PDA

View Full Version : The FCC is out of control!



alanjlamore
12-17-2004, 03:34 AM
I did a search on "FCC" and was surprised that it didn't come back with any results here, I thought we talked about them before.

The reason I'm posting this is because I just got done enjoying some good music on the VH1 Mega Hits station (where they actually play music videos). I couldn't believe what was either beeped out, or blanked out.

In one song, the word "pot" was beeped out. :rolleyes: Another song using a metaphor saying "it's like a drug that gets me high" and they blanked out the words "drug" and "high"!! :rolleyes: A third song by Weezer has a line "I got my hash pipe" and the word "hash" was blanked out!! :rolleyes:

I could not believe my ears! Censorship in this country has gotten absolutely ridiculous.

If I didn't have so much family here, I think I'd move, only I don't know where yet. I'm thinking maybe somewhere in Europe.

Anyone know of a European country that's less restricting and allows for more of a free feeling? I know I've heard of a lot of countries that are a lot worse off, but man, is it that hard to have a lot of freedom AND have a high sence of security too?

elissalowe
12-17-2004, 12:09 PM
I did a search on "FCC" and was surprised that it didn't come back with any results here, I thought we talked about them before.

The reason I'm posting this is because I just got done enjoying some good music on the VH1 Mega Hits station (where they actually play music videos). I couldn't believe what was either beeped out, or blanked out.

In one song, the word "pot" was beeped out. :rolleyes: Another song using a metaphor saying "it's like a drug that gets me high" and they blanked out the words "drug" and "high"!! :rolleyes: A third song by Weezer has a line "I got my hash pipe" and the word "hash" was blanked out!! :rolleyes:

I could not believe my ears! Censorship in this country has gotten absolutely ridiculous.

If I didn't have so much family here, I think I'd move, only I don't know where yet. I'm thinking maybe somewhere in Europe.

Anyone know of a European country that's less restricting and allows for more of a free feeling? I know I've heard of a lot of countries that are a lot worse off, but man, is it that hard to have a lot of freedom AND have a high sence of security too?
LOL!

This has nothing to do with security - the fundies are flexing their muscles all across the board and have declared war on...(shhhhh!!!) s....e.....x. The lunacy with the FCC is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until you have school-age kids and encounter "abstinence-only" sex education. Look at the rush in a number of states to "defend" marriage by banning civil unions/same-sex marriage. One right-wing activist made the broader agenda quite clear by stating: "If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile....If they're isolated - if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness - then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside.'' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4628996,00.html). And how do you think they're going to manage that? Restricting access to contraception comes to mind, as well as imposing other laws/sanctions designed to regulate private behavior.

The solution isn't moving to another country, Alan. The solution is to get involved and help kick these bastards out of their positions of power - before it's too late.

Ord Mandrell
12-17-2004, 01:32 PM
Man - this thread is beginning to sound like an episode of the West Wing.

The scary thing is that censorship and political correctness have infected Europe too. Many of the nations that were considered icons of liberalism are turning into right-wing conservative regimes. This is partly due to the fear of muslims and their influence on so called 'national' cultures but it also has to do with the fact that traditional family and other societal structures are disappearing.

Hey alanjlamore, the scariest thing about consorship in the USA right now is not the fact that certain words are being bleeped out (after all, there has to be something to bleep out in the first place). The scariest thing is that a lot of musicians, newspapers, websites, authors, movie producers, etc. are actually SELF-CENSORING themsleves for fear of running afoul of the USA's unbelievably right-wing views on free-speech. What this means is that the politically correct uber-geeks have won the biggest victory of all.

What to do ? This is the kind of issue that requires someone smarter than me.

erp7e
12-18-2004, 04:15 AM
This encompasses not only the FCC (who recently caused a ban of my favorite radio host, Bubba the Love Sponge) but many of our regulatory agencies. The climate of a perceived fear of terror or some other boogeyman has allowed our nation to regress to violating individual rights and basically neglecting the Constitution in some vague notion of "security" and "moral values."

It is quite sad, but then again, we were dumb enough (some of us) as a people to elect (note: not reelect--he was unconstitutionally court-appointed the first time!) the perpetrators of this mess, so we deserve what we get.

Not "proud to be an American" right now.

Simon
12-18-2004, 08:27 AM
The lack of proper contraception is one of the scariest issues I've seen. That for me rises above even the free speech issues, it's a dangerous and myopic direction to be headed in.

Ord Mandrell
12-18-2004, 09:31 AM
Lack of proper contraception ?
Can you elaborate ?

As far as I know, Americans have access to the pill, condoms, etc.
Or was that a joke about the fact that George and Barbara should have never reproduced ?

Simon
12-18-2004, 09:38 AM
I was just referring to some discussion on the topic by Eliisa not specific fact (yet)

Wait until you have school-age kids and encounter "abstinence-only" sex education. Look at the rush in a number of states to "defend" marriage by banning civil unions/same-sex marriage. One right-wing activist made the broader agenda quite clear by stating: "If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile....If they're isolated - if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness - then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside.'' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/...4628996,00.html). And how do you think they're going to manage that? Restricting access to contraception comes to mind, as well as imposing other laws/sanctions designed to regulate private behavior.

elissalowe
12-18-2004, 02:21 PM
Lack of proper contraception ?
Can you elaborate ?

As far as I know, Americans have access to the pill, condoms, etc.
Or was that a joke about the fact that George and Barbara should have never reproduced ?
The Christian Right in the US is superbly organized and is determined to fight the "culture war" to the finish. Access to contraception isn't specifically threatened...yet, since the backlash would be overwhelming. But they are attacking reproductive rights on a number of fronts, and the ultimate goal is to have a theocracy able to exert control over what people do in their bedrooms. The activist I quoted above is just one example: the battle to preserve the sanctity of marriage by prohibiting civil unions/same-sex marriage is part of a larger agenda to address other related issues, such as "cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness." How else can you attack "deliberate childlessness" except by proscripting contraception? And the "right" to contraception isn't all that new - as late as 1965, laws were in place that prohibited access to contraceptives by married couples!!! The Supreme Court case which established that such laws were unconstitutional (Griswold vs. Connecticut, see: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_039000_griswoldvcon.htm) relied on an interpretation of the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be considered to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). This interpretation of the US Constitution has been challenged by conservative jurists - including Robert Bork, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court (he was rejected, after a contentious set of hearings led by a - fortunately - Democratic-controlled Congress. It goes without saying that this safeguard has been lost). Simply put, there is no actual "right" to privacy enumerated in the Constitution, and the fundies are determined to pack the federal courts with judges who will be all too happy to whittle away at the precedents that have been established w/regard to reproductive rights.

Nor is this the only front that they are actively engaged on. Please see the following for a broad look at right-wing organization and tactics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1369643,00.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2004%2F12%2F02%2FMNGPQA4Q FJ1.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/national/13states.html?oref=login&oref=login&adxnnl=1&oref=login&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1102945511-U+9OOlJUrcj5+blKRHm4UQ

erp7e
12-18-2004, 09:04 PM
I think that all the righteous right-wingers who think contraception is evil should go adopt all the crack babies with AIDS who nobody wants to adapt, who the 15-year-old mother abandoned at the hospital. The poor people with 12 kids and can't feed them, but they don't use contraception because the pope (or whoever) says so, maybe these right-wingers should donate to pay for their clothing, food, and the schools that will be overcrowded with them so that we'll have to hire new teachers and buy more books and supplies.

What amazes me about the "religious right" is they love to point fingers and inflict guilt but they are short on practical solutions, and short on love.

Martin_Havelka
12-18-2004, 09:38 PM
The poor people with 12 kids and can't feed them, but they don't use contraception because the pope (or whoever) says so...

Are you saying that there really are families in the US that have so many kids, because they think contraception is evil?? I spent a year in the US once (during high school exchange) and noticed some families with 9-12 kids, they were mostly farm people so I thought they were just really old fashioned or something. Some of my friends actually told me that they didn't "believe" in contraception, but back then I, of course, thought this was a joke! I never even considered taking that seriously....

elissalowe
12-18-2004, 11:07 PM
Are you saying that there really are families in the US that have so many kids, because they think contraception is evil?? I spent a year in the US once (during high school exchange) and noticed some families with 9-12 kids, they were mostly farm people so I thought they were just really old fashioned or something. Some of my friends actually told me that they didn't "believe" in contraception, but back then I, of course, thought this was a joke! I never even considered taking that seriously....

Sure...meet Rick Santorum, father of seven: http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/5677776.htm

erp7e
12-19-2004, 07:45 AM
Martin:

Absolutely! For the most part, in my experience, they are poor Hispanic Catholic immigrants. I mean this in no way to denigrate that ethnic group. On the contrary, I feel sorry for this very hard-working group of people who come to America in search of a better life but are so brainwashed by the right that they will go to hell if they use contraception, that they can't feed their family.

Santorum is one of the most disturbing and truly anti-American individuals in our government. His willingness to put his personal values above U.S. law is wrong and frightening. What kills me is all these Republicans who claim to be so rah-rah pro-American actually are trying to tear up the Constitution and install their own legislated-morality, plutocratic, facist regime. How that is 'American,' I don't know.

elissalowe
12-19-2004, 06:14 PM
Just to bring this thread full circle - back to the FCC (and the related fundie-fueled "culture war"), check this out: http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=6435.

Let's hear it for the FOIA (also under attack by the fundies and their Bush Admin. allies).

pizzaman
12-21-2004, 12:29 AM
It is quite sad, but then again, we were dumb enough (some of us) as a people to elect (note: not reelect--he was unconstitutionally court-appointed the first time!) the perpetrators of this mess, so we deserve what we get.

Regarding the myth that Bush was not the winner of the 2000 election, it should be noted that at least two news organizations undertook independent recounts of the Florida votes. The results of both recounts were that Bush won Florida, and would have won regardless of whether a statewide recount or recounts only in the counties contested by Gore had been done.

If you have not read about these recounts in the mainstream media, it's because the results were not what was hoped for by the pro-Gore press. If they had found Gore would have won, the story would have been front page for weeks.

erp7e
12-21-2004, 05:10 AM
Even if that were the case (Bush WOULD have won), and I'll give you that, the process was undertaken unconstitutionally. That is the point and that is the problem. It's not whether he WOULD have or WOULDN'T have been elected...it's whether he WAS elected...and he wasn't. We're supposed to follow the law and elect leaders according to the law. They didn't just appoint George Washington president and then say, "oh well, we didn't have an election, but hey, he WOULD'VE won if we actually counted the votes."

Just curious...does the "Pro-Gore" media include Faux, I mean Fox, News?

But...back to the FCC...

pizzaman
12-22-2004, 04:56 AM
Even if that were the case (Bush WOULD have won), and I'll give you that, the process was undertaken unconstitutionally. That is the point and that is the problem. It's not whether he WOULD have or WOULDN'T have been elected...it's whether he WAS elected...and he wasn't. We're supposed to follow the law and elect leaders according to the law. They didn't just appoint George Washington president and then say, "oh well, we didn't have an election, but hey, he WOULD'VE won if we actually counted the votes."

Just curious...does the "Pro-Gore" media include Faux, I mean Fox, News?

But...back to the FCC...

So what you are saying is that the Supreme Court -- who, according to the Constitution, is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality -- acted unconstitutionally? If you were to say you disagreed with their decision (I know I certainly disagree with a lot of them), that would be one thing. But to claim they acted unconstitutionally seems a bit of a stretch.

And just so you know, despite being a Bush supporter, I had mixed feelings about that decision myself. I was glad to finally see the whole mess come to an end, and to see the man I voted for winning. But, being a proponent of state's rights, I did not really like the rationale provided for the decision.

And no, Fox News is not a part of the "pro-Gore" media. Thankfully there is at least one "fair and balanced" news network out there. :)

elissalowe
12-23-2004, 06:16 PM
Just to bring this thread full circle - back to the FCC (and the related fundie-fueled "culture war"), check this out: http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=6435.

Let's hear it for the FOIA (also under attack by the fundies and their Bush Admin. allies).

Another revealing piece on the "culture war" hypocrisy - it's a bit long (4 pages), but a pretty good read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15644-2004Dec21.html

erp7e
12-26-2004, 09:00 PM
Pizza:

I'm unaware of the clause in the Constitution that allows the Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes and appoint the President. If the Supreme Court were to stage a coup, just because they are the S.C. does not make that act constitutional.

Fox News "fair and balanced"--I respectfully and strongly disagree. I think all media markets are prone to some bias here and there, as you would expect with any human element. But Fox News is so out there with their obviously biased agenda, it's almost comical. Their electoral college "estimations" on election night weren't even remotely accurate (they had Bush up 320-30 at like 7:00, none of the other networks were anywhere near this "estimate" ahem).

If you wish to hear other viewpoints on this, I'd encourage you to watch the documentary "Outfoxed." Personally, I prefer to go to foreign markets for my news, as they mention all the things that our media censors, such as the thousands of people coming home maimed from the war that never make it on our news.

WillBrink
12-26-2004, 10:38 PM
Pizza:

I'm unaware of the clause in the Constitution that allows the Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes and appoint the President. If the Supreme Court were to stage a coup, just because they are the S.C. does not make that act constitutional.

Fox News "fair and balanced"--I respectfully and strongly disagree. I think all media markets are prone to some bias here and there, as you would expect with any human element. But Fox News is so out there with their obviously biased agenda, it's almost comical. Their electoral college "estimations" on election night weren't even remotely accurate (they had Bush up 320-30 at like 7:00, none of the other networks were anywhere near this "estimate" ahem).

If you wish to hear other viewpoints on this, I'd encourage you to watch the documentary "Outfoxed." Personally, I prefer to go to foreign markets for my news, as they mention all the things that our media censors, such as the thousands of people coming home maimed from the war that never make it on our news.

Amazingly, I find the best source for US news is the BBC! They cover our news better then we do most of the time and their world news is far superior to ours with the possible exception of NPR.

pizzaman
12-27-2004, 05:05 AM
Pizza:

I'm unaware of the clause in the Constitution that allows the Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes and appoint the President. If the Supreme Court were to stage a coup, just because they are the S.C. does not make that act constitutional.

Fox News "fair and balanced"--I respectfully and strongly disagree. I think all media markets are prone to some bias here and there, as you would expect with any human element. But Fox News is so out there with their obviously biased agenda, it's almost comical. Their electoral college "estimations" on election night weren't even remotely accurate (they had Bush up 320-30 at like 7:00, none of the other networks were anywhere near this "estimate" ahem).

If you wish to hear other viewpoints on this, I'd encourage you to watch the documentary "Outfoxed." Personally, I prefer to go to foreign markets for my news, as they mention all the things that our media censors, such as the thousands of people coming home maimed from the war that never make it on our news.

erp,

You should check out Article III, Section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution, which states that the SC has jurisdiction in controversies between a state and a citizen of another state, which is the situation that arose when the Bush team challenged the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 1 states that SC justices hold their office "during good behavior", so if they decided to stage a coup they would be subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives under Article I, Section 2, clause 5.

Regarding Fox News, I put a smiley at the end of my statement so that you would know I was being tongue in cheek. They obviously have a conservative slant on the news. However, I would disagree with you that they are more biased than other news outlets. CBS, for example, got caught with its pants down twice during the recent campaign. And what else do I need to say than ... New York Times?

I do try to get my news from a variety of sources. I read the local (liberal leaning) newspaper, I watch NBC news, and I read various news sites on the web daily (including WorldNet Daily, which gives a conservative perspective). I don't get Fox News, though, so I only get to watch them when I visit my parents' house.

WillBrink
12-28-2004, 04:10 PM
Another revealing piece on the "culture war" hypocrisy - it's a bit long (4 pages), but a pretty good read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15644-2004Dec21.html

Of interest, Top 25 Censored News Stories Of 2004



http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/

elissalowe
12-28-2004, 09:46 PM
Of interest, Top 25 Censored News Stories Of 2004



http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/

Thank you for posting this Will. I've seen many of these issues reported in the various blogs that I read, but it's useful to have a list and references to the original sources all in one place.

erp7e
12-29-2004, 10:30 PM
pizza, I would not agree that III.2.1, resolving disputes between a state and an individual, covers a court-appointed President. They blocked the electoral process from taking place; certainly not "good behavior." Oh of course, I believe all American news sources are highly prone to bias, including liberal-leaning CBS perhaps, I just think Fox news is most blatant with it. But as I mentioned, I go overseas for my news now, they are not bought out by American corporate interests to hide such stories as posted above by Will.

pizzaman
12-30-2004, 12:19 AM
erp,

The Supreme Court did not appoint Bush president in 2000. The state of Florida, in accordance with its laws, officially certified Bush as the winner of the state's election. The Florida State Supreme Court decided to bypass the law (if you want to talk about unconstitutional behavior, that is the place to focus on) and order a selective recount, even though the state's constitution clearly gives the legislature jurisdiction over election matters. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court was incorrect in its ruling, which resulted in the state's legally certified election results to remain in place.

The SC's ruling resulted in Bush finally being recognized as having won the election, but it was an election he had already legally won. There was no "appointment" necessary.

erp7e
12-30-2004, 06:31 AM
It's my feeling that the election was yet undecided, but the conservative-dominated SC elected to halt the counting and make Bush the winner. My guess is that if the roles were reversed, i.e. Gore was the original "winner" and Bush was demanding recount, the SC would have waited for as many counts as possible. It was a case of a partisian decision by a SC, completely overstepping its bounds in having such a role in the "election." Jeb Bush and that freak show woman in Tallahassee who's name escapes me, who ran the election and was affiliated with W's election team, they had an obvious vested interest in the outcome.

If you want to talk about unconstitutional behavior, I know people personally who were forced away from the polls by "election officials" while they were still open in Duval County (Jacksonville, FL, where I lived on and off for 8 years, including in 2000) during the '00 election. Several congressmen protested the election results at Bush's inaugeration from these districts and others in Florida that were disenfranchised. Florida has had some "issues," to say the least.

Really, the election sham pales in comparison with starting oil wars to benefit corporate interests completely unprepared, destroying nearly every treaty and alliance we've ever made, and passing legislation that severely restricts civil liberties and enforces a morality that was supposed to never be made law, so we can just agree to disagree on the election results and focus more on the policies that have resulted from this administration, including what's happened to the FCC (see this thread).

If you are in agreement with Bush that everything should be censored, all our civil rights including free speech should be taken away, and we should be forced to all live according to the President's personal beliefs, please, let it be known in this thread.

It's about the FCC and regulation of our supposed free speech. Also the extended "culture war," which as elissa points out, is an interesting development (please, pizza, don't tell me you believe in abstinence-only sex ed...I know you're smarter than that!! :D ). Let's just agree to disagree on the '00 election, which is really a moot point now anyway.

pizzaman
01-01-2005, 01:45 AM
If you are in agreement with Bush that everything should be censored, all our civil rights including free speech should be taken away, and we should be forced to all live according to the President's personal beliefs, please, let it be known in this thread.

It's about the FCC and regulation of our supposed free speech. Also the extended "culture war," which as elissa points out, is an interesting development (please, pizza, don't tell me you believe in abstinence-only sex ed...I know you're smarter than that!! :D ). Let's just agree to disagree on the '00 election, which is really a moot point now anyway.

erp,

I sincerely doubt that Bush thinks that everything should be censored, that all our civil rights should be taken away, and we should be forced to all live according to his personal beliefs. It is pretty tough to engage in rational debate when one has to deal with extreme exaggeration.

I agree that we should just agree to disagree, not only about the election, but about our political philosophies in general. In the future I will try to confine my posts to subjects relating to nutrition and exercise.

I would ask just a couple of things, not just from you, but others also. First, please be sensitive to the fact that not everyone shares your political and religious views, and that the use of generalizations and name-calling (e.g., "fundies") detracts from the points you are trying to make, and has the potential to offend.

Second, please recognize that personal philosophies are not just a matter of intelligence. One's perspective on the nature of truth, and the nature of God and man, strongly affect their beliefs about just about everything in life. Many who are way more intelligent than you or I are would disagree on a whole host of issues. Intelligence does not guarantee that one's views on an issue -- especially one with a moral component -- are correct.

Anyway, sorry if I seem to be ranting. Hope you (and everyone else on the board) has a good holiday and a fantastsic 2005!

erp7e
01-01-2005, 07:17 AM
No--I feel he would not censor those things that were in congruence with his personal religious family values. As far as civil rights, yes, I believe the neocon agenda is to take away all of them. The bill of rights is a nuissance to them. And yes, I believe he and his supporters do want everyone to live according to his personal beliefs. So...I concede that I was exaggerating on 1 of the 3 accounts, but the other 2, I sincerely believe that is the intent of the administration.

I am certainly sensitive to the fact that not everyone agrees with my views. But that doesn't mean they can't be discussed. I enjoy debate and discussion, that's the very thing I'm afraid is being taken away from us--the ability for people to debate and disagree on a point of view. I thought it was interesting that Michael Moore said he was GLAD he was booed at the Academy Awards for his anti-Bush sentiments...he was GLAD that people were allowed to express different viewpoints, which is what this country is supposed to stand for.

I don't think personal philosophies are a matter of intelligence, and I apologize if I ever implied it. Regardless of your feeling on pre-marital sex, in a practical sense, here on planet Earth, abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. There are plenty of stupid liberal and conservative ideas, and that is one of them. Some liberals think we should all stop using cars, electricity, phones, processed food, and all our modern conveniences and just hug trees and live in clay huts. However nice this sounds on paper, it would not work in real life. So it wasn't an attack on conservative ideas as "dumb," just an attack on a dumb idea!

So, we can agree to disagree...which is (was) the beauty of pre-Dubya America! But as his former press secretary once said, "people should watch what they say."

Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year to you, as well.

elissalowe
01-01-2005, 03:25 PM
I would ask just a couple of things, not just from you, but others also. First, please be sensitive to the fact that not everyone shares your political and religious views, and that the use of generalizations and name-calling (e.g., "fundies") detracts from the points you are trying to make, and has the potential to offend.

Hey Pizzaman:

I was the one who used the term "fundies" - not erp7e. And I always try to respect people's religious beliefs. If someone wishes to believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old, that the dinosaurs perished in Noah's flood, that both men and women should remain virgins until marriage, and that sex is only for the purpose of procreation - well, ok. I certainly don't agree with them, but I support their right to believe whatever they want to. More power to them.

But...

Some of these people are attempting to use the political process to impose their beliefs on my children and my body. I have had to actively engage in "counter-education" with my own kids w/regard to abstinence-only sex education, and explain why "Creation Science" and its watered-down cousin "Intelligent Design" are wrong and misguided. I have seen books quietly removed from school library shelves and have yet to hear the term "evolution" even discussed in a science classroom (and my oldest is nearly 15!). And these are just the small issues: the ones that have crept into my daily life. The links I posted to articles detailing various facets of the "culture war" provide glimpses into larger issues of control over what I can see and read and do. And on an even larger front, I am watching science - a subject to which I have devoted much of my adult life - distorted and perverted to square with the agendas of others.

This isn't about a difference of "political philosophies" for me - it's personal. My intent in using the term was to express my contempt for those who feel they have a mandate from God to limit my freedom. And I feel no need to apologize for that. Civility is a wonderful thing, but when it means calling a spade, an "entrenching tool," then it's gone too far.

On a lighter note, hope you (and all) have a wonderful '05!

ray2nite
01-01-2005, 05:06 PM
Elissa. Under Construction or not, I vote you MOM OF THE YEAR.

I wish 2005 the best year ever for everyone.

Ray of Long Island :cool:

alanjlamore
01-01-2005, 07:25 PM
Wow, interesting stuff there Elissa. Perticularly about your kids that not learning about evalution in school. I'm 10 years older than your oldest, so it's been 8 years since High school, and I remember being taught about evalution (very gladly).

I've always been interested in science, and proving the hows and whys of something before saying it's a fact.

Okay, a little off the topic (don't want to get into a huge debate over how the world was made) this whole thread has been very interesting though.

I'm not very big into politics, so I can't contribute much...

WillBrink
01-01-2005, 08:19 PM
Hey Pizzaman:

I was the one who used the term "fundies" - not erp7e. And I always try to respect people's religious beliefs. If someone wishes to believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old, that the dinosaurs perished in Noah's flood, that both men and women should remain virgins until marriage, and that sex is only for the purpose of procreation - well, ok. I certainly don't agree with them, but I support their right to believe whatever they want to. More power to them.

But...

Some of these people are attempting to use the political process to impose their beliefs on my children and my body. I have had to actively engage in "counter-education" with my own kids w/regard to abstinence-only sex education, and explain why "Creation Science" and its watered-down cousin "Intelligent Design" are wrong and misguided. I have seen books quietly removed from school library shelves and have yet to hear the term "evolution" even discussed in a science classroom (and my oldest is nearly 15!). And these are just the small issues: the ones that have crept into my daily life. The links I posted to articles detailing various facets of the "culture war" provide glimpses into larger issues of control over what I can see and read and do. And on an even larger front, I am watching science - a subject to which I have devoted much of my adult life - distorted and perverted to square with the agendas of others.

This isn't about a difference of "political philosophies" for me - it's personal. My intent in using the term was to express my contempt for those who feel they have a mandate from God to limit my freedom. And I feel no need to apologize for that. Civility is a wonderful thing, but when it means calling a spade, an "entrenching tool," then it's gone too far.

On a lighter note, hope you (and all) have a wonderful '05!


"Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

elissalowe
01-01-2005, 09:04 PM
Wow, interesting stuff there Elissa. Perticularly about your kids that not learning about evalution in school. I'm 10 years older than your oldest, so it's been 8 years since High school, and I remember being taught about evalution (very gladly).

I've always been interested in science, and proving the hows and whys of something before saying it's a fact.

Okay, a little off the topic (don't want to get into a huge debate over how the world was made) this whole thread has been very interesting though.

I'm not very big into politics, so I can't contribute much...

Well, you got this whole discussion rolling Alan - that's quite a contribution. :)

I expect that the kids will get some evolutionary theory eventually - according to the Ohio Dept. of Education, it's part of the 10th grade science benchmarks. Number-One-Son is in 9th grade this year, so he has a year to go. Trust me, though - I will be watching this pretty closely. The "Intelligent Design" advocates have been very busy here in the state and the curriculum is designed to encourage students to debate the "controversies" and explore "alternatives" to evolutionary theory (see: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?pg=1&topic=evolution&topic_set= for a good, in-depth discussion). This approach exploits the appeal to reasonableness, but presents a couple of problems: 1) it implies that the "controversies" are true scientific debates, and that arguments pro and con have equal merit; 2) the students generally will not have sufficient knowledge or grasp of the subject matter to properly evaluate the issues raised. No other scientific discipline is presented this way. I have no fear for my own kids, as both John (a.k.a. "Quicksilver") and I have a variety of resources to draw on. But the damage to science education is considerable. Sure, relatively few kids grow up to be scientists (and even fewer will be evolutionary biologists) - but the number of science/technology related issues that confront all of us is huge (think genetic engineering and global warming, for example) - and getting bigger all the time. Even ordinary people need to understand science - both its strengths and limitations - and be able to use reason and logic to make decisions, some of which may have profound impacts to life on Earth.

elissalowe
01-01-2005, 09:08 PM
Elissa. Under Construction or not, I vote you MOM OF THE YEAR.

I wish 2005 the best year ever for everyone.

Ray of Long Island :cool:
Awwwwww...

Thanks Ray! :)

pizzaman
01-02-2005, 12:46 AM
Hey Pizzaman:

I was the one who used the term "fundies" - not erp7e. And I always try to respect people's religious beliefs.

Elissa,

I realize it was you, not erp, who used the term "fundies". Those remarks at the end of my last post were intended not just for erp, but for the board in general.

In keeping with my promise to limit my posts to nutrition and exercise, I will refrain from any further discussion on the other topics you and erp mentioned, tempting as it is. :)

erp7e
01-02-2005, 02:12 AM
pizza:

Respect your decision not to debate this stuff on this forum. But don't listen to me, listen to someone much smarter:

"Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism," by John Shelby Spong (retired Episcopal bishop and wholehearted believer in God).

Expand your horizons, read it, and even if you disagree with it, you'll be glad you did.

And regardless of any of our religious beliefs, they have no place in U.S. law!!! (see below)

pizzaman
01-03-2005, 12:09 AM
erp,

I am familiar with Spong. IMO, there needs to be a "Rescuing the Bible from John Spong" book!

erp7e
01-04-2005, 11:23 PM
Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, have you read the book or do you have a preconceived notion of it? I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis too, certainly a contrasting viewpoint, and enjoyed it immensely.

The beauty of America is you can believe your beliefs and I can believe mine, and the government doesn't legislate either one.

Again, I think the spirit of this thread isn't what religious belief or interpretation is correct--it's that said interpretation has no place in U.S. law or FCC motivations for regulation.

Simon
01-04-2005, 11:38 PM
Ok not wanting to stick my nose in here, but please all parties ensure this doesn't trip over into anything we don't want to see. I do realise how very, very emotive certain issues can be politically, and relegiously, and trust me you don't want to get me started on certain political issues such as the israeli-palestinian conflict etc, and Fox and it's so called impartial news, but I think pizzaman makes a very good point that perhaps an adhereance for the most part to nutrition etc is where we need to be heading back to chaps.

erp7e
01-05-2005, 07:05 PM
fair enough. my final thought is summed up by our founding fathers in my sig.

Simon
01-06-2005, 09:16 PM
Cheers Erp7e, it's not that we don't agree politically , but I don't want anybody to feel outnumbered or alienated on certain topics as everybody should feel welcome and included in our little community .

Plus I have seen discussions of this nature go ballistic on many forums, it can get really incenderi and I respect Pizzamans ability to keep to the forum's main subject matter, he has more control than I.

I tend to get rather animated on certain political discusssions, which is why I desperately try to avoid it on this forum.

This aint' a can on free speech, It's just more a case of time and place IMO.

erp7e
01-07-2005, 02:54 AM
I think it speaks to the quality of the forum that we don't get out of hand. "FCC out of control"...I couldn't resist jumping on the scrum. :D

Simon
01-07-2005, 12:19 PM
:-)

pizzaman
01-08-2005, 01:53 AM
I think it speaks to the quality of the forum that we don't get out of hand. "FCC out of control"...I couldn't resist jumping on the scrum. :D

I agree with what you said about the quality of the forum, erp. A little sojourn into the religious and political threads on T-Mag is all it takes to make one appreciate how well-behaved the people on this board are!

Simon
01-08-2005, 10:22 AM
Yes, I think that is why private members only forums are the key to long term succcess. While we could easily have 10 x the members we do now on on a public forum, I actually believe the forum would be 10x less useful.

Slowly but surely is our aim for this forum. I think we have the right balance here in all aspects.

alwaysimprove
01-27-2005, 05:22 PM
This thread makes me happy I'm Canadian.
Just to go back to the original post about the music lyrics that were bleeped.
I find it hillarious that the Black Eyed Peas had to re-write their song "Let's Get Retarded" to "Let's Get it Started" for the American public, I mean come on...

alanjlamore
01-27-2005, 05:31 PM
EXACTLY!
Everyone's all for freedom until someone says something that offends them, then they want it to be illegal to say it or show it to the public...

erp7e
01-28-2005, 03:23 AM
What's comical is the trivial things that offend "them" (I don't know who them is, because I'm not particularly offended by the word "retarded"...next thing you know Lieberman and Bush will team up to remove the word "poo-poo" from America before it destroys our moral fabric...).

alwaysimprove
05-17-2005, 02:48 PM
They strike again, against the Black Eyed Peas again too...
I don't know if you americans ever heard the original version of the song "Don't mess with my heart" which I heard for the first time as don't "mess" this weekend on the top 40 countdown. I've always heard it as don't "funk", aparently funk is a bad word now :D this is just funny...

alanjlamore
05-17-2005, 05:02 PM
Yea, I've heard both versions. That is completly absurd!

Now anything that sound remotley like a "bad" word is going to be banned. I wouldn't live in this country if I didn't have so much family here. I'm sure all countries have their problems, but this one just seems to have been leaning twards more problems than benefits lately.

I used to use the patriotic statement "If you don't like this country then leave!", but that's not as easy as it sounds.

I just need to find a place where I can start a small business that pays the bills and leaves some money and time left over to enjoy life, without worrying about getting fined or arrested for looking suspicious or speeking my mind, and without having to kiss a boss' ass for fear of losing a job that bearly pays for all the debts that I can't pay more than the minimum payment on. I can't quit and look for another job because there aren't any around here. I know, I've been looking for the last 6 months!
IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK FOR!

*inhale*............ahhhhhhhhhhh, okay I feel a little better now. I have a plan, but it starts when my car and truck gets payed off and that happens in about a year, then I have to stop wining and act...

Alfonzo
05-18-2005, 09:24 AM
Hey alanjlamore....your not alone....name me one 'gum-mint' that does what's right.
We reckon they are all super heroes till they get into power then their tiaras shrink their heads, or is it their undies on the outside are too tight? Move to Australias off shore Island (no not Tasy.) with patriotic statements like "rugby,racing and beer'. You can stiil start your small business, breath the fresh air and be broke in two years if you try hard.
'We' are looking for bright young educated people. Sound like you? (this is not a paid advert.)

Alfonzo
05-18-2005, 09:25 AM
Damn this is lonley...you guys are all asleep!

WillBrink
05-18-2005, 02:22 PM
Damn this is lonley...you guys are all asleep!

Not at all. :rolleyes:

elissalowe
05-18-2005, 04:12 PM
Hey guys, maybe there's hope yet...

http://casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/05/17/news/wyoming/d5868bc9e1703ed08725700400003d89.txt

alwaysimprove
05-18-2005, 06:52 PM
Good thing they didn't write the word Funk on their sculpture or they would have been done :D