Slashdot Mirror
FCC Levies Record Indecency Fine
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "The FCC proposed a record $3.6 million fine against a single TV show, penalizing CBS and its affiliates for an episode of 'Without a Trace' that suggested a teenage sexual orgy, in the first batch of indecency fines proposed in more than a year, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Overall, the FCC's action didn't provide a broad sweeping vision for broadcasters about what is appropriate for television,' the WSJ says. 'Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint.'"
Good thing we have the Bush administration to help us with these ultra liberal television networks. Next thing you know gays will be marrying giraffes and marriage will be worthless. Shame on them.
Come on, everyone wants to see it now! This is just ancient psychology, forbidden fruits....
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
That fucking sucks!
Personally, if something like this appens, 3.6 million is like a slap on the wrist. Seriously, that is nothing for the big networks.
btw, why is this rights "online"?
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
What's wrong with teenage sexual orgies, and how can an orgy be non-sexual?
Then why is it that I keep seeing commercials for "Girls gone wild" at around 5 PM on popular channels (not premium or pay-per-view). They blur out the bare minimum and the language is somewhat more than explicit.
So, pornography is just fine, but seeing an episode of T.V. that happens to make an allusion to sex is simply too much?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Um, they're getting fined 3.6 million for "suggesting" a "teenage orgy"?
What about shows like Family Guy which have untold amounts of adult-oriented innuendo and jokes??! I can't see this as a legitimate endeavour whatsoever...
Can the USA still be regarded as the land of the free, where any citizen san say whatever they like?
Talking of indecency, why don't the authorities shut down the Jerry Springer Show? I have seen a level of indecency I'd never imagined! Can anyone figure how a mother could compete with a daughter for a man? I watched on such episode on Jerry Springer. To say the truth, I almost fell sick!
I guess it's all about the money.
Take Law and Order. Remove all credibility, depth, and attempts at grounding in real-world accuracy.
You now have CSI.
Now take CSI, and remove all credibility, depth, and attempts at grounding in real-world accuracy that's still left.
You now have Without a Trace.
This already tame and formulaic show will, I'm quite certain, become even more tame and formulaic in the wake of this fine; its one positive feature, it's occasional tendency to take some kind of sensitive or topical issue and attempt to tackle it, even if ineptly, will now disappear in fear that they'll cross the line and get fined again.
Remember back in the good 'ol 1950s, when cop shows were like Dragnet, and criminals and druggies and whatnot never showed up unless they were cartoonish, blue-faced mockeries? Now that's the kind of television the Bush executive wants to see more of!
Where was the FCC when that Golden Girls show was on? Gosh darn it, some of that stuff was indecent. Sure, the characters were wrinklies, not teen agers, but you get my point. Wait, am I confusing this with Matlock?
I'm sure all the complaints said essentially the same thing: "It was so horrifying and shocking that I just couldn't turn it off!" Yes, shame on the networks for using depictions of extremism and fringe elements in our society to sell advertising, but also shame on the viewing public for not having the common sense to simply not watch such crap (or monitor their childrens watching of it).
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm
Here is a link to the clip in question.
You can decide for yourself if it constitutes a "teenage orgy" or not
I posted this in another thread, here's the clip in question, thoughtfully brought to you by the Parents' Television Council! Let's hear a round of applause for their diligence in bringing teenage orgy footage online.
/ content.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
South Park had it right: "Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Since when is an orgy worse than rape or murder?
Isn't this why we have the damned V-chip?
So that should cover the "somebody think of the children" crowd. Beyond that, if you don't like what they are showing, don't watch their show/network. Last I checked, "having what you want on T.V" wasn't one of those inalienable rights from the constitution.
This isn't really a free speech issue. It's a "why is America so full of whiny-ass bitches who thing the whole world ought to cater exclusively to them" issue.
I guess they didn't object to primte time TV footage of American troops leading naked Iraqi prisoners leashed through the prison catacombs... now that is really indecent.
Makes me wonder... why are the Americans thinking of invading Iran? The two countries are equally fucked up in my humble mind, about the same attitudes toward "indecency".
Ayatollah Bush of the Intelligent Design priesthood, the leader of the world, mwahhahhahha!
Was censored, although they snuck in a few zinngers in a few of the sketches. Jeez I remember watching that on Kentucky PBS in the 70's with no cuts. My oh my how the Jezzbus freeks have taken over.
Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that the v-chip was invented for?
It seems to me that there is an inordinate amount of "for your own good" pretection going on here. I believe that the networks should finally grab their b@lls up off the shelves and simply refuse to pay the fines, en-mass.
Maybe we should all start filing indecency complaints against tampon commercials.
It's not the amount they are fined that matters, it is the fact that they are being fined. They "suggested" an orgy. It's not even as if one occurred where no nudity was shown, it was merely "suggested".
This is ridiculous.
I remember a few years ago, a story about an odd occurrence in an upper-class neighborhood. For some unexplained reason, a significant number of teens (some kind of young) started showing up at doctors' offices to report symptoms characteristic of at least one STD- mostly the same one. They thought it was kind of strange that it would not only happen to so many within a small geographic area, but within such a short period of time. After somes investigation, it was dicovered that these kids were doing exactly what the show suggested - having sex parties/orgies while parents weren't around to supervise. Oh, the horror. I'm not sure what value the FCC sees in burying these kinds of issues by sweeping them under a carpet of fines. Oh that's right...if people don't hear about it, that must mean that it's simply not happening.
on Bill O'Reilly. The issue here is not that "sex is evil" but that this scene was a violation of the stated rules. This was shown in primetime and not after 10PM. Based on the time of day, there are rules for public broadcasters. So this can turn into a big argument, but those are the rules. If you don't like the rules, then contact your congressman or congresswoman.
And btw, I love when the southpark movie is shown after 1:30 PM occasionally. There's nothing like hearing, "you butt fucking uncle fucker" to celebrate our nation's tolerance on "foul" language.
When the FCC enforces standards of decency they're just thinking of the chilren ... yeah, that's it.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Sounds like "advertising" dollars well spent. But seriously how is it ok to show people being blown up/slaughtered, but not ok to show some skin, or a hint at some questionable activities?
Since the USA already has a violence problem, should we continue to show people being blown up/shot at, or participating in an orgy? I vote for the later, since I'd rather be invited to an orgy, than be shot.
..........FULL STOP.
I think a big part of this fine is because the show in question aired at 9:00 in the Central and Mountain time zones. Considering the climate, I think CBS would have been wise to tone it down or move it to a later slot. I personally am quite anti-censorship. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. If you don't want your kids to watch it, then you need to take parential initiative. But I watched the clip and read the description, and I can understand where people who are very offended by that type of material are coming from. If I had young kids, I don't think I'd want them stumbling across that, especially if I weren't there to discuss with them the consequences of teenage orgies. Still, I can't say that I agree with the FCCs actions.
I've always wondered where it goes.
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/clips/worst/WithoutaT race_orgy.wmv
That's not an 'orgy', that's underwear sex.
There's a huge difference. Or so I hear...
Seriously, this isn't with 3.6 mil, no way, no how. I mean, I could barely get off to it...
I know you were modded 'Funny' and I get your 'Joke'.
Sex in itself is not immoral, but perhaps a group of teenage sons and daughters (who likely do not understand the responsibilities that come with sex) having an orgy is. Of course, if there is a problem with teenage orgies in America, ignoring the problem is not the answer either.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because people aren't complaining to the FCC about it. If enough people did, they'd get slapped with fines too. It's the squeeky wheel syndrome: the FCC isn't going to do anything on its own, becuause if they're not receiving complaints, viewers must think it's OK.
Since clearly the FCC is basing its fines on what draws complaints and not what is obscene, why not just counter-protest by flooding their complaints department with complaints about something innocuous? Like, say, Fox News. What if the FCC started getting a deluge of obscenity complaints every time a Fox affiliate ran a news segment?
This wouldn't be hard to organize. I think there are about as many people who are so sick of the FCC's nonsense they're willing to write some frivolous letters it could form a pressure group equal in size to the pressure groups responsible for 90% of the "obscenity" complaints today.
Something that one could/would experience at uni. :)
That aside, all the actors would (by law) have to be at least 18 years of age to participate in such a scene. None of the actors look to be underage. Nothing in the clip provides any indication that the actors are underage, nor is there anything to imply that they are in high school.
if the teens are old enough, why cant they have an orgy. orgys are fun....
portfolio
Ignoring all the knee-jerk reactions, you should watch the video yourself before you post./ content.htm [wmv alert]
...) and get busy. Granted, that's not what the show is all about.
Here: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace
Rated PG and airing at 10PM on CBS, it's a drunken teen party where everybody not afraid to find a partner (or 2, 3,
According to CBS.com:
WITHOUT A TRACE is a riveting procedural drama about the New York Missing Persons Squad of the FBI. The sole responsibility of the special task force is to find missing persons by applying advanced psychological profiling techniques to peel back the layers of the victims' lives and trace their whereabouts in an effort to discover whether they have been abducted, been murdered, committed suicide or simply run away. The team reconstructs a "Day of Disappearance" timeline that details every minute of the 24 hours prior to the disappearance and digs into every facet of the victim's life, following one simple rule: learn who the victim is in order to learn where the victim is.
Watered down CSI? Maybe. The show focuses on teen victims, so that probably explains the placement of that scene (flashback, actually).
I really don't think CBS deserved this, but they'll likely take it for fear of negative PR. It shows at 10PM for chrissake's! Who watches TV at that hour and isn't a pervert?
2c
How many $$$$ were spent by American Family Radio to reach a fine of this size?
Just think about this one.. If you've got the cha-ching, and a dry sense of humor, the possibilities are about unlimited. Buy a block of network airtime, and just say any old god damn thing that amuses you. You could say things like shit, fuck, cunt, or even "I shit your fucking cunt lol!1!1". Just pay the fines on the way out the door, and you are gold.
Take a guy like Gates.. he could sing "Uncle Fucker" from the South Park movie, quote highlights from "The Aristocrats" and finish up with an 8mm snuff flim, and the fines would be below the noise floor on his balance sheet.
But no.. it's all about the medicine for African childern. If they're really so poor, why are they living in Africa? I can't even afford to visit that place..
Sorry, what was I saying?
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
You're on to something there!
:P )
Rainbow Six (Too hot for TV! Six teens show you how they have a wild Rainbow party, as... [cont.])
Rainbow Six 2: Rogue Spear... of Love
Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield... Porn Actress
Rainbow Six 4: Lockdown... on your lover, baby
Rainbow Six 5: ???
(Rainbow Six 7: "Prophet!!!"
Who says sex and violence don't mix?
A Pseudonymous Coward
There's an ad campaign that's been censored in the UK for Australia because it has the word 'bloody' in it and the website couldn't be more popular.
Of course, in Australia, the show's called 'Without a bloody trace' =)
I don't know if I'd really want my kids to see this, but if I was forced to choose between this and "CSI", I'd choose this, every time. As I'm sure most of you know, "CSI" is on the same network as "Without a Trace", they show all kinds of violence, and it's on an hour earlier, yet no one complains.
And they wonder why this country is messed up...
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
Why do religious people insist on ruining OTHER people's fun?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Possible solutions: (a) educate them so that they can understand the responsibilities that come with sex and make intelligent choices, or (b) try to brainwash them into thinking that certain sexual behaviors are inherently immoral Because You Say So. Which is better? Hint: one of the two will blow your credibility at some point.
Let me get this this right. US has gone to war against a nation with no real proof that that nation had any intent of means to harm the US, with the result being thousands of innocent people being killed, including Iraqi children, men, women and patriotic young US men and women. Ok, check.
A portayal of a group of young people having a pleasant and consenting interaction with each other? Bad! Evil! Fine them billions! Riiiiiigh-T.
So violence on TV? Good. War based on lies? Good. Innocent lives being killed for Bush and his rich friends? Really good. Consenting sex? BAD.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Why do we mock the governments of Russia and China for censorship when we can't even show live TV ?
We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.
We need to 'RETAKE' our airwaves from the rightwing.
If you're living in a free society, that society does not restrict 'offensive' or 'indecent' speech. This is Christian fundamentalism, right-wing Republican bullshit, and is actually one of the telling signs of Fascism, not Democracy. By the way, there is no such thing as 'indecent' speech. This was an FCC fabrication to suit their purposes.
By the way, the FCC was established to govern the FREQUENCIES that over-the-air broadcasts and electrical devices use. In today's age of cable and satellite, the FCC should be little more than a VERY small government organization that tries to make sure that your cell phone doesn't interfere with your TV set, and that the government can jam any consumer electronic device they choose. They should not be involved, in any way, in censorship, broadcast licensing blackmail or fining anyone for content.
I am an American, and I'm ashamed at what our society and government have become.
Actually, the first thought in my head after watching this clip was a particular Onion article.
You act like there was no way for the witter to write a underage sexual orgy without resorting in softcore pornography. The truth is, the witter made the choice to illustrate it that way. There are also many places for softcore porn writers to do their thing, like Cinemax pretty much all the time.
This is simply another producer setting aside standards to increase viewership. They wanted to push the bar; they should take the personal responsibility for doing so.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
... it's the sound of another nail being driven in the values of the Founding Fathers. Hell, the FCC (like all the Nanny State agencies) is so far outside the original scope of the Federal Government it's not funny.
Give me a break! Both reading the transcript of the scene and watching it proves that nothing "naughty" was shown only implied. Last time I checked it was not against any law to imply anything sexual, whereas actually showing it could be considered obscene. But they did not show anything!!!!!
...me
I am getting extremely tired of the right-wing, morally superior elements of this country dictating the kinds of things that we can see, hear or even read about. Grow up and open you damn eyes! This is the real world where people do have sex (shocking!), talk about it and even actually get some! A two second shot of a nipple, or an implied suggestion of an orgy will not destroy the moral fiber of anyone... Just get over it. The show was about teenagers, who probably talk about sex even more than any other age group. Any show about them that shows it is only being honest.
Compared to the rest of the world America is among the most prudest countries.... What's next, hajibs for all the women?
The complaint form should include a box that asks, "Are you aware of the V-Chip parental access controls and it's operation?" or something to that effect. If the answer is "no" the complaint should get tossed and if the answer is "yes" then an automated reply should be sent to the effect that the viewer should tailor the V-Chip controls to suit their particular tastes.
No one ever mentions the V-Chip anymore because it's not their own viewing habits that concern them, but their neighbor's.
The authority of the FCC of censoring broadcasting companies stands legally on shaky grounds and is subject of increasing controversy. This case is just another one in which the FCC has not only come up with some arbitrary and insane fees but it seems to have clearly overstepped its legal boundaries. Hopefully CBS takes the matter to the Supreme Court so that the right-wing conservative censorship in our country can be finally put to rest and the constitutional right of Free Speech and Expression reinstated again.
Major budget shortcomings in the FCC fiscal year 2006, leaves less than intelligent beaurocrats scratching their asse.... uhm heads wondering what to do to make it up....
Then they had an apostrophe (yes, they actually mistook apostrophe for epiphany as there was nothing in the budget to pay for one) - let's find something suggestive and fine the network for it. Hell - if we can ram this through, maybe we can fine for things like - oh I don't know - condom commercials for *suggestive lewd behavior* or something...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
The old money in the US that really governs the country is made up of families that had their roots in a lot of quirky religions that were run out of Europe. Hence you can have tits in a margarine commercial in Europe, but if a shrouded nipple shows up in a TV show it is chased down by investigators. Ironically, it is pretty much only in the fundamentalist whacky Muslim sect countries where you will find the equivalent of a Pat Robertson and his ilk claiming god kills millions for considering gay marriage and teaching evolution. You wonder why youth is violent, but consider that the unintended message is that American society prefers extreme violence to demonstrative physical love between people. The reality is each one of us is here because two people got laid. If they had been killed...
Frankly, it would appear, the Europeans had the right idea with these whack-jobs.
It appears to me that the folks who are upset about this so called indecency have issues. I saw the program, and as so often is the case in "Without a Trace" when the subject is a young person or child, the "message" is along the lines of 'Do you know where your children are, or what your children are doing?' I can only assume that these folks are really upset because they they don't know what thier children are doing, and this program showed them up.
* Please try to keep posts on topic.
* Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
* Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
* Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
* Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Give it time, my friend. Give it time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Particularly if you happen to be a male who failed to plan ahead and insist on a prenuptual agreement. If you are such a person, you have little to gain and much to lose by entering into such a contract as marriage. Especially when you consider that women rarely marry a man who earns less money than they do, (that need for "security") and when you consider that the courts tend to be heavily biased against men in the case of divorce (child custody and most especially, alimony). This bias, by the way, originates from a time when women were second-class citizens who would have had a very difficult time earning their own living alone. Apparently I am unique in believing that equality does not mean you get to retain special privileges. Either way, consider the divorce rate and ask yourself how lucky you feel.
Please forgive me for the off-topic post. The subject came up via the A.C. and I honestly feel that few men consider the implications of choices like this. Thankfully I have not had to learn any of the above the hard way; I was fortunate enough to be able to learn this by simple observation. Remember guys, if she really loves you and it really is "always and forever," she will have no problem signing that prenup.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
"that suggested a teenage sexual orgy"
Most teenagers can't get past their own feelings of inadequacy, much less participate in an orgy.
And, if it was supposed to depict Gen-Y and beyond - I doubt it would have gotten past the "selfish whining" stage if it had been scripted true to life.
Personally, I don't envy them: They may be young, but, they've been abused by the public indoctrination system here in the US.
They don't think, and actually cannot: They've not been taught how to do so, by either their parents, nor the public education system that ostensibly is supposed to create knowledgeable, aware citizens.
They can't think, can't reason - Hell, they're semi-literate, at best - you've read their posts here: The best of them are clueless - the rest are embarassing.
But, they sure can point and click, which is a good thing - that means that they are equipped to handle Windows, Linux and OS X - they're all basically the same at the level at which they can manipulate them anyway.
It's sort of like Free Republic, the Freepers, starting out with a small group of paid posters to make themselves appear bigger than they actually were.
Working together a small group of people can make a lot of noise.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Even a PBS station was fined by the FCC today.
KCSM-TV, a San Mateo, CA Community College District noncommercial station was fined $15,000 for airing an episode of the Emmy-award-winning Martin Scorsese-produced documentary "The Blues." In it, a hip-hop musician says "I'll buy some [expletive].. This is the kind of [expletive] I buy!"
For a station their size, $15,000 is a major hit!
We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.
We already have that! It's called the internet.
Or cable television if you actually pay for content.
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
It's weird that i saw that episode broadcast very recently in my small country Portugal. It was on cable, but it was not at prime time, it was a bit after Sunday lunch, in fact, around 2pm. And absolutely no one spoke of it.
You americans care too much about this, but then, since i heard the nipple story at the super bowl, i don't find that hard to believe at all.
So violence on TV? Good. War based on lies? Good. Innocent lives being killed for Bush and his rich friends?
This is insightful? I'd call it a troll. No where in this article was the War in Iraq mentioned, but you thought to bring it up anyway. That, my friend, is the definition of troll (or at least OT).
But since you brought it up:
US has gone to war against a nation with no real proof that that nation had any intent of means to harm the US,
Not true. We have actual videotape of Saddam saying, "while a country could not attack the US with bio weapons, an individual could, provided they were given the weapons.
with the result being thousands of innocent people being killed, including Iraqi children, men, women
As opposed the the millions of men, women and children that died as a result of us not going in there earlier. (UNICEF's numbers, not mine)
and patriotic young US men and women.
When I signed up to serve, I knew this was a real possibility. I was ready to die for my country. These patriotic young US men and women knew this as well.
There, I fed the troll.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
understimate that man.... (or, his puppeteers...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Good thing we have the Bush administration to help us with these ultra liberal television networks
Don't blame this on Bush any more than you blamed Al when Tipper Gore went after WASP and Twisted Sister.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Umm dude, isn't that what happened here? They fined the individual stations the complaints were about rather than the network as a whole. And holding individual stations accountable was the point of the Supreme Court's ruling about "community standards" for determining what is or is not indecent.
Quote from the story (you did RTFA, right?): "Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint."
That V-Chip is useless. Just like all the other age rating systems. Why? Because of the ratings themselves - it's truly the "weakest link", preventing it from being useful.
I have 2 young children (yes, I do my parent job - not just put them in front of the TV), so I figured I'd lock the 18yo+ stuff, only to find out lots of normal and very boring shows were blocked (nearly half the time you'd change channel).
Programs like Dora the explorer are rated 14+ or such (more something like my 6yo likes). And then on "general public" rated stuff, you see ads for shows whose ads are somewhat disturbing even for adults (and I'm not too sensitive; talking about graphic physical violence and ads for shows called "autopsy" and such).
You can't rely on that thing to block anything, unless you don't mind it blocking all channels... The only way I can let the kids change channels is by having bought a "weemote" remote, that only works on some safe channels like Treehouse and such.
I wish they'd gimme my half penny back for the V-chip, it's an absolute waste of time and money - borderline false advertizing (it doesn't deliver).
"[WARNING: The following content summary is explicit and will be EXTREMELY offensive to many. ]"
From the video, while the girl relating the anecdote to the other girls who looked to be in dress suites did seem distraught, I didn't see anything that would be offensive, like say burning a black man on a cross, racism, homophobia, or anything equivalent. It was just a group of people having consesual fun in the privacy of someone's house.
How am I to be offended by someone else's lifestyle choice? That's the kind of thought pattern that leads to saying black people are of a lesser species, or that homosexuals are inhuman. That's the justification used to fly planes into buildings.
The only thing offensive here is that a small minory feels the need to censor the speech of the many, because they don't have the ability to live in a society of tolerance.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
A good music video has more skin in than that.
I'll bet you think sex is dirty*, eh?
(* in fact, sex *is* dirty, but only if you're doing it right)
I know I didn't, but am wondering if they didn't have the standard CYA disclaimer, the one where the announcer intones in a sonorous voice "The following program deals with adult subject matter, viewers with young children are strongly cautioned..." , or whatever the hell that rap is.
Barring that, there is something called the remote.
Barring *that* there is something called the OFF switch.
The McNeil-Lehrer News Hour tonight pointed out that the majority of the complaints tendered to the FCC, which resulted in actions or fines, were from "organized groups".
[rant]
So what this really boils down to is the current administration pandering to their base in advance of the November mid-term elections, and I for one find it reprehensible that morality nazis bonded at the anus to politicians seeking re-election are rewriting the core values that this country was built on.
[/rant]
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
1000 channels of My 3 Sons and Brady Bunch reruns for the next 3 years. Oh Well, at least we will still have Pat Robertson and 700 club girls showing some ankle (well, lower ankle) to look forward to.
Before anyone mods my perceived jealousy "funny" - let me say that I am dead serious, and if you consider what basic human emotions are like... chances are that you probably feel the same way.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Why do I get the feeling that this could potentially be the greatest publicity stunt for a Prime Time TV Show? Ratings for "Without a Trace" are going to skyrocket now because so many people are going to tune in to "find out for themselves." That episode will become the most downloaded clip on for the month of March. And the potential money brought in from increased ratings could more than pay for a $3.6m fine. Seriously, the best conventional advertising campaign you can think of won't get you this kind of attention.
Buttons aren't toys.
FYI, the penalties are not against CBS itself, they are against stations that broadcast the show. CBS profits are entirely separate from the station profits, in fact, CBS owns very few of their own stations. Over $30k is a lot of money for some of the smaller stations -- that is almost a full years' worth of salary in some parts of the country. For $30k, I would hope parents could protect their own children and monitor what they watch.
The stations do not yet know if CBS will reimburse the fines if they aren't appealed.
Also, not all CBS stations had fines levied.
Where is this rule you speak of? I always thought the FCC could basically rule whatever than feel like as indecent. Sure there are guidelines but these are not the same as rules. The FCC has basically made a politically motivated decision and it's hard to argue otherwise.
... maybe 'Without a Trace' should move its audio track to Sirius Satellite Radio :)
A "rainbow" of RED. OK, and black for the goth chick, but black is the lack of color.
Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
If you don't get a prenump, you're a...well you know what I mean. These people who got married thought they met their lifetime partner, just like you. You just got lucky.
Assuming you're someone else here, when your wife cleans you out of half of the stuff you own, plus a car and the summer house, you'd be asking yourself how you could be so stupid.
We all want the dream, but that doesn't mean you can't take a little dose of reality along with it.
Ah, prenups... nothing like contractual obligations to make people feel like they trust each other.
You're hurting the reputation of Toys R Us. Geoffrey the Giraffe's lifestyle is none of your business. A lawyer will be contacting you shortly.
Ooops, wrong Supremes.
Do you really think the current court would find anything like censorship illegal or even distasteful? Always remember that the Good Justice Scalia thinks that Americans already have too many rights. (Honest, look it up.)
'Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint.'
And therein lies the problem. In its only decision involving broadcast indecency, FCC v. Pacifica, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 1978 that the "normal definition of 'indecent' merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality."
When ruling on obscenity in 1973 in Miller vs. California, the Supreme Court established the "three-pronged test" for obscenity:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
Note that the first test mentions "community standards." That's a recognition by the Court that something that is "obscene" in one community might not be in another. It's not much of a stretch to argue that standards for indecency vary by community also.
The FCC, by going after individual affiliates, might be called upon to present evidence that the community standards in each and every market with a targeted affiliate are such that the program would be considered indecent. If that happens, the FCC's ability to impose such fines might be seriously curtailed by the Court's decision.
all about love? there are times when a husband and wife don't love each other much. be married long enough, you'll see. Hopefully, you'll be able to communicate and work things out and rekindle love again, and a marriage is always worth saving. There's also the case where sometimes "love just ain't enough".
I for one applaud the FCC on this.
There are many reasons to marry someone. Marrying for love is only one of them.
Congratulations! You have likely invested the work necessary in selecting a good match as your mate and all the subsequent work in keeping the relationship healthy. One day I may be so lucky...until then I'm in this never ending cycle of dating various women, many of whom could have been a quickie character on Seinfeld.
But don't delude yourself, your utopia is not the norm. I'll keep it real short and simple. When I met my accountant to help me out of some tax problems some years back, he had a little talk to me about marriage and divorce. He said marriage can be about a lot of things, true love, insecurity, combining efforts, companionship, social status, etc. but he made it clear on no uncertain terms that divorce was always about money. He probably has the right position in our society to make the observation, being an accountant and all. I think he's right.
cat
That naughty Penn has been referring repeatedly on-air (well ... for me, on downloaded MP3s) to Penn & Teller's Bulls Hit (pronounced as in "Male Bovines Strike"), but that's clearly a not-so-veiled way to get on air a common expletive, with a meaning more like "Male Bovines' Excretia."
And I'm sure that a) Penn's reaction would be funnier and smarter than typical toilet-humor shock-jocks (among whom I am not counting H. Stern, who clearly is not "typical," and has skewered the FCC chairman for his nanny-statism), and b) would bring more listeners to his show. That benefits me, because I like listening to it, and more listeners means greater chance of long-term survival.
So, please, FCC hear my plea -- stop that awful Penn Gillette from polluting our children's airwaves with his iconoclastic, caustic humor and dangerous insights!
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Don't shows like 'Without a Trace' show at least one grisly muder/vicious attack/other non-PG violent behavior every show? But somehow that's okay and the mildly suggestive sex party scene (yes, only mildly - no frontal nudity, quick scene cuts, etc.) is worth a multimillion dollar fine? I'm sorry, but as a parent, I worry far more about the cavalier attitude we in the U.S. have about violence on screen [to the point where it is almost a fetish] than horny kids getting it on.
/. have], but multiple drive-bys, serial rape, and grisly muder scenes are not something most of our ancestors would come across very often. Whereas now, you can see a couple dozen a night if you're channel surfing.
Horny kids getting it on is older than our species and we've all done it [well, at least some of us on
I'm not saying violence on TV is 'bad', just that it is a lot more damaging to young viewers than a poorly shot teen sex romp that most young kids wouldn't understand and that their parents should have been allowing them to watch anyway.
Sort of... But that's why it's KEY that you have the trial marriage before you do the real thing. My first relationship in high school lasted 2.5 years. My second in college lasted 4 years and almost made it to marriage except neither of us got the timing right (wanted to get married at a time when the other wasn't sure). And the woman who I married, I dated for ten years before we actually got married. THAT was the "trial marriage". By the time we decided to get married we weren't really doing it for us, we did it so that everyone else would take it seriously. We were already dead serious before. And our realtionship survived some damn rocky times involving other people and major relationship disagreements. So it's not like we're in a "honeymoon phase" either. We are admittedly quite unconventional, but that's what makes relationships really work.
;) ). Affairs wouldn't affect us, we were through that before we got married and learned how to survive (and even integrate) it. It's not a big deal to us. To put it plainly, if I were Bill Clinton, I would have simply said, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Hillary knew about it. Next question"?
As a sidenote, I really don't care much about money. If the marriage did fall apart and I had to pay out for the kid and split belonings, it would be painful but not because of the money. Simply because of the emotional toll. NO money in the world can soothe a broken heart. The only thing that can break my heart is the loss of my family. The impact on any future relationships would be annoying, certainly. But I think that would be overcome if the new partner really loved me as I love someone: completely and without limit or fear. To actually get to that point, we'd have to seriously change in different directions. My wife would have to become a raving Republican (can't ever see that happening) and I'd have to do the same (no chance of that without severe brain damage
For me a pre-nup is kind of a vulgar thing. You are counting on getting a divorce at some point. It's like the arms race between Russia and the US in the Cold War Era. You'd never sleep well at night. Unless... you really don't have a stronger emotional attachment to your spouse than to your money. I guess I should also say, that if a pre-nup works for two people and neither is offended by it, then I guess it's OK for them. But I really can't understand the kind of mind that actually feels good about that sort of thing.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
How does a complaint (or a couple complaints) from a single community demonstrate what that community's standards are? Can you show me in the FCC rulings where the community standards, being the basis of the fine, are established? Please don't tell me it is just a complaint (or a few) being filed that is the sum and total of the probing into what is the community standard under scrutiny. I mean it sure sounds like it is that way, where one person can, by virtue of complaining, be the arbitor of community standard. But that is an absurdist standard.
It is a good fortune that TV's have on and off buttons (some even combine the two into one). Even better, there is a channel changing device included in even the cheapest of sets. Amazing what one who is offended easily by the content on their television can do to escape the utter horror of viewing that which they find offensive: they can turn off the TV, they can change the channnel, they can use their government-mandated V-Chip, they can decide not to be offended and expand their mind, they can accept that they will be offended and still accept that others may find the content non-objectionable. Why, shit, there's a whole world of possibilities that do not involve censorship at the barrrel of a multi-million dollar fine.
I like your response. It's reasonable. I know that marriage is a failing institution in the U.S. and abroad. And I think your accountant sounds like a really smart guy. I do find it a bit disturbing that people would marry for reasons other than love, but you do see it with "power marriages" where people are marrying for status. To me, that's not really marriage. It's a business partnership. And it's frightening that it's considered OK in our society. That says something about America and it's not good. I guess I'm probably just being "old fashioned" about the concept of marriage which is why I even support gay marriage since I do believe that in cases where two men or women want to marry each other, they are doing it as an expression of love. It's hard for me to relate to anyone who would marry for a reason other than love. I can't fathom doing it since it seems like it's a hollow and pointless gesture. One thing I will say though is that I firmly believe that marriage in your mid to late 30s is bound to work out better than marriage in your 20s these days. I think that's part of the problem. Too many people getting married because they think they need to and doing it at too young an age. I won't say that everyone who gets married in their 20s is doomed though. It's just that when you hit your mid-30s, in most cases you've gotten a lot out of your system and you're actually ready to settle down. I had a wild time in my late teens, all through my 20s and even in my early 30s. (Heh... I'm still having some wild times) But, I don't have the NEED for the wild times now that I did when I was younger. So if I don't have a wild weekend these days, it's not a huge disappointment like it was when I was 22. I think that is what makes 30-somethings a bit more ready to marry. Not across the board mind you. Just in quite a few cases. Wait until you really meet the right person who really won't care if you are actually married or not but just wants to be with you because you're great to be with and vice-versa. :)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
So basically they showed the inside of a club?
Amen. You see teenagers doing this and more in pretty much any popular dance club/rave scene.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
No problem, we'll just establish a separate entity called the Federal Communications Commission to do our dirty work!
No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
No problem, we'll just make it an administrative fine -- no trial necessary!
If the Bill of Rights were proposed on the floor of Congress today, it would be: 1) excoriated as too liberal, 2) vetoed by the President (if, by some miracle, it passed both Houses of Congress), and 3) ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court as insufficiently respectful of the government's right to secrecy and duty of national security.
So much for "protecting and defending the Constitution".
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Mr. Leykis, is that you?
I'm not suggesting by any means that 'Without a trace' is a new step in television, nor am I suggesting that you have to be controversial to be creative but it seems that if you ever wanted to do anything vaguely sexual or expletive ridden, the safer course would be to self-regulate or shut the hell up.
of course we could turn it to our advantage: maybe we should get together and complain about the frequent use of 'the' during Battlefield Earth.
... I wonder if this would be happening if "Without a Trace" ran on Fox instead of CBS.
A little payback, for the Dan Rather/CBS News faux pax? Or maybe just some gratuitous CBS bashing?
I know this seems ridiculously silly, but we do have the "ridiculously silly" administration calling the shots. An outa control FCC would be right in keeping with the rest of the circus.
There's simply no way that the accusations or the size of the fine makes any rational sense. It would be interesting to see exactly how many complaints there were from the viewing public.
You dumb fuck.
> I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other.
Correction. You lucky dumb fucks.
Assume you've fallen in love with Miss Right. Your brain's so clouded with oxytocin and other junk that you can't think straight -- so when she says it's about love, not money, you believe her.
Assume 5% of females are lying when they say this. (My data set [myself, friends, co-workers male and two females] is limited, but strongly suggests that the real number is bigger than 5% with a probability of over 30%).
But let's go with 5%. Would you play Russian Roulette? Even with only one bullet and 20 chambers?
Your mileage may vary, but I choose to heed the Wisdom of the Bastard Son of Admiral Ackbar and Eddie Murphy:
"I know a muthafukkin' trap when I see one!"
I've been offered sex. I've been offered sex with women I trust. I turned it the fuck down. Better things to do with my time and money.
Ahhh... a response from someone who doesn't "get" (as in; understand) women. There ARE a lot of screwed up women out there. I was back in the dating scene for a while a few years ago and I met nothing but screwed up women. Mostly they wanted to play head games. But not every woman is like that. I also think that a lot of guys are to blame due to their expectations and lack of patience. It takes a while to actually understand women, but it's not impossible. I takes even more time to sift through them and find the less crazy ones. One hint, if she's "one of the guys" then she's probably gold. My wife can say some things that would get a guy slapped if he said it to a woman. Like when she points out tall, super thing fake blondes with huge breast implants and calls them "tits on a stick". Don't go looking for the demure, quiet type. They're nothing but trouble.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Election year.
Many people, including Howard Stern, have been predicting indecency charges to ramp up this year, as (primarily but not exclusively right-wing) congressmen look for an issue to base their platform around. Expect much, much more of this nonsense.
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
While I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the economical and statistical realities of marriage and divorce, and that men in particular should think long and hard about financial consequences before tying the knot, from a relationship perspective, if you think you need a pre-nup then you shouldn't be getting married.
Unless, of course, you're getting married for reasons independent of an emotional relationship, in which case a pre-nup is simply another aspect of the paperwork.
Let's organize a loosely coordinated network that would, for every given TV programme, send, say, some 120 complaints or so. Each sender sould not sent more than 1 complaint per week, in order to sufficiently randomize the sample; the idea is that the onslaught of complaints coming from all over the place will overwhelm the FCC complaint-reception system, thus diluting the whole effot by those right wingnuts.
You sick fuck. You obviously have no idea why you should get married. HINT: It's ALL about love. Money should have nothing to do with it on either side. If it does, you have two sad and sorry victims of capitalist propaganda. I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other. I don't run screaming from the house to hang out with my male friends because she's just too much fun to hang out with no matter what we do. And she doesn't run screaming from me because she has a good time with me.
Little note: Marriage has nothign to do with love it started as a property contract between a man and the family of a girl. It's shifted a bit over the last 200 years (yes the chaneg was very recent). Even now it's more about propperty then about love since the state doens't care if you love the one you marry.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I think the parent post is talking down to the level of the states. So that way people in California can say what people in California want to watch, not have to put up only with what the people in Kansas or Georgia will tolerate. The point is, we don't need a national standard, administered by a federal agency, for this.
That might explain why my wife and I felt that other than pleasing our relatives, marriage was largely pointless and would have no effect on us. And it hasn't. For all those people who told us how different everything would be between us, nothing has changed at all.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
For stuff like this:
i f
q .pdf
http://www.thetalentshow.org/images/cbspoll-314.g
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/031306_poll_ira
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
Political commentary as well How To Lobby: http://interface2037.com/index.php/category/politi cs/
For god's sake get registered to vote and do it.
I am reading this book "Strapped" which is more about economics for today's young people but she does go into a chapter where we do a whole lot of complaining but DO NOT EXCERCISE our greatest power - the vote.
Isn't it funny that they hide reality when it doesn't fit the network's sheltered view of society. I think this sort of thing should be embraced rather than suppressed, as it really does happen.. more and more these days with ever-dumber kids. I'd rather be exposed to the situation and raise public awareness, maybe even get some folks to discuss it with THEIR teens. Hiding a problem doesn't make it go away, it just makes you that much more ignorant.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I've never watched the show, but I'll sure as hell download the clip. Nothing like a bit of soft porn as a nightcap!
Thank you, Parents' Television Council! You have helped make my night magic!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
firstly, is it wrong to suggest that it actually happens on TV, or is it wrong to show it at all, even if you can't actually see anything "offensive"
"Over 50% of marriages end in divorce."
Yet most people who get married stay married, because most first marriages succeed, it's just the serial-divorcing Liz Taylors of the world that drive your deceptive statistic down. Marraige is a merger of your lives; an agreement to face the world as a single team. Your wife can't take half your stuff in a divorce because you don't have stuff that isn't hers too. If you're not up for that, don't get married. Prenups are for suckers; if you want it to still be your stuff and not hers, you're just living together.
Goddamn, that's a bit more than I'd expected. Teen titty city!
I have only two thoughts about this controversy:
(A) I wish I'd gone to that school. My mercy, yes.
(B) I may need to watch more of this series. Keep it up!
[watches the clip again]
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The Police States of Amerika has long ago ceased to be the land of the free. In just about each one of the police states, we are told what we can and cannot do with our own property. We have to ask permission from some government agency in order to improve or build onto our own homes. The right to drive our cars have been reduced to a "privilege." The right to own weapons is now decided at the whim of governments, and so on. The government even is alowed to decide to take your property and give it to a corporation or someone else if it deems that someone else is a better owner. The police are allowed to engage in wrongful searches with virtual impunity. When it comes to fines, whatever a government or police agent says is what the courts believe nor matter who may be a witness (unless it is another cop or government agent giving contradictory testemony). Even freedom of speech and freedom to write code is determined by the largeness of one's pockets. If someone does not like the code you release, all they have to do is claim patent infringment or make a claim under DCMA. It will cost YOU money to even make simple motions in your defense. This is the state of what was once the United States of America.
As for the indecency on Television, I HATE it. However, there are better ways of dealing with indecency such as Jerry Springer and others - other than violating their Constitutional rights. It can be done by not giving copyright to indecent material. By denying copyright, everyone would have the legal right to copy, modify, sell, and redistribute indecent material. If material can be had for free in high quality reproduction with no legal risk, then why would people pay for it. Rather than fine studios and networks for indecency, it would be better to remove their copyright privileges for a certain series for a certain number of episodes.
The Founding Fathers instituted provisions for copyright and patents in the Constitution for encouraging the production of USEFUL works. What good purpose does obscene material serve other than lining the pockets of those who make it? The simple answer is NONE! So, if a work is not useful to society, then why should its creator have monopoly privileges? I do not see any reason why the creator should.
I believe many child molesters, serial murderers, and general rapists have their obsessions fed and amplified by pornographic and violent content. Something can and should be done about it. Rather than stifle freedom, it would be better to remove the motivation (money) for producing indecent material. Unfortunately, the Democratic-Republican rulers of the P.S.A. would rather pass even more laws that infringe on our Constitutional rights. It is not just those from one party: it is those from BOTH parties!!! This is the main reason why I vote for candidates from the Constitution Party. I encourage people to reaserch the alternative political parties and quit voting for candidates in the bought and paid for mainstream political parties (Democratic and Republican parties). Our freedom is the casualty of voting mainstream political parties.
I just hope that the people who live in what is now the Police States of Amerika decide to wake up and have another "Tea Party." Short of that, I recommend that everyone who lives within the confines of the P.S.A. visit http://www.fija.org/ . That website explains the power that a single juror has. It is the power to vote a defendant INNOCENT REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE OR JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS. If a person is known to have violated an unconstitutional or morally wrong law, then jurors should vote NOT GUILTY despite instructions from a judge. It only takes ONE JUROR to vote not guilty in order to deny the system power. If a jury does not unanimously agree to convict a defendant, then the defendant must be retried or released. I used my power to prevent the conviction of an old man who had an "illegal" gun for self defense.
We who live in the P.S.A. have the power and means to regain freedom, if only we would excercise the power we have left.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!
The entire middle of the country shows stuff an hour earlier than the East coast.
Yes it's localized. And they play it at 9:00 because we don't generally have to take eight hours to drive home and can thus watch things earlier. The whole primetime lineup moves up. Which is i think why the West coast has stuff playing later again.
Also, as to stations spaning timezones -how about reading a timezone map and telling me that Las Vegas does not have a station or two that just might reach more than 80 miles. Or Bizmark. Or Atlanta. There are plenty of stations that cross timezones if you think about it, especially in the more popualted regions along the time sozne shift away from the west or east coast timezones.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Dude, I almost remember Twisted Sister, and I'm like, old.
Let's see, Tipper Gore did some stuff as a private citizen, and years later when her husband ran for President, it was definitely an issue that gave people concern about his position on censorship.
Now members of the Bush administration, appointed by Bush, are doing stuff in their official capacities, and you object if we blame "the Bush administration"?
I mean, if people are brining this up in an irrelevant attempt to defend a poitical opponent of Laura Bush 20 years from now, feel free to tell them what I will now tell you:
The last time I heard something that moronicly weak, it was a Twisted Sister album.
Especially when you consider that women rarely marry a man who earns less money than they do, (that need for "security")
This is less true than you think. While many women certainly are gold-diggers, there's a large number of women out there these days who want a man they can "take care of", or "fix". So they shack up with some loser who can't hold a job, or doesn't want to work, and work their ass off while the slug-man lies on the couch all day watching TV. Even worse, usually these men will stash away what money they do manage to get, and either save it for when the woman finally throws their sorry ass out until they can find another set-up, or they spend it on themselves with expensive toys like big-screen TVs or motorcycles. I think this is a growing phenomenon in America.
.. but only when they are no longer attached to a human body. A car bomb will do nicely for that.
Sheesh, what double standards.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I sincerly doubt anyone considers a "teen orgy scene" in a high-budget TV series to be protected political speech, or a case of real censorship.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If they had any balls, they wouldn't pay it. They should make a statement saying the no longer recognize the authority of the FCC to be passing judgement on decency and they only recognize that the FCC is there to pass out bandwidth registrations.
Tell them they're not paying the fine. Also tell them they're not giving up their licence and they're going to keep broadcasting also...what are they going to do about it? Send in the FCC cops to arrest thousands of people and affiliates across the country? If ALL the networks had any balls, they would stand up to these idiots and say "you only have power because we say you have power". If they were all to ignore the FCC, what would happen?
Of course, this is only a pipe dream and CBS will cave totally and pay the fine. So that the totally unchecked power of the FCC will continue on.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
They're all crazy, it's just a question of the degree of their insanity. Some are saner than others. You seem to have found one at the saner end of the spectrum. I had a girlfriend from the other end of the spectrum who would freak because I wouldn't hit her if we argued. Apparently if I'd really loved her I'd have got more upset. Troubled childhood methinks. My wife, after extensive efforts, is only slightly crazy.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
Alright, this looks like an orgy; however, its not explicit in any way, and the people in it sure don't look like teens, I'd say they're in their early twenties.
But: What kind of crack does your government smoke to put up a law against "indecency" and regulators who think this is "indecent"?
Grow up. Overthrow your government.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Without A Trace? A crime drama where they investigate bad things? Doesn't that kind of suggest that this episode would be ANTI-teen orgy if it's in the episode?
and I must say, the clip was not really something anybody on this side of the ol' pond would likely get upset about, as long as it was shown after 6 pm or something. But then that's just different cultures, and so on blah blah, you guys like violence, we like sex - we've all heard it before and it's not likely to change anytime soon.
.. :)
But what was REALLY funny was the write up of what the clip was going to contain!
and I quote
"
- A teenaged girl wearing just a bra and panties is sitting astride the lap of a teenaged boy kissing him while another girl in just a bra and panties fondles them both. The first girl is also shown making sexual bump and grind motions.
- Two other teenaged girls are sitting on either side of a teenaged boy, fondling him while another group of teens smoking pot and drinking beer watch them from the sofa on the other side of the room.
- A shirtless teenaged boy starts to remove his pants
- A teenaged girl with her back to the camera appears to be wearing nothing but panties. She appears to be sitting astride a teenaged boy kissing him while another girl in just a bra and panties fondles them both.
- There is a quick shot of a pile of naked flesh, mostly arms and legs, though obviously belonging to multiple teens. "
I mean shit this was like a ten second clip, they must have been watching it like a thousand times!! Playing, then pausing to really take in the scene.. I'll bet you a hundred bucks whoever did that had to go jerk off like 10 times before finishing..
Anyway I hope they do get fined, if nothing else just because it reinforces all our fun negative stereotypes about americans
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
"If you're going to argue that the latter is offensive to you, then you must allow others to argue that the former is offensive to them."
Precisely, regardless of religion, if the porno "fundies" at the PTC and the free speech "fundies", (hello guys), attacking them paid more attention to "Do unto others..", they might learn how to "love thy brother" in a more constructive way. Democracy is supposed to find a median ground but democracy is lazy and normaly just "picks winners". Given enough time, it may eventually find an optimum balance, personally I don't see any civilization having much chance of achiving that balance let alone keeping it.
The following rant is not aimed at you.
If "the people" say we must have idecency laws for broadcasters, shouldn't the definition of "offensive" reflect broad contempary attitudes rather than the sensibilities of a rabid lobby group? For example, if enough complaints are recieved, a random jury is asked to view the full context and judge the complaint. That reminds me, don't you guys in the US have content warnings that are in effect a pre-judgement by such a jury. Not only that but don't you also have optional v-chip technology so gaurdians and TV shops can enforce "decent" viewing material? The v-chip might cost extra and the shops might win exemptions, but isn't that just part of the social price paid by those who choose to live in a highly blinkered world or have a manic obsession with other peoples behaviour?
Having said that, I think attempts to codify morality inevitably fail at some point (eg: "looting" after a natural disaster). The "victimless crimes" such as "offensive images" are simply cultural artifacts forced apon us by the often well meaning but invariably self-rightouess. They "believe", and think everyone can be forced to "belive" by simply using a book of rules and a big enough stick. They have a firm belief that once they have subjected their fellow man to "re-Nedification"[simpsons], the rest of us will "see the light".
Nothing could be further from the truth, most individuals don't stop, (or at least slow down), their vigorous bouncing around on points of moral behaviour until they are done with their mid life crisis. These "fundie" lobby groups are not in the minority, combined they are the sole source of political, economic and religious power encoded in "the rule of law". The only limiting mechanisim "the people" have (that I can think off) is a strong, independent and scientificly based public service and judicary who's basic rules are
1. Do no harm.
2. Rule 1 is falible.
BTW: My own bit of "zero tolerance" that I also genuinely "believe" is shared by the majority says "none of this means kiddy porn is ok in my book". Sexually interfearing with a minor is a vile crime with a victim, not reporting evidence for a such an act makes you complicit in the crime. Yes I know, it gets a bit grey after puberty or (say) spousal incest, see rule 2.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
the west and east coast's "Primetime" is 8pm to 11pm, in the middle of the country, it's 7pm-10pm. the ending time for the most restrictive broadcast rules is 10pm, which is why those fucktard bible thumpers are pushing only for the mountain and central timezones to file complaints.
back in the 'old days' it was cheaper to have "most" of the country receiving the same feed, which is why central time's primetime is one hour earlier; so they could use the same feeds as the east coast.
with technology so much improved today, what's the big difference between having "three" feeds we have now for the lower-48 (east/central - mountain - pacific) and four, one for each timezone?
so, the solution is quite simple. change the primetime for the middle of the country to 8pm to 11pm. problem solved. then the broadcast networks have an hour, coast-to-coast, that they could air the "more desirable" and "more realistic" content.
i kinda like the earlier primetime myself, the later times was one of the hardest things to get used to (besides cost of living, commute times, awful traffic, etc...) between minnesota and washington dc when i lived out east.
but i would gladly sacrifice an hour of sleep on nights i would watch network television, just so these bullshit complaints and fines would just fucking go away.
If I say I'll love my girlfriend for the rest of my life then I would expect to be taken as being honest, not be required to go through a marriage ceremony to "prove" it.
My parents' marriage broke-up, my paternal grandparents were divorced, and my maternal grandparents damned well ought to have been divorced if the catholic church would only allow it. Marriage proves nothing, and requiring it is as much of an insult as requiring a pre-nuptual agreement would be.
(Just glad that my girlfriend feels the same way)
James P. Barrett
The people who wrote that thought long and hard about it, based it on thousands of years of precedent, and definitely considered the possibility that they might be wrong, which is why they made it amendable.
The people who follow it, on the other hand, don't seem to exist that much today.
So you failed on both charges. HTH
It seems that serial wedders are a US things. Or at least I don't think I've seen it reported here in Europe.
While I've seen people having a second mariage occasionally, I don't think I've ever met or heard of anyone having a third one. Having 8 (or 9) à la Taylor is of course patently ridiculous.
As for me I don't really see the point of marriage. If you like being with someone stay with him/her, if not, leave. Why involve paperwork ? Well, ok, there are tax breaks...
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
...to lose this colony. You have tame programmes like "Without a Trace" generating fines and we have Channel 4.
is there another kind of orgy? why the extra adjective?
eno: Just wanted to offer support for one of the rare guys who actually seems to love, respect and mostly enjoy the company of their partner.
I understand the pressure to get married as I'm 7 yeears with my girlie and everyone else thinks we need a piece of paper.
It annoys me that in my job out of the 12 blokes here only 2 of us ever really talk about our partners with any degree of affection.
Oddly though, when I mix with my non it friends this figure increases.... Is it geeks and women??? am I just lucky to have a Dr Who watching woman.
bah!*@%!
The sock CBS with a fine for showing 10 seconds of suggestive action, but reject the complaints about Oprah for spending an hour graphically discussing teenage sexual activity and giving teens who were unaware a whole list of new things to try. Hell, I'm a 32 year old man, and until Oprah brought it up, *I* had never heard of a "rainbow party"-- so I'm sure there were plenty of kids out there who were similarly in the dark.
Think Eric Idle sums it up best.
i've seen some of the worst, stupidest comments on this story.
while slashdotters know so much about technology, they sure don't know diddly about pretty much anything else!
#1 Anyone who's seen the clip knows it's not appropriate for prime time television.
#2 Anyone who follows all the crap CBS does to get viewers knows that this segment of this show is just another segment of trying to stay the "most watched network" by using the classic "sex sells" method of marketing. After the Superbowl, the forged documents, and now this, it should be pretty obvious that CBS deserves every cent of fines it's getting. Make some QUALITY TV and QUALITY STORYLINES instead of just throwing in random boobies for some cheap ratings.
#3 Bush != FCC. So just stop. Blaming Bush for every problem in the world only makes you sound like a complete vagina.
#4 It's not just "right-wingers", it's everyone with small kids who likes to watch TV during primetime.
#5 And what the hell is so wrong with the "right wing" organizations who complain about this stuff? All of a sudden when left-wing organizations like the ACLU complain about stuff they are doing it for our "civil liberties" that people like...hmmm...."BUSH IS TAKING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!! OMG!!111"
Is it too much to ask that broadcast television be decent? Why do we have to hold our media to such low standards?
There was a reason that before now we didn't have all these problems with network censorship - not just because we were more conservative years ago, but because networks used to write good shows with good storylines and good characters. Now, they are just desparite to hold their own against cable and satellite, and will do it using any amount of indecency possible.
Dude, you're just an idiot. There ARE people who dated even longer than you and your wife, and their marrage STILL ends up in divorce.
People grow and change, and sometimes that means they grow apart. A prenup wouldn't have come about if the courts would stop forcing men to pay alimony and giving just about everything the couple had to the woman.
"11. The December 31, 2004 episode at issue concerns an FBI investigation into the
disappearance and possible rape of a high school student. During an interrogation, a witness recalls a
party held at the home of a teenager. As she recounts the details of the party, the program cuts to a
"flashback" scene. The scene -- which forms the basis of the viewer complaints -- consists of a series of
shots of a number of teenagers engaged in various sexual activities, including sex between couples and
among members of a group. Although the scene contains no nudity, it does depict male and female
teenagers in various stages of undress. The scene also includes at least three shots depicting intercourse,
two between couples and one "group sex" shot. In the culminating shot of the scene, the witness exclaims
to the others in the party that the victim is a "porn star." The action briefly returns to the present, as the
witness pauses in her story, then the flashback resumes, as the victim is shown wearing bra and panties,
straddled on top of one male character, while two other male characters kiss her breast near the bra strap.
The lower portion of the panties is shaded, but she is shown moving up and down while the male teenager
thrusts his hips into her crotch."
That seems a bit intense for me for broadcast TV.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
To me, that's not really marriage. It's a business partnership. And it's frightening that it's considered OK in our society.
The governement made it that way. Tax breaks for married people, the fact that marriage is a legally binding contract. And lets not forget that divorce is hugely a legal affair.
Personally i think marriage should be a purely religous cerimony and should have no legal relevence whatsoever.
Is it geeks and women??? am I just lucky to have a Dr Who watching woman.
My wife says geeks treat you better, because they can actually think instead of run fast with a ball. Although she's not a geek, she's not a typical woman either; she hates chic flicks and loves sci-fi.
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
Do you trust that your partner will never change? That you won't change? Changing is fine, but sometimes people change so much they stop being compatible together. Prenup has nothing to do with trust, as much as it is admitting that neither of you know the future.
Honestly though blame the courts, and this outdated notion of alimony, and the woman always getting the house, car, the kids, etc. Whenever a couple divorces, 99% of the time the man is royally screwed, quite unfairly. Even though men and women are supposed to be equal, in divorce court we are still 200 years behind.
As the parent of 5 kids, I don't really want them having the idea that casual, porn movie styled sex parties are a good thing for the 16 year old. Yeah, so 16 year olds are having sex, I know that, and some of them are probably pretty promiscuous, and I realise that in some communities (some small towns come to mind) pretty much all the teenagers are into each other a lot.
But I'm not convinced that's how most teenager's are having sex. I think a lot of them are fumbling, kinda scared sorta things, like the guy above posted. A friend of ours has a 14 y.o. who just had sex the first time the other week. She told her mum, and she reckons it was a horrible horrible thing. I don't think her experience was that unusual.
As a parent I'd rather my kids have sex with fewer people, and it mean more, and be done for more than a cheap thrill. There's no way I can believe that these kids will be responsible with condoms. When I was a teenager in the 70s, we heard about people with herpes, but very few people died of STDs.
The question is whether it would be possible to express the story and plot without sending kids the message that that was what constitutes "normal" sexual behaviour. I'm not saying that sex orgies arnt normal by the way (that's another question entirely), just that it's not normal 16 year old behaviour.
Some might question why concerned parents let their kids watch these shows. That's another question again, but it might be part of the cultural trend to use TVs as child minders. Hmmm.... would people think that footage was suitable for a child-minder to show kids?
Actually, what he meant to say was, "Divorce involving accountants is about money." Because you know, a majority of divorces in America (like a majority of marriages), there is very little money to be had between the couple. They are poor, or broke, or in debt, sometimess bankrupt, even homeless.
A lot of divorces are about freedom from abuse (emotional and physical), or on a more benign level, freedom from the shortcomings of another human being - besides abuse and money, the other 3 of the top 5 reasons for divorce listed for couples below the poverty line (when there is a reason listed) are infidelity, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
So, tell your middle class accounting friend to expand his worldview.
The extremely tame clip would barely register here. Not when a program during the daytime aimed squarely at kids has full frontal nudity in it.
But don't worry, with dutch parties like CDA (Christian Dicks & Assholdes) we will soon have the same puritan system as the good old US of A.
What happened to the idea of free speech anyway?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I've never seen the series discussed in this article, but I remember an episode of Everwood that involved a club of young teens having sex parties. And it was airing in primetime when that episode aired. Why arn't they getting fined millions of dollars.
Channel
no text
Do you trust that your partner will never change?
By getting married, you are promising to accept them however they change. Thats what that 'for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health' stuff is really about. If you aren't willing to do that, you really shouldn't get married.
Bah!
... maybe we'll let her take all your sheep or something"
... maybe I'll just take it home and spank it or something". But chicks get horny too ... and so there was a lot of sneaking around and shit, and it wasn't really working.
...
Marriage is the mechanism a culture uses to force it's people to actually take care of their kids. That's it, plain and simple.
No seriously, love, happieness, little prancing fairies, unicorns, and rainbows are nice, but at the real core of it, that's not what it's about.
Somewhere, way back at the dawn of Man, it was like this:
Dude: "I wanna have sex with you",
Chick: "yeah that dosen't sound too bad"
Parents: "WTF? I just finished raising your little asses, and I ain't gonna take care of the fruit of your loins"
end result, the parents meet with the tribal elders, and they come up with a contract that says:
"okay, if you're gonna have sex, you're gonna stay together and deal with the little screaming bundles of joy that result, if you don't there will be severe penalties
So after that, a lot of dudes were like "yyyeah, I just wanna hit it and quit it
So the culture had to start selling it to the girls as a pre-requisite for getting in of the pants. That's when religion got a hold of it, I'm sure, and people started damning their eternal souls as a result of their reproductive drive. Also probably why cultures started elaborate marriage ceremonies, where the woman is made into "royalty for a day"
In order for any civilization to survive, it's children must be raised in a stable, loving environment. I'm talking in an evolutionary since here, not in some sort of fundamentalist since. This is why every successfull culture (by which I mean long lived ones) provides for some sort of marriage contract/ceremony, whatever.
It's to make sure the kids are taken care of, not that YOU are taken care of.
Which is why I think gay marriage should be a pre-requisite for gay adoption.
This is awful for the so many reasons that were posted. Is there anything we can do besides complain on Slashdot, sign an online petition, or get worked again in the next election? Of course, I'm not (publicly) suggesting a coup d'état.
Even if they change into someone who lies, steals, cheats? If they become abusive? if they decide to 'live for the day' and blow all the savings?
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. There are always limits to how much change people are willing to accept. Forcing two people to stay together who are no longer happy together is retarded and not something the state should have any say in.
Even now it's more about propperty then about love since the state doens't care if you love the one you marry.
So long as the person you may or may not love is the opposite gender of you, of course.
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
Or in the poorly-named "justice system."
If I were to decide to marry my current SO, that would definitely be on the table before anything else. If she was silly enough to take it as some sort of slight rather than as a defense against the fact that "shit happens," then I know right there that it would be a mistake. Call it a pre-screening.
So, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or are you suggesting that they engage in some voodoo ceremony they don't really believe in?
Perhaps the failure rate in American divorces is a function of our sexual immaturity. Couples who have a good deal of sexual compatability don't tend to get divorced. Most divorce attorneys will typically tell you that they never see the case of "well, the sex is good but we just can't get along". Many Xians view marriage as primarily for procreation yet don't acknowledge the fact that there needs to be compatability in that area.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
As the parent of 5 kids, I don't really want them having the idea that casual, porn movie styled sex parties are a good thing for the 16 year old.
Then you might want to judge by the content of the actual episode, rather than just the clip. I didn't see the episode either, but between what the show "Without a Trace" tends to be about, plus the fact that the girl was apparently discussing the party with cops, should kind of give you the impression that something happened which was, for all intents and purposes, Very Bad.
I see this sort of thing a lot on here, so I'll ask it (not AC even) at the risk of being flamed.
Since when has "not wanting to indulge in certain types of content or wishing for my young children to see it either" equaled "evil right wing communist bible thumping"?
Last I knew, having a standard was an appreciable thing, not a bad thing.
Besides, TV stations don't have to listen to what any of their viewers want... they can ignore those letters if they choose.
If the outspoken people stop voicing their opinions because the majority doesn't want to hear it, then what's the point of free speech?
I find it hard to believe that you're in your late 30s or early 40s. Did you never learn how to argue with someone without going straight to personal attacks? Getting older is one thing, growing up is another.
Actually, I believe she does have the patent on that. No wonder she has so much money! Now, if only the FCC would declare Liz Taylor to be indecent...
Similar to the upcoming US election results
But you don't understand. This is America. Everything is about financial transactions! Now, quit that seditious talk, or I'll have you dragged to the Sacred Marketplace and thrown off the tallest spire of the Tower of Commerce.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Yet most people who get married stay married, because most first marriages succeed,
This is an interesting claim, sincerely. Do you have any sources to back it up?
Let's see, Tipper Gore did some stuff as a private citizen,
True, but her husband did sit on the commitee. Of course, I'm sure he was complete unbiased.
BTW, I saw the scene. While I like porn just as much as the next guy, this was a bit much to be shown on the air at 8:00 on the west coast.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I actually think that you are onto something. Perhaps we make a social contract that can be entered into for the purposes of health care, taxes, etc. That is the purely legal institution, and call it something other than marriage. There would be a fee to enter into such a contract, more expensinve than the current weddling license, perhaps put it in the $5000 range (grandfather this is, anyone "married" before a certain date can apply for the contract with no cost, or at minimal cost), just so that it is something that the average person does not have lying around, so they need to think about it before they enter into the legally binding contract. Marriage, then, would be a strictly religious ceremony that carries no legal weight whatsoever. If you want to be married and have the current benefits, then you need to do both. Otherwise, you can be married to someone and still have to file seperate income tax and not be able to get health care. Conversely, if we remove the religous implicaitons of the action, we can now suddenly allow plural marriages. If someone wants to marry 2 women, then they can do so, and they would be legally entitled to the tax breaks, health care benefits (not deniable to anyone who has the legal contract taken care of) This gives the religous groups their marriage back, no gay marriages, but it still give gays and lesbians the same opportunity as heterosexuals...... It makes so much sense, but no one would ever have the balls to propose the legislation.....
And what is worse is that, after the relationship has fallen apart, these women start shrieking that men are scum and there are no good men anywhere.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Oh come on. Personal attacks are fun. Especially when people take them far too seriously.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in Canada or Europe. Being here in Canada i know something like this wouldn't even come up on our radar. There are things like this shown on our Publicly broadcasted, publicly owned television station, the CBC.
You American's are too uptight. If you don't like what's on TV DON'T WATCH IT. You don't have to wreck everyone else's good time because you're a square.
The Good Life
Oddly, the majority of divorces I see around me are couples who married because the sex was good. They have just been incompatable in other areas of life.
By that I mean since when did a government agency have enforceable power against companies, and if it did when did it actually use it. The EPA can basically send strongly worded letter and try to embarass companies. The FDA cannot do much to Drug companies except in the extreme cases. It seems congress only allows such agencies any power not when it is for the public good but when it has to do with some "moral" debate, not practical debates. The congress just strips the agencies of any enforcement power over companies. But the FCC seems to be a special case.
FCC can do so much in the extreme because it allows politicians to decide what is decent. It takes years and year for the EPA to even hold a company accountable for a violation and even then they just ignore it because they know congress has taken the teeth out of it. Marijuana is categorized as having no medical value to make keep illegal and tobacco is not listed in the 5 categories for drugs so the FDA cannot regulate it. Add to that the political handling of the Morning after pill and the abortion pill being held up indefinitely for non-medical reasons.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
Wish I could have been at that party! :-)
"her husband did sit on the commitee. Of course, I'm sure he was complete unbiased."
I'm sure he wasn't. Nor should he be. Senators are not judges; they are expected to hold and push for their own opinions; those opinions are hopefully why we elected them. Which is why people were quite legitimately concerned about Gores position on censorship. Then again, what did that committee do? Fine Twisted Sister millions of dollars retroactively? No. They pushed the recording industry into adopting voluntary warning labels. At least that's my recollection, as I said, this is like, ancient history whose relevance to this disscussion I fail to grasp. How should Al Gores wife arguing a position I didn't like 20 years ago lessen my outrage at the Bush administration enforcing a dangerously misguided, only vaugely related policy today?
"this was a bit much to be shown on the air at 8:00"
You mean, right after the News about car bombins in Iraq, not to mention the typical level of fictional violence at that, or any hour? What is the standard here? The standard here is, after the fact, without ever spelling out the rules in advance, if someone decides they are offended, millions in fines! "Free speach" obviously shouldn't apply if someone, somewhere might see a naked person and be offended! Naked people are TERRIBLE! Not offending anyone is much more important than any silly "First Amendment". I'm sure the framers didn't mean you could say things people didn't like...
US - 3.6 million$ fine
China - 25 years in prison
I'll take the fine with an iou, thank you!
damaged by dogma
Ya, you're accountants right. I've heard it many times that the three bigest reasons for divorce in America are disagreements regarding: money, sex, and religion. Money is definately number one. And before you ask, no I don't have an external reference.
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
If you don't like it, don't watch it you goddamn prude.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'm sure he wasn't. Nor should he be. Senators are not judges; they are expected to hold and push for their own opinions; those opinions are hopefully why we elected them.
What would be the point of the hearings then? How can Dee Snyder get a fair shake when he's dragged before a congressional committee by a woman who's husband sits on that committee?
Besides, my point was that this is not a Bush/Gore or Republican/Democrat thing, so blaming it on any particular person or party is pointless. I too am against censorship in nearly all its forms, but at 8:00 over the public air waves, this was a bit much. It is not like this was CBS's first offense.
"Free speach" obviously shouldn't apply if someone, somewhere might see a naked person and be offended! Naked people are TERRIBLE!
While I agree that free speech means you absolutely have the right to offend, and I'm all about seeing naked people (women anyway), I don't think this should be on the air at 8:00pm. If they aired it at 10:00 on the west coast or showed on a cable channel that is not broadcasted for free over the air waves, I would not have a problem with it. But 8:00 is when many families have just gotten done eating dinner with their kids who just got home from soccer practice. They should be free to watch something other than "the family channel" or disney with their kids.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
First off, I appreciate your notion of love above all. I think you're attacking a straw man though. You assume that a person who could remotely fathom financials in a loving relationship clearly values wealth over the other person. I call bullshit.
;)
My net worth is around $450,000 at 33. This is based on a lifetime of work which started in junior high school.
Of all the women I've dated, the 2 women I was in love with were in $20,000 credit card debt, and $0 savings, respectively. (And the 20 grand in the hole chick was the much more successful of the two, at least career-wise!)
Obviously I don't care about the woman's income when I go about dating, but I'd have to be smoking a serious batch of jane to ever consider marriage with these women without a prenup. Try to imagine it. Not to mention, my parents would absolutely kill me.
My sister married a great guy with a really poor family. The house is in her name. That's how we resolved it in her case
You and your beloved must both not have much money for you to be able to say something like that. The sentiment is sweet, though.
No. That's what I recall claimed in a satistics course using the "over 50% of mairaiges end in divorce" claim as an example of misleading analysis. Doing some brief googling just now, all I turn up are various discussions of the "over 50%" claim itself, and the fact that it apparently has no sound statistical backing in the first place. Some people apparently have projected that 50% of mairaiges starting in particular years will end in divorce; others have made other projections. Solid historical data seems to not exist, or to indicate rates below 50%.
Regarless, life is not a roll of the dice against a statistics table. What percentage of marraiges end in divorce means squat about whether your marraige will. That's up to you and your spouse.
The GP was saying people who want to get married should have a pre-nup. I'm arguing that people who want a pre-nup should not get married.
No, 50% of marriages end in divorce is a mis-quote of the statistic. The correct statistic is:
The annual divorce rate is 50% of the annual wedding rate.
These are fundamentally different statistics.
Marriage as a legal concept serves no purpose. If you're an antheist and your only ceremony would be going before a JP, then aren't you just entering into a legal contract?
I can't really comment on why an atheist (outside of the legal benefits) would want to be married anyway.. if they do, they must have some kind of spirtiual concept behind it and can use that to guide them.
Perhaps we make a social contract that can be entered into for the purposes of health care, taxes, etc.
Why do we even need such a contract? Why should two people who sign a piece of paper notarized by the state get special taxes breaks? Why do you have to be married to put someone on your healthcare?
Otherwise, you can be married to someone and still have to file seperate income tax and not be able to get health care.
Again, why do you need a legal document to put someone else on your healthcare?
I can't really comment on why an atheist (outside of the legal benefits) would want to be married anyway.. if they do, they must have some kind of spirtiual concept behind it and can use that to guide them.
Being a married atheist, I can speak to that. I got married to symbolize my commitment and dedication to my wife. Spirituality had nothing to do with it.
How is it a different statistic? If every year, there are x marriages and x/2 divorces, then the likelihood of any given marriage ending in divorce is 50%. Now, you could argue that the implications of the original phrasing are misleading, but I think the rephrasing carries all the same implications.
Help?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
As an atheist, I think I can comment.
Religion serves many social functions, and also spiritual/psychological ones. Marriage serves many legal functions. So even if a person rejects that there is some meaningful metaphysical or supernatural component to marriage, they may still be looking for the other perceived benefits of marriage.
Just a few I can think of:
* Recognition of couplehood by the community.
* An expression of love and devotion.
* Tax breaks.
* Legal rights not conferred to unmarried couples.
If the legal benefits disappeared, and the metaphysical benefits are dismissed, an atheist couple might still perceive social benefits.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
So what would you have done if marriage as a legal concept didn't exist?
I asked this of the other that replied to my post as well. If marriage as a legal concept is removed, how would an atheist couple marry?
I don't think keeping marriage as a legal concept for social / metaphysical benefits is the right way to go.
Ok, Follow my logic.
Assume at the beginning of the 2005 there are 100 million marriages
During 2005 1 Million weddings and 500,000 divorces happen
At the end of the year there are 100,500,000 marriages not 50 million
So long as the person you may or may not love is the opposite gender of you, of course.
In my country that doesn't matter. So long as you don't mind payign higher taxes you can get married.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
... edit the complaint form, fill in your enthusiastic endorsement of such shows, and submit it?
...
I think the FCC should take compliments as well as complaints
*cough*
These people who got married thought they met their lifetime partner, just like you. You just got lucky.
Be honest here. Just how many marriages are done in Las Vegas, in a drunken stupor? It seems like marriage has become more of a spur of the moment thing, and less important than what it really is. People will just get married because they have excessive amounts of PEA, and don't quite understand that the feelings of extreme romance fade quickly. Prenups ought to be necessary in this case.
The marriages that happen because people are in a long lasting relationship, are responsible and truly in love, I imagine those marriages make up the "less than 50%" that are actually successful. No prenups need apply. If you think it is foolish, so be it. I think it is a sign of distrust to require one, and when actual love applies, there is no such thing as distrust.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Is that love, or is it in the set of {infatuation, lust, romance, horniness, desire}? I don't think that the love required for a good marriage is the emotional state of love. There comes a time where it is a dependence upon another person. When you take it for granted, you don't see it, when it leaves, it hits you like a MAC truck.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
If it were about property, then why bother with all the dating bullcrap to begin with? Seriously. You have to go through a courtship, where the kids take the responsibility, and then for some reason or another, you decide to get married. The family has little do with it anymore, and property definitely doesn't become a factor until AFTER you're married.
The state may not care if you love the one you marry. The state never used to, either. I imagine that the majority of marriages in the past have been the arrangement of the family. Think Jacob & his two wives. He didn't get the one he wanted to at first, but kept at it until he had both of them.
The idea that marriage is the "next level" of a relationship is relatively new. I think this idea is the main cause of divorce, in general. People get worked into a frenzy when they get into a relationship, and then think that marriage is one more step towards euphoria or whatever. It's bunk, though, because the relationships generally are not established by the time marriage sets in. It's pulling the cart before the horses... and one of the reasons why divorce is so prevelant in this day and age.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
And they go after other women, and men pull out the video cameras!
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Err, but I care. I don't really give a shit how the state views my marriage.
Personally, I think the state should stick to enforcing explicit contracts between people to combine their finances. The state really doesn't have any business sanctioning marriage, in my opinion.
-Dave
Well the divorce rate will always be higher than the "happily married" rate. My dad/three uncles have had 6 marriages between them all (2 ended quickly in divorce, and 4 ended up great). Even though thats a 33% divorce rate they all ended up in happy and stable marriages. So that statistic seems a bit misleading.
Try this or maybe this.
The first relies on an almost 15 year old report. The second is much more recent (and it's a journal article).
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I just glanced at the video clip others have linked to. First point, it was mention that the party was at the house "where they usually are". This evidently wasn't the first party on these lines, even if it went further. The awkwardness you mention usually diminishes in favor of other forms of idiocy with experience.
Second, the whole orgy is shown as a memory sequence of one of the partygoers, which from a literary/cinematic standpoint may implies not everything is 100% accurate. The young are a lot more impressed by their peers' (and especially their own) savoir faire than an older or outside viewpoint might be. The students need not have been so smooth as portrayed to have been so remembered.
Also, from what I know from my (few) acquaintances who attended schools where these hijinks even came close to being practical: it may be more accurate to instead say that we all went to the right kind of high schools.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Regardless of whether or not it's retarded, that the basic idea behind marriage. Its literally what you promise to do in most marriage ceremonies. Hence the "as long as you both shall live" phrase. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, and you don't have to do it, but it is what it is. Of course often it doesn't work out. It may be an unrealistic expectation. But marriage is a promise, and like any promise, there's little point in making it if you don't at least have the intention of attempting to fullfill it.
I know that marriage is a failing institution in the U.S. and abroad.
Most people who get married, stay married. The number of people who get married and stay married has been increasing in the US for 25 years. What makes you think the institution is failing? Sounds like it hit a bump and is recovering to me.
Of course "Marriage recovering well in US!" will sell far fewer magazines than "Beware! Your chances of divorce are over 50%!" even though the second headline is very misleading.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
"What would be the point of the hearings then?"
Theoretically, to solicit the opinions of interested or expert parties on a topic congress is considering legislating. This does not mean committee members must not have any opinions of their own.
"How can Dee Snyder get a fair shake when he's dragged before a congressional committee by a woman who's husband sits on that committee?"
Dee Snyder was dragged before the committed by a private citizen? First I've heard of it. He wasn't even supeonaed by the commitee, he was invited to appear and tell his side of the story, (which he did a bang up job of). And was the commitee even considering fining him? No. They were considering requiring albums that encouraged violence to be marked with a "V". And they decided not to require that.
"Besides, my point was that this is not a Bush/Gore or Republican/Democrat thing, so blaming it on any particular person or party is pointless"
And my point is, you're full of it. The Bush administration is levying massive fines without even stating the limits ahead of time. We don't need no stinking rules, you'll know you broke them when we fine you! You're saying because Al Gores wife took an objectionable, vaugely similar position 20 years ago, we shouldn't blame the Bush administration for it's actions today. That's insane; I certainly blamed Tipper for her actions 20 years ago, I'll certainly blame the Bush administration for it's actions today. Nor will the example of a single Democrat having once been wrong about something prevent me from seeing the overwhelming pattern of where the Bush administration is on this issue compared to the Democratic party or the country at large.
"I don't think this should be on the air at 8:00pm"
I encourage you to take that up with your TV station. You could even not watch it.
I do see your point about families though. I do wish they were free to watch a show whose premise about people getting kidnapped and murdered, without fear of seeing nakedness. I just think free speach is more important.
My wife has always told me that if I would have had a significant amount of money, she would have asked to sign a pre-nuptual agreement to prove to my family that she wasn't after my money. Luckily for me, even though I don't have money, my wife knows what's really important: a huge wang.
This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
Little note: Marriage has nothign to do with love it started as a property contract between a man and the family of a girl. It's shifted a bit over the last 200 years (yes the chaneg was very recent).
What?! Some of that may have been true among limited socioeconomic classes in some cultures (especially including landed gentry and nobility in western societies), but we have historical documents stretching thousands of years indicating that the primary purpose of marriage among the vast majority of people was procreation.
Several religions kicked it up a notch and made it not just about procreation but sex itself. Why would sex and marriage be so closely intertwined if the real purpose were property - an asset most people would have virtually none of?
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I for one will have to start watching this 'Without a Trace' show much closer in the hopes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H to make sure no one has to see this type of thing again!
Since they say you can not define pornography but can point it out when you see it, as part of my crusade against this smut I may have to watch the entire collection of Girls-Gone-Wild videos so that I know what it is that I am looking for.
If only the internet could help me in my research...hmmm...off to Google.
Seriously, is this the best thing people have to do with their time? In the time it took these people to write a complaint to the FCC they could have talked to their kids and probably done a lot more good.
My kids are way under the age bracket to worry much about shows like this but, if I felt they were old enough to watch 'Without a Trace' with me (even though it was probably obvious from the beginning of the show that it was going to involve teen sex.) and this part snuck up on us ("How odd...the start of the show was about kittens and ducks and then, after the commercial break, BAM! teen orgy!") I think I would perhaps ask them to leave the room. Or, depending upon their age and maturity level, talk to them about what we just saw and what they thought about it. I would then have an opportunity to hear how and what they think and to pass on some of my values. If my wife and I have been doing a decent job, those two things should not be worlds apart.
Sorry for the rant but people need to start taking responsibility for themselves and their families! Keeping 'dirty' stuff off the airwaves is not your job as a parent. Teaching and showing your kids right from wrong is.
James
You are correct. In the name of free speech, we should ban all forms of censorship. I want two men butt-fucking on The Cartoon Network when the kids get home from school. I want to see a woman tie a man up and shit in his mouth during prime time. I want to see Wil eat Grace while Jack shoves anal beads up Wil's ass. For that matter, I think I'll fuck my wife on my neighbor's yard. If they are offended by it, they can just close their blinds, right?
Seriously, with your logic, the sky's the limit; or should I say, "the gutter". Why should we limit sex to the cable networks when they could be on every channel at any time of the day?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Or if they decide to change by running off with another man? Or if they join a cult? Both of which happened to guys I know who married women who, at the time, I thought the world of and could have never imagined doing things like that.
How does a topic go straight from FCC fines to prenuptual agreements? Slashdot!
http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
Why?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I understand and tend to agree with your statement, yet given the propensity for teenagers to "minimise" the downside of things (such as drinking till you puke for example) I believe that a somewhat harder line is required. But that's just based on my having been a teenager a long long time ago. Back then there was plenty of evidence that over-indulgence in the Gold-Topped Mushroom could cause all sorts of bad things to happen, and there was plenty of evidence that "too much" was a random variable, but we still went on shroom parties. Graeme Freeman was still in hospital then, and is still in hospital topday. We focused on the uncontrollable laughter and the cosmic piccys, not the psychosis and jumping in front of cars believing they were unicorns come for us to ride...
Yuck! Where do you come up with this stuff? I don't want to see any of that, nor do I imagine do others. Why do you imagine TV stations are in a desperate rush to drive away their audiences and lose all their advertising revenues?
I note that my daily newspaper is not under any prohibitions against printing objectionable content. Oddly, it doesn't seem to contain one trace of the disgusting, freaky porn you seem so obseesed with.
I'd generally prefer people who find content on TV objectionable to take that up with the TV station, or their advertisers. If a lot of people find something objectionable, and say so, advertisers and TV stations will listen. When people feel the neeed to have government step in and tell TV stations what they can't broadcast because this minority doesn't like it, then, yeah, that makes me uncomfortable.
When the FCC does not actually issue any clear rules, but just levies fines after the fact, leaving the limits of acceptable speech up to the imaginations of fearful network legal departments... I say that's reprehensible; utterly contrary to supposed American ideals, not just of freedom of expression, but of the rule of law. The FCC can just decide what it thinks is objectionable on a whim, and fine people millions?
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
The GP was saying people who want to get married should have a pre-nup. I'm arguing that people who want a pre-nup should not get married.
I have to agree with GGP on this one. Regardless of what the statistics say (you said yourself, "the statistics mean squat to [an individual] marriage." the truth is that "shit happens." Not protecting myself and my potential wife from it as best I can because "we should trust each other" is impractical, self-indulgent, and naive romanticism.
Fine. one fine. back in 2003. They levied one fine 3 years ago. The only reason its at issue is that CBS is re-running the episode.
I for one think that this is terrible. Reruns!! icky.
Ira
(for gods sake, come up with some new teenage orgy scenes and stop re-running the old ones....)
Wow, I just watched an episode of DS9 last night that had that quote in it :-)
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Now is the time for CBS to file a suit for copyright infringement against parentstv.org. Just to recover the fine.
I'm an atheist. My girlfriend wants to have a religious wedding (She's catholic) in addition to the civil. I keep telling her that, for me, it will be a day of telling serious lies in front of lots of people. Her counter-argument is "It will be over in minutes. You can do that for me."
ughhhhh thanks for listening...
I'm not saying don't have a pre-nup because you should trust each other (Though, obviously, you should trust each other). A prenup specifies how your lives and fortunes shall be re-seperated should your marraige fail. If you are not planning on conflating your lives and fortunes to such a degree that specifying how to do that fairly in advance is completely impossible, I don't think you should get married. Entirely too many people get married who shouldn't, if you ask me.
Shit does indeed happen. You can not predict what will happen in your life together, or how you will face it together as a team. Maybe you'll decide one of you should work while the other goes back to school and improves their earning potential. Maybe you'll have a kid; maybe it will be triplets. Maybe one of you will fall ill and the other will need to care for them. Maybe, after 20 years of life's grand adventure together, you'll decide to split up, and need to divide up your stuff and otherwise seperate your lives. If so, it will suck, and probably be messy. If you think you can make an agreement now that predicts what will be "fair" then, and that that will at all protect you from it being messy, then in my opinion you should not get married.
Your formula sounds reasonable, but let's apply it to different data:
If every year, there are x births and x/2 deaths (which there are, roughly), then is the likelihood of any given life ending in death 50%?
Statistics is tricky stuff.
In any case, for marraiges, the correct statistic (as far as my recent research indicates) is that in a certain year in the late 70s a particular study estimated there were half as many divorces as weddings. Suprisingly to me, there do not appear to be good stats for most years before or since.
Now these studies were done because of concern over rising divorce rates, and liberalized (no-fault) divorce laws. As the other poster points out, arguing from that one year to the general case ignores the large number of pre-existing marraiges from years with presumably lower rates. And, strange as it seems, it was actually difficult to get divorced in some cases before the late 70s, so that rate may have included some "backlog" of marraiges that were long over but couldn't easily be ended before.
But for the sake of argument, let's stiputate quite a lot of marraiges end in divorce. That means nothing about your marraige; there is no such thing as the law of averages; statistics are not predictive of individual cases, or even of what the future statistics will be.
Catholic school is not over in minutes, neither is going to church every week "to set a good example."
Then again, a large reason I'm an athiest is because my father gave in a bit at a time and I would up being forced to attend church/jesus camp/etc.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I hate seeing these weak-ass counterarguments. "Hey, you don't like Bush?? Well.. CLINTON WAS A POOPYHEAD!"
Just because I might happen to dislike Bush's policies, behaviors, attitudes and reading level does NOT mean that I support the actions of another. In the real world, there is more than Republican OR Democrat.
Lets also mention the fact that Tipper may have done some stupid stuff, but she did it as a private citizen. Don't ya think that blaming Al for the actions of his wife is maybe a bit sexist and perhaps a little fucking stupid?
A bit of a misnomer that statistic. Firstly it counts pretty much all Las Vegas weddings. Secondly, if a person marries, divorces, marries again, divorces again etc. that applies to the statistic as well. The actual number is much lower.
"For me a pre-nup is kind of a vulgar thing. You are counting on getting a divorce at some point."
Do you have insurance on your house?
If you do, then you are counting on your house burning down at some point, according to your logic.
A prenup is a form of insurance, except without the $$ payments every year.
What irritates the hell out of me is that groups like the Parents Television Council generate thousands of complaints to the FCC about the fact that this clip aired on television, yet they're hosting the very same clip on their own website. A website that any kid with half a brain can find, and watch the clip. If it's so oh-my-gosh outrageous and offensive, why are they hosting a copy of it that any kid can download?
I blogged about this particular instance back in January 2005 when this first came up, Parents Television Council Hypocrites. I should note that PTC has actually removed a lot of the vulgarity citations from their site (many of the links in that blog entry are Google searches that no longer produce the same results). It's also interesting that I had to go digging around to figure out why "teen orgy" was showing up as a hot referring search term to my blog over the past couple of days.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Being European, I don't have the right to criticise the standpoint of the FCC - but I'm not too old to be surprised by the things that I see in the world. And I have to admit that this bit surprised me:-
I actually saw this, and it is the use of the word "protect" which surprises me. My idea is that if anybody really needed "protection" from this they probably need help from a doctor or a mental health specialist. Anybody that is except Miss Jackson, that is. She seemed to register surprise - and not pleasant surprise - when the incident occurred. I can quite understand that she (as a performer) would probably not want to sue the network (an eventual employer) for allowing what might be termed unprovoked assault to happen. How a government body such as the FCC could miss punishing those responsible - and especially those directly responsible escapes me completely, however.I'd like to offer a suggestion which, while only a suggestion , would allow the FCC to make a positive contribution to "The American Way". They could start looking at the content of the "commercial breaks" and/or the "messages from our sponsor". They might distribute fines for such things as
I am quite certain - for I have the privilege of visiting America - that the FCC would:
- gather a lot more money in this way.
- improve the quality of life for many Americans.
- discourage the use of public stupidity in television advertising.
Once they rid America of public stupidity on television, they could always attack public nudity.I find that public bodies world-wide, such as the American FCC, have a regrettable tendency to forget that the folks who are part of the work-a-day world are more or less forced to rely on television for majority of their evening entertainment . They could do such a lot for us - fines for advertisers (or networks) who increase the sound level during the "message from our sponsor" for example. It really is a pity that they are so divorced from the normal world - but the above is only my opinion
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
My parents got divorced and both handled it like mature human beings. My dad agreed to partial custody of my brother and I, they both sold off the house that we lived in and split the cost according to who was taking who, and my father willingly pays child support with the understanding that he's responsible for us since we're his sons. As I understand it, since my mother was (and is) a working professional, she didnt try to wring alimony payments out of him, or take more than what she felt was her share. I think a lot of what ruins marriage is simple greed and the feeling that you have to take what you can, not what you should. No prenuptual agreement forced them into their settlement, and they both kept their priorities straight.
In fact, the legal system was screwing it up. Back when my parents had first gotten divorced the office that handles child support was frequently making payments a month late, or withdrawing the payment from my dad's account twice and only making one payment. So they decided to cut the shitty office out of the loop since it was interfering in the settlement.
When two people have a messy divorce, the only winners are the lawyers. Even a prenuptual agreement has to be enforced, and that enforcement costs money.
Though I would agree with you in principle, since you really cant tell whether a woman is going to be utter scum and try to rape you of your livelihood for revenge or greed. Even the sweet ones can be downright vicious if you've somehow slighted them. The lesson inherient in the prevalence and precedents of divorce proceedings is that, when you're going to get married, make absolutely sure you've chosen the right woman.
SRSLY.
If you think we have a true free market in the US you are mistaken.
The problem is that big business LIKES big government.
When the government is big and has the power to regulate and extend into every aspect of the life of its citizens, then it also has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of special interests.
For example, to start a business in this country you have to have an attorney, accountant, and maybe even a tax lawyer. This does not include the piles of work you have to go through on the local and state level.
When McDonalds opens a new location, they have a team of accountants and attorneys on staff to handle the red tape put in place by the government. Their resources are larger, and their professionals are concentrated. Therefore more regulation and big government stifiles competition and regulates IN FAVOR of the big business. A small or independent business doesn't have the resources/time/money to allocate to dealing with the same regulations.
If the US government returned to its roots then the economy would be much more prosperous. If you noticed, the transforming part of US history, the industrial revolution, happened during a lassie-faire era of limited government. Why? Because they let unbridled capitalism run it's course and more progress was seen in a short number of years than ever before.
Well there were a lot of bad thigns that went on during that period. Terrible worker abuses, horrible working conditions, etc. The government didn't have to step in to fix it. Why? Because the people organized into private unions to have large negtioating power with their employers.
If you notice the biggest true monolopies are either government-granted (power, water, cable, phone, copyrights, patents), or are a result of excessive governmental regulation causing high barriers of entry by independent firms into the marketplace. So I hate to break it to you but in TRUE 'free-market capitalism' true monolopies are rare and usually don't last very long because competition can spring up at a moment's notice.
And about the poor... Private charities usually only provide limtied or one-time assistance to people in need. They don't usually continue to support lifestyles that are non-productive. This encourages people to pull their own weight. Also with a smaller amount of the economy going into taxes which are wasted, those funds could be allocated for private charities. For those that are truly unable to due to illness, age, dissability etc, then there are private foundations, charities, (and even one's own family) etc that are better equipped to deal with that situation.
A prime example of the government's ineptness is the Katrina situation. The government is ok at restoring law and order and maybe doing a few emergency services, but outside of that it is like a retarded giant incapable of any but the most simple of tasks.
There are many books on the subject, but the concept of libertarianism is based off of a few points:
-limited government
-free markets
-individual liberties
-personal responsibility
Libertas in infinitum
Actually a pre-nup would be less vulgar if there were payments since it would prove that it reduces a marriage to nothing more than as simple business transaction.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
But even intention isn't enough. A lot of people go in with the best of intentions and things still turn sour in the end. Sure, it's a promise to be together until the end, a promise that should be kept, and that's why it's flawed right from the start.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
...and watch it on the big screen TV's they bought!
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Absolutely...
The world has never seen a true version of communism in a developed nation. And neither have we seen a true example of free-market capitalism either*
Most of societal structures these days tend to lean heavily in one direction or another, but are usually eclectic mixes of various ecopolitical systems.
And I agree that having the system manipulaetd by various special interests (business interests, consumer interests, idealists, etc) is harmful all the way around. This is why a society that leans libertarian with limited governmental intervention doesn't have the power or the reach to pander to special interests. These interests would be forced to allow the natural market forces to work unabated and not use the government as a tool for their cause or business.
But I think that selfishness is a basic human principle that we have to train ourselves to grow away from. A lot of people vote in the US based on the question "which one of these canididates will do the most for me?" They are overlooking what is best for the country based upon their own personal interests. This reduces elections and campaigns to nothing more than a contest between the canididates of which each is trying to promise more handouts to more people than the next guy. In the early-mid 90's this type of campaign was briefly upset by Ross Perot because he talked facts, figures, and used rational logic - not just feel-good emotional soundbytes.
So yes often times the people don't know what is best for themselves, but this is why the US is a democratic-republic. It is also why we have a bicamaral legislative system. And in my opinion, the US Senators should revert to the original way of elections - voted delegates by the state legislatures; NOT by the general populace. Most Senators prior to the early 20th century were former governers, retired legislators, those with litte or no political ambition but with lots of experience. This sort of kept them proxied from normal political pressures and typical knee-jerk reactions to current events.
*The only exception I could think of would be Hong Kong under British rule. It was a true bastion of unbridled capitalism.
Libertas in infinitum
this is probably going to harm my karma, but after seeing your nick, i just have to
speed kills fast cars cheap thrills
cat
Thats where I got the nick ;)