I read the news today, old boy
I find it interesting that, with sanctimonious anti-UN House Representatives calling for Kofi Annan's resignation over his son's oil-for-food program profiteering, nobody attacks Colin Powell because his son, FCC Chairman Michael Powell's, continued insistence on wiping his copious ass with the Bill of Rights. Or if not for wiping his ass, then at least for setting up an environment of fear and loathing conducive to egregious Constitutional asswipery.
I'm not sure why any Republican with ties to the Bush cabal would want to start pressing resignations over profiteering in Iraq. That would seem from this angle to be a very slippery slope. Maybe that's why the RNC is sloghing this off on the junior senator from Minnesota, Norm Colman, the same tool that publicly applauded intimidation tactics to keep women away from safe, legal abortions clinics. With a 100% rating from the NRA and the Christian Coalition, a 45% rating from the NEA, 21% from the LCV, and 0% ratings from NARAL, the AFL-CIO, APHA, and ARA - it's plain to see where this sacrificial lamb's social concience lies.
Click here to check out how quickly a message is sent to the FCC "Commissioners" when it appears to be authored by the Republoviator himself, Bill O'Reilly, and sent from the Parents Television Council (PTC), a "family values" website decided to saving good, Christian parents from the responsibility of good, Christian parenting. How ironic that Bush trumpets personal responsibility and accountability and rails against big, intrusive government - and yet the PTC proudly wails, "Help us make the FCC do its job...because our children are watching!"
Well, then, who's watching your children?
Apparently, they want the Government to do it and they're willing to go to great lengths further their agenda. The PTC sends out questionnaires to "constituents," filled with vague and loaded questions and then uses the statistics derived from them as proof that television stations don't serve the public interest and therefore do not fall under the protections of the United States Constitution and the FCC charter. One such press release, "Texans Fed Up With Violence, Sex, and Foul Language on Television," features this question:
The PTC says that the First Amendment does not protect "obscene material" (one can assume this also applies to books, magazines, and other things your children can see from the SUV):
Oh, by the way, these arbiters of taste recommends you take your family to see Christmas with the Kranks.
Hmmm...why is Botox, and for that matter Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis ads acceptable to these people and not the image of a white woman and black man together (see recent Superbowl flap)? Don't those "devil horn" Viagra ads appeal to the prurient interest? Sure, but the Pharmaceutical industry lobby pays out a helluva lot more than the Fort Worth faith-based bake-sale crowd.
I'll conclude with this, another poster from the "good ol' days" of World War II:
Hitler hated "degenerate art" too. Hmmm...the poster above is stirring up some lustful feelings...perhaps a lust for freedom? A lust for life?
Clearly prurient. So, for the Parents Television Council and Adolf Hitler, I offer the following non-degenerate, non-lustful art by which your children's purity is guranteed (your husband might find the fruit voluptuous, however):
I'm not sure why any Republican with ties to the Bush cabal would want to start pressing resignations over profiteering in Iraq. That would seem from this angle to be a very slippery slope. Maybe that's why the RNC is sloghing this off on the junior senator from Minnesota, Norm Colman, the same tool that publicly applauded intimidation tactics to keep women away from safe, legal abortions clinics. With a 100% rating from the NRA and the Christian Coalition, a 45% rating from the NEA, 21% from the LCV, and 0% ratings from NARAL, the AFL-CIO, APHA, and ARA - it's plain to see where this sacrificial lamb's social concience lies.
Click here to check out how quickly a message is sent to the FCC "Commissioners" when it appears to be authored by the Republoviator himself, Bill O'Reilly, and sent from the Parents Television Council (PTC), a "family values" website decided to saving good, Christian parents from the responsibility of good, Christian parenting. How ironic that Bush trumpets personal responsibility and accountability and rails against big, intrusive government - and yet the PTC proudly wails, "Help us make the FCC do its job...because our children are watching!"
Well, then, who's watching your children?
Apparently, they want the Government to do it and they're willing to go to great lengths further their agenda. The PTC sends out questionnaires to "constituents," filled with vague and loaded questions and then uses the statistics derived from them as proof that television stations don't serve the public interest and therefore do not fall under the protections of the United States Constitution and the FCC charter. One such press release, "Texans Fed Up With Violence, Sex, and Foul Language on Television," features this question:
Recently a program aired at 8 p.m. that included a prostitute being paid to perform a sex act with a horse. Is this type of material appropriate for broadcast television?No mention of what program, the outlet, the type of programming, or the context. Was it a surly episode of C.S.I. or a "hard" news exposé? Dunno. They're not saying.
The PTC says that the First Amendment does not protect "obscene material" (one can assume this also applies to books, magazines, and other things your children can see from the SUV):
"Arousing lustful feelings?" Oh, come on. One can imagine this language was drafted around the same time they adapted the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" to include the line "We'll hang John Scopes from a sour apple tree."
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient (arousing lustful feelings) interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Oh, by the way, these arbiters of taste recommends you take your family to see Christmas with the Kranks.
"Christmas with the Kranks" is full of laughs, sight gags and typical Tim Allen sarcastic humor. Some bits are predictable but the cast and writing makes for an enjoyable holiday romp. Tim Allen has one scene with Jamie Lee Curtis where he has had Botox injections done and the numbness makes it impossible to eat. This sight gag, alone, will have you rolling in the aisles with sidesplitting laughter. And Dan Aykroyd gives us a bit of a Blues Brothers' Christmas as he breaks out an accordion and sings some holiday tunes.Sophomoric writing aside, are we to blieve that Botox injections are not only wholesome, but worthy of "rolling in the aisles with sidesplitting laughter?" Wait...a Blues Brothers Christmas...with an accordion? Who the fuck are this people? When did Aykroyd and Belushi's coke-addled speedballin' legacy become...cute? And when did it ever involve an accordion?
Hmmm...why is Botox, and for that matter Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis ads acceptable to these people and not the image of a white woman and black man together (see recent Superbowl flap)? Don't those "devil horn" Viagra ads appeal to the prurient interest? Sure, but the Pharmaceutical industry lobby pays out a helluva lot more than the Fort Worth faith-based bake-sale crowd.
I'll conclude with this, another poster from the "good ol' days" of World War II:
Hitler hated "degenerate art" too. Hmmm...the poster above is stirring up some lustful feelings...perhaps a lust for freedom? A lust for life?
Clearly prurient. So, for the Parents Television Council and Adolf Hitler, I offer the following non-degenerate, non-lustful art by which your children's purity is guranteed (your husband might find the fruit voluptuous, however):
leave a response