the government says you cannot?
Lets think about this for a minute. They said they want to protect children from indecency. You are paying for the service out of your own pocket, and we need the government to protect kids from that? Is that not the most moronic thing you've heard in a while?
They are evil, and we need to be as vocal as possible. Don't be nice to religious freaks. They aren't nice to us, they want to impose their world view on us. Don't allow it. Don't be passive, be vocal. Sometimes progressives and liberals are just too nice. We cannot play nice on this issue. Don't sit idly by because you think their latest target is not important to you. Sooner or later they will get around to controlling you too. Better to stop them now.
How much you want to bet that those two Republicans are not very attractive middle aged guys, who haven't had sex with their wives (or anybody else) in 15 years, and who desperately want somebody just to touch them, but nobody will? That fuels so much frustration, and instead of trying to fix their own problems, they want to stop anybody else from having fun.
When do you think is the last time Jerry Falwell got a blow job? Has he ever?
** UPDATE **
Check 'em out....
Think those knuckleheads get laid? Ever?
1 comment:
Hey little brother, how about we give the right something productive to rant about instead? They want to impose their "morals" across the board to protect children from explicit content. However, as Stephen King points out in his latest editorial in Entertainment Weekly Magazine the real indecency is the prescription drug manufacturer's obsession with advertising drugs to an American public desperate for a quick fix. Drugs that have recently been proven deadly or at the very least could leave you with a four-hour erection! I wonder how Chairman Stevens would suggest I explain to my young daughter what a four-hour erection is and that, no honey you are not in danger of having one.
King hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "Want a moral? Try this: If Cox-2 inhibitors are dangerous enough to warrant black-box warnings or even outright prohibition, maybe we should have been worrying a little more about prescription-drug ads on TV all along and a little less about Janet Jackson's boob...which, as far as I know, didn't kill anyone."
Seems to me there are bigger fish to fry than trying to control what I pay to watch or listen to.
Kats
Post a Comment