AVS Forum Archive 2 - The Parents Television Council has set its sights on basic cable.

dstoffa

11-19-04, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Wrecks
PTC sent off its report to Congress in support of extending the FCC's reach and regulations to indecency to basic cable. The PTC looked at several basic cable networks and came to this conclusion: "Cable television is rife with the most licentious, decadent and perverse content imaginable. Our report shows that obscene language and graphic sexual content are readily available on advertiser-supported basic cable," said L. Brent Bozell, president of the PTC.

The group supports the FCC's recommendations to allow cable subscribers to cherry pick the networks they want to see in their own homes. Says the PTC, "It is unconscionable for the cable industry to force families to subsidize this kind of filth in order to access the wholesome, educational and family-friendly programming available on a handful of basic cable channels."

Contrary to popular belief, Television, in any form, is not a babysitter.

These fanatical groups need to realize that nobody is forcing homeowners to subscribe to Cable Television. If parents are concerned that their children will be able to view objectional (in their mind) content, they can simply call up their cabel company and disconnect service. I can see their issue with OTA programming, which is available to anyone with an antenna. CableTV is only available if you CHOOSE to have it in your home.

This censorship is getting out of hand.

HOWEVER, I'd LOVE to be able to chery-pick what cable networks I pay for....

-Doug

rm -rf *.*

11-19-04, 12:18 PM

What's wrong with just using the parental locks & v-chips that are on just about every TV/VCR/DVR/PVR/Cable Box producted in the last 10 years?

I'm not against the parents right to choose, I just see this as an excuse for cable companies to jack-up the rates a bit more...

mike411

11-19-04, 12:26 PM

Yo man this gets me mad if you don't what to see bad, sexually explicit programing do not subscribe to cable TV its just that simple. Why should I have to live by someone else's rules when I am paying the cable bill every month. If I found cable TV to be to rude for my taste I would just drop the service and let the people who love it have it.

hilbert1862

11-19-04, 12:28 PM

OTA is only available if you CHOOSE to have an antenna.

But I don't like censorship.

Also I don't watch MTV.

Also, I think Howard Stern is disgusting, but I do not care whether other people don't think so. Or maybe they like him because he IS disgusting -- like the adolescents who like to tell gross=out jokes at the table (I think that's it.)

sfhub

11-19-04, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by dstoffa
Contrary to popular belief, Television, in any form, is not a babysitter.

Hey that's an interesting idea. They should just come out with
"The Babysitter Channel" and install a filter so that's the only
channel they get. That way the rest of us get on with our lives
and the people who care are guaranteed not to see boobies.

TBS became SpikeTV, the first channel for men.

Let's see, we'll just rename ABC Family into The Babysitter Channel.
The first channel for those who use the TV as a babysitter.

I'm saying this tongue in cheek, but in this age of highly specialized
channels, like cartoon network, scifi channel, etc. I don't see why
these "decent" folks just don't vote with their wallets and have
channels catered to their tastes instead of imposing their tastes on
others. I can tell you they wouldn't be happy if I imposed my tastes
on them.

MaxH

11-19-04, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by sfhub
Let's see, we'll just rename ABC Family into The Babysitter Channel.
The first channel for those who use the TV as a babysitter.

I was very surprised (not shocked or anything, but surprised) when my Smallville channel started recording Smallville reruns from the "ABC Family" channel. I like that show, but I try not to watch it when my daughter's around, because it's like a daytime soap opera, but with more graphic violence and more exposed skin. Makes me wonder why they bother having a "Family" channel. I'm not complaining, but it's a very strange programming choice, and your comment reminded me of that.

I'm saying this tongue in cheek, but in this age of highly specialized
channels, like cartoon network, scifi channel, etc. I don't see why
these "decent" folks just don't vote with their wallets and have
channels catered to their tastes instead of imposing their tastes on
others. I can tell you they wouldn't be happy if I imposed my tastes
on them.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with the PTC on anything, but I'd love to be able to subscribe only to certain channels, too, although I wonder whether ala carte availability would counter the impetus towards specialization, since channels like "ABC Family" could increase their audience by occasionally running a slightly less "family-friendly" show, like...Smallville.

Of course, my daughter and I will still watch Futurama, The Simpsons, and Father of the Pride together, and we won't have to pay for those crappy channels.

goattee

11-19-04, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by rm -rf *.*
What's wrong with just using the parental locks & v-chips that are on just about every TV/VCR/DVR/PVR/Cable Box producted in the last 10 years?

I'm not against the parents right to choose, I just see this as an excuse for cable companies to jack-up the rates a bit more...

You are absolutely right on both points. But this just proves my contention that the people who start organizations with the word "family" in them have a deeper agenda-- and that is to control everything that goes on in our country. The louder the talk about their Americanism, the more obvious it is that they want to impose their own belief systems on everyone else.

The more they demand, the clearer it becomes that they have no sympathy with the concept of Free Speech-- an ideal that makes our Constitution a beacon for all those who love freedom.

Forgive my heated rhetoric. But I firmly believe that if we allow these calls for censorship and control to gain the upper hand, we will have become complicit in the destruction of what the United States is all about.

Snarler

11-19-04, 03:13 PM

If a la carte ever happens, it will be so cost prohibitive that no one will do it. A thread discussing this came up a while back and I rattled off some guesstimate numbers and it wasn't even close to being worth while for the cable companies to try and implement without raising rates heinously.

--
Daniel

Norbert

11-19-04, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by rm -rf *.*
What's wrong with just using the parental locks & v-chips that are on just about every TV/VCR/DVR/PVR/Cable Box produced in the last 10 years?

I agree! This group of tree-hugging, save-the-freakin'-gold-fish liberals, just wants to legislate your thought for you. They are the ones who can't even get the blinking 12:00 to stop on their VCRs (yeah, they wouldn't know a DVR from a toaster). So what makes one think they could figure out how to use the V-chip. If they are that stupid, then they shouldn't get cable.

Maybe the cable companies will need to give an IQ test to potential subscribers to see if they know how to use, or much less, know about the V-chip and parental lockouts to avoid possible litigation from parents.

Anyway. If you don't like it, turn the channel or better yet, read a book.

dstoffa

11-19-04, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by goattee
The more they demand, the clearer it becomes that they have no sympathy with the concept of Free Speech-- an ideal that makes our Constitution a beacon for all those who love freedom.

"Freedom of Speech does not protect the speech you like. It protects the speech you hate." - Larry Flynt

No truer words.

JustDave

11-19-04, 05:51 PM

A note from this liberal:

1. I designed that PVR that you're using, so knock it off with the "stupid liberals" crap.
2. As far as I know, the only thoughts that liberals have ever wanted to "legislate" are those that teach tolerance.
3. As far as I can tell, this group is non-partisan, and if anything, leans toward endorsing a Christian set of values. I thought liberals couldn't be Christians...

As for the rest of your argument, Norbert - I agree. There are V-chips, parental controls, and all sorts of cost-increasing crap that has been legislated into your AV equipment that is perfectly capable of blocking out any content that a cable customer doesn't like. All in addition to the POWER BUTTON, which it seems like people forget how to use once their children turn three.

Crunchy Doodle

11-19-04, 06:00 PM

Oh no Norbert. This ain't no liberal agenda. These are the same people who brought that edge to elect our current President. Mind and thought control is a politically conservative agenda. And the more anal retentive, the better.

As a life-long card carrying liberal, I say watch whatever you want, whenever you want it on any TV connected to anything or nothing. It's the individual parents who are responsible for what their kids watch. I was responsible for my kids, and you should be responsible for yours, and only yours.

I suggest looking up the word liberal in the dictionary, and the the word conservative. I'll leave anal-retentive to your imagination.

Bye. :cool:

Originally posted by Norbert
I agree! This group of tree-hugging, save-the-freakin'-gold-fish liberals, just wants to legislate your thought for you. They are the ones who can't even get the blinking 12:00 to stop on their VCRs (yeah, they wouldn't know a DVR from a toaster). So what makes one think they could figure out how to use the V-chip. If they are that stupid, then they shouldn't get cable.

Maybe the cable companies will need to give an IQ test to potential subscribers to see if they know how to use, or much less, know about the V-chip and parental lockouts to avoid possible litigation from parents.

Anyway. If you don't like it, turn the channel or better yet, read a book.

jackshakes

11-19-04, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Norbert
I agree! This group of tree-hugging, save-the-freakin'-gold-fish liberals, just wants to legislate your thought for you. They are the ones who can't even get the blinking 12:00 to stop on their VCRs (yeah, they wouldn't know a DVR from a toaster). So what makes one think they could figure out how to use the V-chip. If they are that stupid, then they shouldn't get cable.

This is interesting ... I would think that non-extremist liberals would blame such behavior on "gun toating, bible thumping, white hat wearing republicans" ... no? Funny how that works.

I think this is an interesting issue ... normally I'm pretty quick to blame extremists from the left or the right on a given issue ... but with this I can see influence from both sides.

Their goal here is to keep violence and sexual content out of the view of children (which is generally a Christian based right wing mentality) ... but they also refuse to recognize the parent's responsibility to raise their child and "censor" what the child sees (which is generally comes from a left wing mentality ... it's never the responsibility of the individual ... always the government's, or big business' responsibility).

Anyway ... I can agree with what these groups try to accomplish on the level of keeping a certain level of decency in public mediums. That is anything that people (and kids) are exposed to regardless of choice ... like bilboards or displays in stores ... etc. So that I can support ...

However I also agree with everyone here that it is not their responsibility to censor choice driven content ... like cable TV (or even OTA for that matter). It's the parents responsibility to decide what their child should be exposed to (although, there are a lot of crappy parents in this world, but that's another story).

I personally don't watch MTV, nor do I watch most reality TV ... I simply don't get a kick out of other people's misfortune ... or watching people my age acting irresponsible and blowing all of life's normal occurances out of proportion for the sake of 'entertainment'. But there's that choice thing again ... Why should you not be allowed to watch it because I don't want to?

I'd love to pick and choose my channels, but we all know that won't happen ... and if it did we'd end up paying what we do now for a fraction of the channels.

So there's my opinion for what it's worth ... which isn't much.

lizard_boy

11-19-04, 08:21 PM

Just f*ing home-school your kids in a TV-free environment and leave the rest of us the hell alone. I wish more of these Helen Lovejoy wannabes had a clue about how "innocent" their precious little children really are.

lizard_boy

11-19-04, 08:42 PM

Same idiots that are picketing Kinsey, a f***ing movie. Hey morons, if you don't like it, don't f***ing go see it. Why is the religious right/moral majority so concerned about what other people are watching? How does this in any way affect your life? I'd love to hear someone from the right explain this to me.

gweempose

11-19-04, 10:22 PM

I just wish I could have seen the looks on their faces when they were doing their research and came across an episode of Nip/Tuck! :D

Crunchy Doodle

11-19-04, 11:50 PM

Long before home schooling became very popular, I heard about it from a colleage at work. Here's a guy who was a life-long surfer living in this old house by the beach. He gets married and had some kids (oddly, in that order). As they approached school age he decided that normal public schools and other normal things like a TV had no place in his family's life. The TV sets when into the dumpster and he and his wife shared the education of their kids.

To meet this guy you'd figure he spent his days surfing and his evenings on drugs. No, not him. He had a Master of Science degree and held down a good job. When I last spoke to me, it had been over 13 years since he had seen TV. By now his kids should be adults out on their own. I wonder if he celebrated with a TV set.

Bye. :cool:

Originally posted by lizard_boy
Just f*ing home-school your kids in a TV-free environment and leave the rest of us the hell alone. I wish more of these Helen Lovejoy wannabes had a clue about how "innocent" their precious little children really are.

Wrecks

11-20-04, 01:54 AM

It looks like I trolled a good subject this time.

And sorry about the UTF chracters. They looked fine when I was entering the thread. It wasn't until after I submitted it they turned strange.

JimWCB

11-20-04, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by jackshakes
This is interesting ... I would think that non-extremist liberals would blame such behavior on "gun toating, bible thumping, white hat wearing republicans" ... no? Funny how that works.

That's what I thought too... "Liberals?"

Looking at the last four years, I've seen the conservatives trying to push their morals on everyone. They seem to want a smaller governent, except for the part of the government that imposes 'decency' and 'morals' on us unwashed masses (and other countries, come to think about it).

In the years before that, I saw a push to let people and parents control what they or their kids saw. You know... personal reponsibility?

The 'ala carte' option is already available if you just either:

1) Use the V-chip in most recent A/V quipment
2) Program your TV to skip the 'naughty' channels like CNN and Martha Stewart Behind Bars channels. Most TVs can add or remove channels as needed.

(Note to parents: Just ask your kids how to do these, it's easier than petitioning congress to control what everyone sees)

At least some of this outcry over nipples, bare backs, and Howard Sterm has nothing to do with protecting children... it's just a smoke screen for people to try to ban something they don't want ANYONE to see/do.

But, the best way to protect children is to educate them about the real world and not try to shield them from everything. Try to protect them too much and they won't be able to function in the modern world.

Wrecks

11-20-04, 03:49 PM

Reminds me of a cartoon where a parent says to his kid: "This program will let me control what you see on the internet. I need you to show me how to install it."

jackshakes

11-20-04, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by JimWCB

At least some of this outcry over nipples, bare backs, and Howard Sterm has nothing to do with protecting children... it's just a smoke screen for people to try to ban something they don't want ANYONE to see/do.

ain't that the truth.

ianken

11-20-04, 10:47 PM

Can some point me to this content of the most pervese kind that you can suposedly get on basic cable? I'm looking for it but I can't find it.

lizard_boy

11-20-04, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by ianken
Can some point me to this content of the most pervese kind that you can suposedly get on basic cable? I'm looking for it but I can't find it.
nip/tuck & the shield are probably the two worst offenders...there was news story a few months back on some people upset about nip/tuck, probably a good place to start

rm -rf *.*

11-20-04, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by lizard_boy
nip/tuck & the shield are probably the two worst offenders...there was news story a few months back on some people upset about nip/tuck, probably a good place to start

I tend to agree with sfhub's earlier comment - I personally think that the most offensive thing I've ever seen on tv was NYPD Blue's airing of Dennis Franz's bare ass... :eek:

I wish they HAD censored that episode. :D

Norbert

11-21-04, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by JustDave
A note from this liberal:

1. I designed that PVR that you're using, so knock it off with the "stupid liberals" crap.
2. As far as I know, the only thoughts that liberals have ever wanted to "legislate" are those that teach tolerance.
3. As far as I can tell, this group is non-partisan, and if anything, leans toward endorsing a Christian set of values. I thought liberals couldn't be Christians...

As for the rest of your argument, Norbert - I agree. There are V-chips, parental controls, and all sorts of cost-increasing crap that has been legislated into your AV equipment that is perfectly capable of blocking out any content that a cable customer doesn't like. All in addition to the POWER BUTTON, which it seems like people forget how to use once their children turn three.

I apologize Dave if I offended you on the "liberals" portion of my post. I used it incorrectly. I meant to really point out that the "crusaders" whether they are conservative or liberal, usually want to force others to think as they do and try to do it with legislation vs. education. I would rather they put out an ad campaign informing people (parents) how to use the tools that are inserted into their TVs and the features available on their cable and satellite boxes that will limit what types of shows are viewed on the TV.

Boy, I guess I pi$$ed off a few people with that comment. To all those who may have taken offense, I apologize. I just don't like someone ramming their philosophy down my throat with a law that is unnecessary. Like trying to ban pron and gambling on the Internet. You can't legislate what goes on in other countries that would allow this to be hosted within their borders. You can only try to get people to not look at if or try it with education. Besides, its their choice to do what ever they want as long as it does not affect anyone else.

Give me liberty or give me death! I fought for our country along with millions of other Americans so I can have the life I want and allow those that come after me to enjoy freedoms that a lot of other countries don't give their citizens or even persecute them for trying to enjoy them.

O.K. Rant over... As you were.

bob645

12-12-04, 05:33 PM

This is sort of the only related topic that came up in search.
I am trying to use the Parental Controls or or V-Chip like features of a family member's Replay 5080, but they seem to be more trouble than it is worth as it is not configurable enough for the families viewing habits.

The Sony Wega has the ability to do everything I need but for some reason the shows played from the replay breaks this and all shows bypass the V-chip in this set. But it works fine when the Wega is directly connected to the cable.

Here is the problem, I want to block L V S from TV-PG and TV-14, (Kids are not old enough yet to know what the D is, but I would like to keep L V S out for now) but when I do this on the replay, it seems to globally block the content tags across all ratings including TV-Y7 (FV). As such, the kids can't watch Totally Spies, Teen Titans, and some other Cartoon network favorites.

I've read many of your arguments, and I agree with most. But the technology is here, I am just trying to use it. But the best I can tell it is flawed and not usable. Unless someone can clue me in on this.
Since the Parental Controls in the Replay seem to be broken, is it normal to have it kill the TV ratings and prevent the V-chip in the tv from working also?

Any suggestions?

Bob

Wrecks

12-12-04, 10:56 PM

You could lock our EVERYTHING on the ReplayTV unit, and only let the kids watch it while you are there. Since you indicated that the V-chip on your television is working the way you want, your kids could watch regular live television with the V-chip restrictions you set up.

tluxon

12-13-04, 05:11 PM

Gee, I hate to see anyone lose the functionality of their Replay(s) by blocking ALL content in an effort to protect their children from seeing certain content.

What we do in our house may not work for everyone, but it's been working well for us, maybe because our boys are only 5 and 8. We have Replay Guide categories set up on a couple of the Replays that are just for the kids. From an early age they've been taught to get permission before watching anything and can then choose anything that's in one of their categories on the Replay Guide. They do it all themselves, but we try to monitor what they're watching in case something comes up that we feel we need to talk with them about or that we may need to change in their Replay Guide. We have always limited their TV viewing so they view it as a privilege as opposed to a "right". It IS tempting for a parent to use the TV as a babysitter, but we view that as a form of child abuse that's akin to letting them pick out everything they want to eat (all candy, no veges :)).

I would say using the Replay has been a big benefit because replacing channel surfing with guide surfing has resulted in easier-to-manage viewing experiences for both us and our kids.

All the best

icecow

03-02-05, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by dstoffa
Contrary to popular belief, Television, in any form, is not a babysitter.

These fanatical groups need to realize that nobody is forcing homeowners to subscribe to Cable Television...

I was very pleased the first time I heard someone say the babysitter statement. But looking back I don't think that's a fair argument. It puts parents who go in the kitchen for 10 min in the same group as ghetto parents who turn on the TV and lock their kids in the bedroom. Kids are going to start flipping channels sometime early in development. I accept that other parents should have some control over what their kids see be it two girls mud-wrestling on a Budweiser commercial or porn channels to which they subscribe.

I'm hoping when signal becomes all digital meta-tags will be sent with specific characteristics of the show content.

Then have a law that says if TV stations voluntary make meta-tag information available censorship action can not be taken against them(TV station). To balance the dispute have a law that requires TV providers to make censorship boxes available to TV subscribers.

This fight isn't going to go away. The above tentative solution derides the censorship groups as far as I can tell.

the censorship box solution could turn in to a new way to view scheduling as a side bonus. It'd allow you to look up content query style. I mean, maybe today you want to look up movies that have tits, ass, fowl language, and beaver shots, but no kissing, no violence, no lude language, and containing no cartoon characters(for a change).
:p

icecow

03-02-05, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by tluxon
It IS tempting for a parent to use the TV as a babysitter, but we view that as a form of child abuse that's akin to letting them pick out everything they want to eat (all candy, no veges :)).

Great wording, and honesty.

[I don't even have kids but some of this stuff is soo obvious]

dstoffa

03-02-05, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by icecow
I was very pleased the first time I heard someone say the babysitter statement. But looking back I don't think that's a fair argument. It puts parents who go in the kitchen for 10 min in the same group as ghetto parents who turn on the TV and lock their kids in the bedroom. Kids are going to start flipping channels sometime early in development. I accept that other parents should have some control over what their kids see be it two girls mud-wrestling on a Budweiser commercial or porn channels to which they subscribe.

Why is it not a fair argument? The issue isn't whether or not someone puts their kid in front of the TV for eight hours or whether they step in to check on the roast. The issue at hand is people blaming others for the content that it sent into their home. They are parents. They should be getting involved with their kids. They are trying to get society to do something they don't want to do themselves. Banning / censoring shows is just as bad as book-burning, in my opinion.

I may not agree with everything I see on TV (be it OTA or Cable), but I will defend the right of someone to provide it (and of others to view it). If I don't want it, I won't be in my home.

Originally posted by icecow
the censorship box solution could turn in to a new way to view scheduling as a side bonus. It'd allow you to look up content query style. I mean, maybe today you want to look up movies that have tits, ass, fowl language, and beaver shots, but no kissing, no violence, no lude language, and containing no cartoon characters(for a change).
:p

That will be the channel every 10 year old wants to see.......

blabber

03-03-05, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by ianken
Can some point me to this content of the most pervese kind that you can suposedly get on basic cable? I'm looking for it but I can't find it.

Fox News Network. :p

Bigjohns

03-03-05, 08:06 AM

OK - Who want's to help?

I've set up the domain PAPTC.ORG (http://www.paptc.org)

Now, who wants to help with the graphics and content? I've installed a great CMS - Mambo!

Should we have a forum too?

John

lucindrea

03-03-05, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by tluxon

we try to monitor what they're watching in case something comes up that we feel we need to talk with them about

This is one of the main reasons i cannot stand any censorship in anything .. forgeting about my personal choice to view what i want , i would MUCH rather have my kid get exposed to something and have ME talk it over with him instead of getting "ebucated" about it on the streets ... if a parent doesn't know how to talk to their child about ANYTHING then they either should of never had kids , or should take the time and talk to other parents/teachers/etc and learn themselves on how to talk to their kids.

I met a woman a few years back who had a book she found in the UK ( forget the name ) .. it was basically a "where baby's come from" written for kids ( 12ish ) , nothing offensive or graphic in it ( animated ) , but it also held nothing back .. her 13 yr girl knew all about sex , all about vd , all about birth control , and had none of the fears or taboos about her body or talking about it , she was probably the most well adjusted 13yr i have ever met and i would put even money down that she still is ( must be about 20 by now ) ... the difference is that her mother sat down with her and TALKED about it and answered any questions her kid had and gave the answer "i don't know , but i will find out" for anything that she got stumped on.

the crusaders for censorship haven't a clue how to talk to their kids and just cannot deal with the fact that things that may offend them are still gone be in their kids faces weather they prepare their child for it or not.

Creech

03-03-05, 03:26 PM

<flame suit on>

It seems to me that this zealotry is a little like the behaviour that some (not all) reformed addicts display. Ex-smokers can be the most vehement of non-smokers. Reformed alcoholics will often show disapproval when somebody else has that glass of wine with dinner.

Just an observation..

Seriously though. I'm a liberal but I would never *think* that much of what is on cable is suitable for children. The solution, guard your children against the content that isn't age appropriate. As content becomes age appropriate, talk about it in a no-nonsense, but again an age approriate, fashion.

Sometimes this becomes impossible. I think about disasters like suicide bombers, tsunamis, truck bombs, planes bringing down buildings. We shield our kids as much as possible, but there comes a time when you HAVE to talk with them about subjects that are not age appropriate to keep them well adjusted.

Now...you will always have zealots that want their kids to ONLY ever have the experiences that they want them to have and bring them up in a way that twists their view of the real world. In its most extreme case, this can be a form of child abuse as well. Heard about the Branch Davidians?

</flame suit off>

lucindrea

03-03-05, 03:54 PM

just one thing i wanted add

when i said i dont want anything censored it didnt mean hard core porn on at 3pm , their are things that should be adjusted for the age watching it ... BUT i also think that their is something wrong when it becomes inappropriate to show a mother breast feeding , but it's fine to show 2 planes crashing into the towers 50 times a day for 3 weeks.
oh and any kids in Alabama that were traumatized by the planes crashing into the towers learned that from their parents , no 8 yr old can concive of the amount of violence and death that caused , to them it was pictures on tv , it's the reaction of all the adults they reacted to.

s.bradford

03-03-05, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Norbert
Maybe the cable companies will need to give an IQ test to potential subscribers to see if they know how to use, or much less, know about the V-chip and parental lockouts to avoid possible litigation from parents.

Personally, I would like to see such a test mandatory for a license to procreate. Then we can look forward to just one last generation of this BS! (c:

Bigjohns

03-03-05, 04:54 PM

Hmm. No volunteers for the anti-ptc campaign? I could have sworn that several members of this board wanted in....

email webmaster [at] paptc dot org

all skills needed!

Creech

03-03-05, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Bigjohns
Hmm. No volunteers for the anti-ptc campaign? I could have sworn that several members of this board wanted in....

email webmaster [at] paptc dot org

all skills needed!

What does the "pa" before the "ptc" mean? Parents Against...People Against...Pornographers Against?

Papacy?
Pirates?
Penguins?

Bigjohns

03-03-05, 06:02 PM

Your choice - People Against... Parents Against... both work for me...

icecow

03-03-05, 06:41 PM

MSAMADD-Middle Schoolers Against Mothers Against Drunk Driving

sixt7gt350

03-03-05, 08:30 PM

"Child abuse" has been tossed about as a phrase in this thread more than once. Sadly, it has been tossed around and mis-used the way "sexual harassment" has been over-reached to include a third-party hearing a private conversation and being offended.

American society, in its ever-increasing embrace of socialism, has been expanded by liberals (yes, liberals) to prevent parents from choosing how to raise their own children by firmly inserting a government agency into every family. My wife watches "Judging Amy" and I just about want to smack the mom every episode I happen to be unlucky enough to witness. Child abuse is physical beating of a kid. To insulate a child from behaviors or activities that one finds unacceptable or offensive is called responsible parenting, not child abuse. To let your child eat candy and no vegetables is irresponsible parenting, but definitely not child abuse.

Mandatory birth control for those with an IQ below 130? I'm all for it until I realize that it is yet another socialist concept. To be truly free, I must accept that a significant portion of the population is just plain stupid and procreating at a higher rate than the more intelligent members of society. (which is like a breeder nuclear reactor: More stupid people having more stupid children, being able to vote more liberals into office, creating more social programs, allowing stupid people to have more stupid children, who make their own stupid children....)

jackshakes

03-03-05, 11:23 PM

i don't know that IQ is the best way to dictate breeding rights. i know plenty of people who have high IQs who are pretty damn stupid. You've heard the term book smarts but no common smarts.

and socialism isn't really all that bad if it's done right and if everyone in society pitches in. but I will agree socialism in america would be a cluster f***. too many freeloaders. it would only make people like me and you suffer and carry the weight of the lazy (kinda like now) and the system would fall apart.

oh how I love liberals. I just read an article today about some dumbass kids in Orlando jumping from one parking garage to another. Obviously some kids didn't make it (white folk can't jump) and now the parents of one is sueing the city and the owners of the parking garages. I mean ... *obviously* it's the fault of the garage owners for not stopping their kid from being an idiot. Furthermore they should have had the forsight to know someone would actually try something that stupid and put up some barrier. I mean, it's certainly not the kids fault, and *CERTAINLY* not the parents.

Oh and let's not forget the kids saw it on a tv show or movie, so obviously the tv networks, show creators, and actors are to balme too.

I swear ... I'll never understand the mindset of the left. I'm all for helping people out when they get in a bind, but get a grip folks.

lglenn73

03-04-05, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by jackshakes
i don't know that IQ is the best way to dictate breeding rights. i know plenty of people who have high IQs who are pretty damn stupid. You've heard the term book smarts but no common smarts.

and socialism isn't really all that bad if it's done right and if everyone in society pitches in. but I will agree socialism in america would be a cluster f***. too many freeloaders. it would only make people like me and you suffer and carry the weight of the lazy (kinda like now) and the system would fall apart.

I swear ... I'll never understand the mindset of the left. I'm all for helping people out when they get in a bind, but get a grip folks.
Socialism IS REALLY THAT BAD. It's a system that FORCES you to pay taxes in high amounts to suppliment the income of people who don't make as much as you.

All it essentially does is bring people down to the lowest common denominator. Let's say that I make $50,000/yr. A socialist government charges me 50% in total taxes. A person making $15,000/yr falls in the poverty category, doesn't have to pay taxes, and also qualifies for government welfare. Since I make $50k a year, I'm considered too wealthy to qualify for any benefits, but the person making $15,000 does. If that other person gets $4,000 in additional funs and services that I would have to pay out of my own pocket, like automobile, insurance, etc...., his total net would essentially be $19,000.

You see what would happen here is that people making $50,000 would say... "Why should I work hard and get barely more than someone who's making a 1/3 of what I do?".... Instead of encouraging people to better themselves, you're showing that if you don't succeed, it doesn't matter because the government will make everyone equal.

Also, all the money you pay in taxes under socialism would far exceed the amount you'd get back from it unless you're in poverty.

As someone once said to me... "If you think that healthcare is expensive now, wait until the government controlls it."

I don't want to suppliment this kind of system. Socalism should be voluntary. If you want to pay into Social Security, then you would get the benefit. Since Social Security is essentially supposed to have the government hold money until you retire, what's the problem if I don't want to pay into it? :) It should be a choice. Just because some people think that it's a "good" idea, doesn't mean that I should be forced to be generous. I have to work hard enough for the income I get. Why should I have to work twice as hard to make ends meet just because some people think it's "only fair?"

Anyway..... breeding rights would never work in the US. Adoption is always possible.... :) If abortion ever becomes illegal, there will be plenty of unwanted children to be found.

People who sue over their kids stupidity deserved to be sued for the mental anguish caused by finding their kids dead near their building, or sueing the parents for trespassing on their property. You have to fight these people in court and show them the consequences for frivilous law suits. If they can sue without having to pay for legal fees if they don't win, what's stopping them from sueing?

Lauren

Wrecks

03-04-05, 01:37 AM

Instead of just posting messages:

If you favor a cleanup of television, go to the Parents Telvision Council website at http://www.parentstv.org/ and make a donation.

On the other hand, if you don't like censorship, go to the website of the National Coalition Against Censorship at http://ncac.org/ and make a donation to them.

nded

03-04-05, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by lglenn73
........... Since Social Security is essentially supposed to have the government hold money until you retire, what's the problem if I don't want to pay into it? :) It should be a choice............

Lauren

Lauren,

You have drawn one of the conclusions that has muddied the water about Social Security for a long time. It never has been a program where the govt. holds your money until you retire. I guarantee you that the government has already spent every cent you have paid, and they do not have your money in safe keeping. Look into the mirror right now and say the government is not holding my money - they have spent it. Repeat this procedure 3 times a day until reality soaks into your brain. It has been to the government's advantage to let the common man falsely think that it is a retirement savings plan.

From day 1, the program has been about the redistribution of wealth. People who never paid a penny into the program were the immediate beneficiaries when the program was implemented, as they were deemed worthy by the programs designers. The whole program is essentially the same as a pyramid scheme, and it worked really well, until the bums in the free healthcare marketplace started extending our life spans. As long as most people were dying before they were eligible for benefits, the program was financially sound. When the fat cats in Washington realized they had so much excess funding, they found ways over time to expand the program to provide aditional benefits like lifetime disability programs.

Now that I think about it, perhaps the real reason behind the push to have the government take over health care is really a back door solution to the financial problems with Social Security. If the government takes over health care, the quality will go down. When the quality of health care goes down, the average life span will decrease. When the average life span decreases, the social security burden decreases. If we can get enough people to die soon enough, we will have solved the problem with Social Security. I guess I've underestimated the wisdom and insight that has been driving those who call for health care reform in the US.

jackshakes

03-04-05, 11:26 AM

Lauren ...

I understand how socialism works ... my wife is from Finland (we were married there even). And socialism works great for them. Why? Because they have very few people who abuse the system. And those who do aren't allowed to for very long. Her parents fall into the group of 'priviledge' people you seem to think get screwed under this system. Yes, they pay ungodly amounts of taxes ... but they're doing more than ok. and they never have problems getting healthcare, or any other government based services because they "make too much".

In fact, we have more of a problem with that here i think. I.E. I wasn't eligible for any govt. based scholarships (or loans) when I went to college because my parents 'made too much' (oh, and we're white). The fact that they were supporting my two brothers, aunt, and her two kids meant nothing.

What you say is very true in regards with how socialism would work in america ... which is why I agree it's a horrible idea here.

Just realize there is no one government structure for everyone. Just because socialism doesn't work here, doesn't mean it wouldn't elsewhere with different people who hold different mindsets.

Likewise what I wish the dems would realize, is just becuse socialism works elsewhere doesn't mean it's a good idea here.

anyway, this isn't a thread about government ... so perhaps we should let this one go.

rf75

03-04-05, 11:55 AM

We operate as a society, not as a collection of individuals. We don't want to pay lots of $$ for car insurance, but we do because we don't want to be obliterated financially when some clown loses control of his car on ice. We don't want to pay taxes but we do want roads and some degree of security from bad guys at home and abroad. We don't want to fork over 20-30% of our income for old age security but we do because we don't want to make our chidren (if any) support us or have to step over old people begging for food and heat as we walk down the street. All of a society has to make compromises for the benefit of the whole. This is how humanity has evolved.

There are so many people who want you to think the way they do. They are threatened if you are able to succeed without thinking the way they do; it makes them insecure with their values. Rather than question the validity of their values it is much more comfortable to adhere to blind faith, and to do that successfully youmust try to remove conflicts with that faith. Thus the drive to make everyone think that a bare nipple will destroy a child's life. Never mind that one of the first things a child sees is a nipple and that life depends on that kid hooking onto that nipple. Or is that why some are so threatened by it?

Sexual urges are deeply primal and those early animal instincts are not connected with the logical brain as most of the rest of our natural motivations. So many have never come to terms with their own sexuality and cannot even subconsciously admit this, so they must try to inhibit others' perceptions of sexuatlity to avoid having to address their own.

But the complexity of that thought escapes most of them so they'll just keep following and electing and donating to people who will pander to that insecurity. As long as they outnumber the people who are unafraid to use their brains and question their assumptions, we will continnue to see George Bushes and Ashcrofts and similar pinheads get authority and try to make us think their way. That IS the "freedom" "they" hate us for isn't it?

mike411

03-04-05, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by rf75
We operate as a society, not as a collection of individuals. We don't want to pay lots of $$ for car insurance, but we do because we don't want to be obliterated financially when some clown loses control of his car on ice. We don't want to pay taxes but we do want roads and some degree of security from bad guys at home and abroad. We don't want to fork over 20-30% of our income for old age security but we do because we don't want to make our chidren (if any) support us or have to step over old people begging for food and heat as we walk down the street. All of a society has to make compromises for the benefit of the whole. This is how humanity has evolved.

There are so many people who want you to think the way they do. They are threatened if you are able to succeed without thinking the way they do; it makes them insecure with their values. Rather than question the validity of their values it is much more comfortable to adhere to blind faith, and to do that successfully youmust try to remove conflicts with that faith. Thus the drive to make everyone think that a bare nipple will destroy a child's life. Never mind that one of the first things a child sees is a nipple and that life depends on that kid hooking onto that nipple. Or is that why some are so threatened by it?

Sexual urges are deeply primal and those early animal instincts are not connected with the logical brain as most of the rest of our natural motivations. So many have never come to terms with their own sexuality and cannot even subconsciously admit this, so they must try to inhibit others' perceptions of sexuatlity to avoid having to address their own.

But the complexity of that thought escapes most of them so they'll just keep following and electing and donating to people who will pander to that insecurity. As long as they outnumber the people who are unafraid to use their brains and question their assumptions, we will continnue to see George Bushes and Ashcrofts and similar pinheads get authority and try to make us think their way. That IS the "freedom" "they" hate us for isn't it?

Thank you. Maybe we can let all the rich people live (and stay) on a island together were there are no poor under middle class people to brother them. Oops who is going to clean their houses?

nded

03-04-05, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by mike411
Thank you. Maybe we can let all the rich people live (and stay) on a island together were there are no poor under middle class people to brother them. Oops who is going to clean their houses?

The free market system on the island will determine a wage that will appeal to the target workforce. You can always find quality individuals that are interested in earning an honest dollar (or some other currency if we don't stick to the US$ on the island).

I would recommend reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand if you are interested in a scenario where the elite have second thoughts about having to carry the excessive burden.

sixt7gt350

03-04-05, 07:19 PM

Who is John Galt?

nded

03-04-05, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by sixt7gt350
Who is John Galt?

:D :D :D

mike411

03-04-05, 11:06 PM

You know something my bad I forgot where I was posting at.

Wrecks

03-16-05, 11:25 PM

PTC Applauds the Appointment of Kevin Martin as New FCC Chairman

"The PTC has strongly supported Kevin Martin as Chairman of the FCC because he is a stalwart leader on the issue of indecency, and we are confident he will make a superb Chairman," said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council.

"Chairman Martin's leadership record on the indecency issue shows his commitment to serving the public interest. We look forward to working with him and the full Commission.

"Broadcast indecency is no small matter. And the FCC has been delinquent in its stewardship of the public airwaves. Just in the past year, the FCC has deemed topics such as bestiality, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex and pedophilia fit for children to watch on prime time network television. This irresponsibility must stop and with the leadership of Chairman Martin, we are confident it will.

"The Senate also must act swiftly to pass the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, so broadcasters get the message that violating the law will no longer be tolerated as a 'cost of doing business,' " concluded Bozell.

hdshark

03-17-05, 01:52 AM

History has proven that communism does not work, probably because it does not fit the instinctive functionality of human societies.

Socialism obviously works in some European countries, but I doubt it would ever work in the US given the level of selfishness, obsession with owning more stuff and widespread temptation to making a quick buck as opposed to living a good life through hard work.

However, anti-socialism and/or anti-communism has been effectively used to channel the anger of people who are getting screwed by the rich against people other than the rich who are screwing them. If I was making $50K a year and paying a lot of taxes every year from my hard earned income, I would be much more worried about companies making hundreds of millions of dollars income and not paying any taxes using various tax shelters than the single mom chosing not to work to collect her unemployment and health benefits. A much higher percentage of your tax dollars is being used to subsidize abusers of the former kind.

sixt7gt350

03-17-05, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by hdshark
History has proven that communism does not work, probably because it does not fit the instinctive functionality of human societies.

Socialism obviously works in some European countries, but I doubt it would ever work in the US given the level of selfishness, obsession with owning more stuff and widespread temptation to making a quick buck as opposed to living a good life through hard work.

However, anti-socialism and/or anti-communism has been effectively used to channel the anger of people who are getting screwed by the rich against people other than the rich who are screwing them. If I was making $50K a year and paying a lot of taxes every year from my hard earned income, I would be much more worried about companies making hundreds of millions of dollars income and not paying any taxes using various tax shelters than the single mom chosing not to work to collect her unemployment and health benefits. A much higher percentage of your tax dollars is being used to subsidize abusers of the former kind.

That's where the socialist attitude starts. Your assertions are that taxes are required for every company and working person, while the non-working person is entitled to her benefits. As an anti-socialist, the break I would give the single mom is a reduction in taxes. The EIC is nothing more than socialist welfare in IRS clothing. You really want to know what would have helped that single mom? Birth control or adoption. To me, the height of selfishness is refusal to give a child up for adoption and the very real possibility of a better life for him. Society, the mother, and the child all end up the losers when a single parent unable to support said child doesn't choose to put it up for adoption. There are waiting lists for infants.

Bigjohns

03-17-05, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by hdshark
<snip> If I was making $50K a year and paying a lot of taxes every year from my hard earned income, I would be much more worried about companies making hundreds of millions of dollars income and not paying any taxes using various tax shelters than the single mom chosing not to work to collect her unemployment and health benefits. A much higher percentage of your tax dollars is being used to subsidize abusers of the former kind.

Companies don't pay taxes. Period. You can claim it's a "corporate income tax" but the entire burden of that tax falls on the people who consume the companies products.

Wrecks

03-21-05, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by hdshark
History has proven that communism does not work, blah, blah, blah

Socialism obviously works in some European countries, blah, blah, blah

However, anti-socialism and/or anti-communism has been effectively used blah, blah, blah... That post does not have anything to do with the PTC, censorship or indecency on television.

Snarler

03-24-05, 11:46 AM

I just read a snippet in a magazine that indicates a researcher looked at the complaints filed to the FCC etc. and here are some of the numbers he came up with.

-In 2003, 99.8 percent of complaints filed came from the PTC.
-In 2004, 99.9 percent of non-Super Bowl related complaints came from the PTC.
-In one particular case of 90 complaints leading to a 1.2 million dollar fine against the show "Married by America", they came from either 23 or 32 individuals (can't remember now and it's not in front of me), only 1 of which actually indicated they watched the show. I'm a little fuzzy on the next point, but there was also something about that one that indicated there were only like 5 unique complaints (meaning most of them were copies sent in multiple times by multiple people.)

--
Daniel

gweempose

03-24-05, 01:31 PM

Have you guys read this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=519371) article? I found it extremely upsetting!

raidbuck

03-24-05, 02:03 PM

I might get flamed, or edited, but this is an explosive topic.

I know it has been mentioned, but these "indecency" groups are primarily right-wing Christian groups.

Their agenda has been to eliminate the chance that people will see/hear dissenting views. This is especially true for children. They are afraid that their child will see something (evolution is tops, I think) that undermines their carefully constructed view of the world according to their interpretation of the Bible. This is an opportunity to get their views institutionalized for an issue that is easier for them to win.

All these - Turn off the TV - type responses are valid, but irrelevant to them. These people profess to be doing God's work as they see it from their leaders and the Bible. They feel they are protecting their families and other people as well.

I'm sorry if I moved into an uncomfortable area, but with our current political situation, I believe that they will "win".

And it won't stop with basic cable, either. If you like unedited movies, in 5 years they may be an extinct species on any cable, broadcast or satellite system. The internet will provide more of the banned entertainment than traditional TV sources - for a while.

And, evidently, the majority of people who vote approve of this censorship.

Rich N.

gweempose

03-24-05, 02:26 PM

Here is a quote from the article I linked to:

"Gonzales, a former White House lawyer, placed an obscenity crackdown on the same list of priorities as the war on terror, deterring violent crime, lobbying for victims'-rights legislation, reforming immigration laws and eliminating human trafficking."

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

jackshakes

03-24-05, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by raidbuck

And, evidently, the majority of people who vote approve of this censorship.

I get what you're saying and agree for the most part, but this last statement is a bit off I think.

Suggesting that because someone voted for Bush they somehow deserve to be thrown in the same bucket as super far right wing bible thumpers is crazy.

You have to remember that for most people, voting in presidential elections is simply a choice of the lesser of two evils. So just because someone votes one way doesn't even begin to suggest that they support everything that candidate stands for. Moreso it suggests they agree with this candidate more than they do with that candidate and hope that the 'checks and balances' of our govt. will stop them from doing anything too crazy. (I know this opens another debate, but it is what most people hope for, even if it's naieve)

I myself am a Christian ... and yes I voted for Bush. Not because I agree with him 100% (I oppose the anti-gay constitutional ammendment for example and voted against it, I don't agree with the lifestyle but it's not a constitutional issue IMO) ... I voted for Bush because I agree moreso with the beliefs of him and his followers than I do of Kerry and the left. But until you know what those issues are you can't begin to place me in any bucket.

I am no where near where the PTC and its members stand. I do believe public media should be held to some sense of decency ... but more importantly I believe in personal responsibility (which is more of a right wing value than a left).

Anyway, I don't mean to get to windy here ... but don't think all right wingers can be placed in one large bucket with the Rush's and PTCs, etc. That makes no more sense than me saying all of you left wing kerry supporters are nothing but a bunch of "liberal hippie douches" who just want to take my money and give it to someone who hasn't tried working for it.

You have to realize that although the political parties can be basically divided into two categories, the supporters of each side run the gamit from very down to earth and 'with it' to crazy extremists.

raidbuck

03-24-05, 04:14 PM

Jackshakes, you are probably correct, my last sentence was a bit emotional and not very fair.

And certainly liberals can be extremists.

My point was that as much as this thread has been so against those types of groups, we are not typical of americans' views on censorship, Bush has always championed their points of view (AFAIK) and so voting for him gives these groups a lot more political and judicial (through appointments) power than some would like to think.

Thanks for your response.

Rich N.

lizard_boy

03-24-05, 04:19 PM

Yeah, but when one candidate is 100% evil, it should be an easy choice.

jackshakes

03-24-05, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by lizard_boy
Yeah, but when one candidate is 100% evil, it should be an easy choice.

Kerry? Yes I agree. :D

Douche.

sixt7gt350

03-24-05, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by lizard_boy
Yeah, but when one candidate is 100% evil, it should be an easy choice.

I don't think her hat officially hits the ring until 2008.
You're right, though, that will be one heck of an easy choice.

BlindLemonLarry

03-24-05, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by jackshakes
oh how I love liberals. I just read an article today about some dumbass kids in Orlando jumping from one parking garage to another. Obviously some kids didn't make it (white folk can't jump) and now the parents of one is sueing the city and the owners of the parking garages. I mean ... *obviously* it's the fault of the garage owners for not stopping their kid from being an idiot. Furthermore they should have had the forsight to know someone would actually try something that stupid and put up some barrier. I mean, it's certainly not the kids fault, and *CERTAINLY* not the parents.

How exactly is that a "liberal" or "left wing" issue?!? (Hint...it's not!)

raidbuck

03-24-05, 09:24 PM

What's this 100% evil stuff? On either side. That's just silly.

Bush isn't "evil", he's just a right wing ideologue, like Kerry is for the left. He's plunged us into a potentially disastrous budget deficit in spite of inheriting a surplus from "evil" Clinton. Isn't is strange that all those economists who used to decry a deficit now say nothing since a Republican is directly responsible for it?. Got us into a war on knowingly false pretenses. Enough......

But I don't think he is evil. And it says a lot about the ineptitude of the Democrats to have failed to defeat him.

Sorry, I get carried away. Back to HDTV....

Rich N.

jackshakes

03-24-05, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by BlindLemonLarry
How exactly is that a "liberal" or "left wing" issue?!? (Hint...it's not!)

in the sense that liberals or those on the "left" tend to blame everything on corporations, the government, or anything to get the blame off themselves.

honestly there are a lot of things I agree with the 'left' on ... but their take on personal responsibility is one of a handful of issues I disagree strongly with. as a result I'm a down to earth republican instead of a down to earth democrat.

BlindLemonLarry

03-25-05, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by jackshakes
in the sense that liberals or those on the "left" tend to blame everything on corporations, the government, or anything to get the blame off themselves. What an utterly false statement...where on earth did you get that impression?!? Please provide some examples, and qualify them.

Are you AT LEAST aware that the censorship crusades that aim to control and limit what you and I watch on TV (and which are the true subject of this thread) are predominately driven by right-wing, ultra-conservative, religious extremists? Or is that a "liberal" phenomenon too? You appear to have somehow equated "liberal" with "things I don't like." If it's bad, it must be "liberal."

Just to be clear, I completely agree with your views on personal responsibility, but it's hardly a "conservative" viewpoint.

jackshakes

03-25-05, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by BlindLemonLarry
What an utterly false statement...where on earth did you get that impression?!? Please provide some examples, and qualify them.

Are you AT LEAST aware that the censorship crusades that aim to control and limit what you and I watch on TV (and which are the true subject of this thread) are predominately driven by right-wing, ultra-conservative, religious extremists? Or is that a "liberal" phenomenon too? You appear to have somehow equated "liberal" with "things I don't like." If it's bad, it must be "liberal."

Just to be clear, I completely agree with your views on personal responsibility, but it's hardly a "conservative" viewpoint.

I think we're talking about different things here. I think you're saying conservatives have a lack of personal responsibility in that they expect the government to keep their media clean so they don't have to ... and in that point you're correct.

I'm talking about personal responsibility in the sense that it's the department store's fault that my kid tripped and hurt himself when I wasn't watching him. Or it's McDonald's fault because I slipped in their parking lot after it rained. Or (like I mentioned above) it's the fault of the owners of the parking deck because *I* tried to jump to another one and fell. Then again, I think some of this now is coming from irresponsible greedy people from both sides of the fence ... but I think a left winged mentality is what opened the door to such stupidity.

Or for example how no one wants to take responsibility for their own life. It's always the fault of your parents for abusing you as a kid, or not hugging you enough, or it's the fault of society 'holding you down' because you're 4 generations out of irish decent and your great grandfather had an ingrown toe nail.

That's what angers me ... is when people won't take responsibility for their own life and admit the fact that your successes and failures in life are no one's fault but your own (most of the time anyway). And more often than not it's those on the left side that I see placing the blame one someone else instead of sucking it up and moving on with life.

Like a girl I talked to before the elections who called me an idiot for suporting Bush. She was bitter because she had a college degree but couldn't get a job. She said it was the governments fault because they hadn't made a job available for her where she wanted to live and kerry would somehow fix that. I asked why she didn't take a retail job or an office job until she found what she wanted, she said because they weren't available where she lived. I asked her why doesn't she move to where the jobs are, she said she didn't want to.

But some how it's the government's fault (and more specifically Dubbya's fault) that she doesn't have a job ... not her fault for not being willing to sacrifice to get started.

Anyway ... that's what I mean when I talk about liberals and lack of responsibility ... but for the sake of this thread ... you're right, the PTC is filled with super right wing extremeists who should be shot.

BlindLemonLarry

03-26-05, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by jackshakes
I think we're talking about different things here. I think you're saying conservatives have a lack of personal responsibility in that they expect the government to keep their media clean so they don't have to ... and in that point you're correct.Well, that's just part of my argument. My point is that the "personal responsibility" issue is not a strictly liberal or conservative agenda.

My best friend is a card carrying, war loving, right-wing conservative. He has a picture of Reagan on his office wall! He's also the most sue-happy person I've ever known. Every automobile accident he's ever had has resulted in a lawsuit. He sued a pharmaceutical company when his diabetes medication was recalled. He sued his doctor when there were minor complications after surgery. He just bought a new house, and is suing the sellers because of some pre-existing damage his own inspectors failed to find...plus he's threatening to sue the inspector AND the realtor! When his pipes blew up, he tried to sue the home warranty company, even though the contract (which he signed without reading) clearly stated that internal plumbing was NOT covered. "Nobody reads those things, they should have told me!" he claimed. When a promised job failed to materialize, for weeks he spoke of suing the company..."I'll own that shop when I'm through with them!" he ranted.

Now I wouldn't judge every conservative by my dear, confused friend's (whom I assure you is a wonderful person in many other ways!) behavior, nor would I extrapolate that his lack of self-responsibility is related to his conservative mindset. I would hope that you wouldn't come to any such false conclusions about liberals based on the behavior of one lazy girl.

This "liberal" completely agrees with your views on personal responsibility. Furthermore, I would at least entertain the notion that any child that kills themselves by jumping from garage to garage is doing us all a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool! ;)

Anti-PTC

05-23-06, 06:56 AM

I loved this article, proves how much of a moron Brent Bozell is by taking his kids to the movies and taking a nap, fine parenting there.

Poisoning Children, Too?
3/3/06

It was some six years ago and my youngest boy Reid along with his best friend Mitchy, both three, had brow-beaten me into taking them to the matinee of the "Thomas the Tank Engine" movie. We had settled into our seats, they with their popcorn and soda, and I with the mission of an afternoon nap, which goal I was well on my way to achieving when I was jolted awake by the dialogue in the preview of the upcoming "Rugrats" movie. Scene after scene concluded with a comedic punchline revolving around soiled diapers, flatulence, mucus and God-knows what other bodily excretions, while my little boy and his friend giggled in delight. Thanks, Hollywood.

And here's the worst news. While most of what is offered, as children's programming at the movies and on television is wholesome in its innocence, it is also true that even here, even in the programming produced for the youngest of the young, there are cultural landmines everywhere. The topic matter and language in the "Rugrats" preview wasn't the exception. It is the rule for much of what young children are now receiving, particularly on television, as entertainment.

The Parents Television Council has released the results of a new study that examined what Hollywood is producing for children ages 5-10, before and after school and on Saturday mornings, on eight different networks. The numbers should be enough to trigger a double-take for any parent.

First there's the violence. In 443.5 hours of programming, researchers documented a staggering 3,488 instances of violence. Now hold on, Bozell, I hear the apologists saying already, surely you're not going to condemn silly cartoons, are you?

It is a good point. Just how many times did Jerry dismember Tom? How many sticks of dynamite eviscerated Wile E. Coyote, and how many times did Elmer Fudd open fire on Bugs Bunny with that shotgun? This isn't serious violence. It is fantastic and fanciful, meant to elicit laughter because it's comedic and inconsequential. After the smoke clears, the character is back. So take all those "cartoony" instances out.

And you're still left with 2,794 other examples of violence. This violence is very different. It is realistic, oftentimes dealing not with goofy farm animals but with humans, and children to boot. It is dark: there is evil. It is consequential: there is pain and suffering. There is death. On Fox's "Shaman King," a fight between two characters ends when one kicks the other in the head and knocks him unconscious. The victor picks up the loser by his hair, and reaches into his chest. The loser screams. The victor takes out the loser's soul and puts it into his own body. The loser appears dead. That's the kind of violence being presented to little boys and girls, ages 5-10, on television today.

What about language? Researchers found no less than 250 incidents of offensive language. There is the ever-present "potty humor." On the Cartoon Network's "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy," Billy shows his guardian Grim (a cartoon Grim Reaper) what he thinks of his "stupid rules" by passing gas, but then announces he has to change his pants, implying he soiled himself. In another scene, Billy's dad picks his nose so much he pulls his brains out, and thinking his brain is mucus, eats it.

Euphemisms for obscene language are also prevalent. In the cosmic order of things, most are mild to be sure – but not all. One episode of "SpongeBob SquarePants" deals with the discovery of dirty words, with the childlike characters SpongeBob and Patrick trading sound-effect-covered cuss words, and you can only imagine the obscenity of the sailor talk they're exchanging. More common still was verbal aggression, like abusive yelling and mean-spirited insults. There were 858 examples of these. And another 622 examples of disruptive, disrespectful or otherwise problematic attitudes, of which 53 were aimed at teachers or parents.

And there's sexual content, too, certainly something of great interest to one on the back end of teething. On Nickelodeon's "Fairly Odd Parents" a character uses his magic copier to make the things in his "dad's magazines" real. He pulls out the magazines; one is titled "Under the Bed Monthly." On Disney's "Sister, Sister" there are references to pornography, descriptions of foreplay, and discussions about a "Gay Policeman's Ball."

All of which begs – screams – the question: Why? There is no market demand for this. It is clearly out of bounds, offensive and dangerous. It shatters the innocence of childhood, deliberately. And yet there are people out there writing these scripts. There are people – not companies, people – producing this garbage. And there are people distributing it with the goal to reach, and influence, as many millions of little boys and girls as possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Brent Bozell's Weekly Syndicated Entertainment Column