Insight on some of the issues that knock on our doors. Title of blog comes from hearing The Nightwatchman's song "One Man Revolution" performede live on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" Opinions strictly those of the author, who does not claim authority over topics covered.
Showing posts with label conservative america. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative america. Show all posts
For an organization that claims to "promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment
industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented
television programming," maybe a little bit of something called honesty should come with that mission. And heck, maybe the PTC themselves ought to exercise "responsibility" as well.
"Shame on ABC for putting a peep show next to a playground. In less
than 26 seconds we were taken from the Peanuts pumpkin patch to a steamy
Scandal sex scene," PTC president Tim Winter said.
Along
with their statement, the PTC included a link to this video, which
shows a quick flash of a Marvel commercial and then the start of Scandal, with a little bit of swimming in a pool and then Kerry Washington and Scott Foley in bed together... [video embedded in link]
Well, we checked back on to our own DVR's, and oddly enough, we had a
distinctively different transition than the PTC's clip, with a longer
transition from the end of Charlie Brown to Scandal. Our transition was about 30 seconds longer. Check it out…[video also embedded in link]
Wow. So those who watched the PTC's video (which now has become the outrage-of-the-day on sites like The Blaze that aren't exactly known for journalistic integrity) get a misleading impression. The PTC's video, which is embedded on the Dos Santos article, edited out most of the split-screen end credits so that the viewer sees the last scene of You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown, then a sequence "an all-new Scandal starts now" (with the copyright boilerplate for Charlie Brown underneath). But the unedited network recording provided by Dos Santos shows two network promos between the last Charlie Brown scene and first Scandal scene superimposed over the Charlie Brown end credits: first a promo for an upcoming Marvel Comics special then a trailer promoting the new Scandal episode.
(Edit 11/6) Just realized that ABC had another Charlie Brown show between It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (8pm) and Scandal at 9pm. At 8:30 was You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown. Which makes Winter's statement about being "taken from the Peanuts pumpkin patch to a steamy
Scandal sex scene" even less accurate.
Given these facts, do you really buy into PTC president Tim Winter's statement: "Unless parents had the remote control in their hand, thumb on the
button and aimed directly at the TV screen, they didn't have a chance [to change the channel]"? So far, the PTC has been getting someflak over their poutrage on Facebook such as:
"New
Scandal Next" shows for at LEAST 4 seconds, bottom left. These adverts
are usually at least 10-15 seconds long, if not longer. You should know
Scandal is not a children's show, therefore they should have been
removed before the preview even began. Swimming starts at 11.8 seconds,
in this video, meaning you knew scandal was starting for at least ~30
seconds.. Scene begins at 31.6 seconds. So almost an entire minute after
you know scandal is coming on, and a preview has started, you failed to
stop your children from watching the TV. To
me, this says you weren't watching your children and let them sit in
front of the TV without you around, then you heard the noise from the
show, were like wtf, and got mad you suck at parenting when your kids
watched a mature scene on the tube. Or, you don't care what your
children watch
with/without you as long as it doesn't involve this kind
of mature setting.
And:
PTC
must running low on funds, they're plucking this chicken for all its
worth. I guess they missed the TV rating in the first frame of a show
that's in its third season.
Also:
I
see all the complaints and have read only one offered solution. I would
like to know what should ABC have done? What would have satisfied the
PTC? What would have been considered the "right" thing to do?
My
opinion, ABC did what it was suppose to do. They warned Scandal was
coming up next, they posted the TV rating, and they aired the show at
its normal and appropriate time. I know the PTC parents are fully aware
of what show content is like during the 8 pm - 10 pm hours so, in my
opinion, the parents should have been present to shut off the tv once
Charlie Brown ended and yes you had plenty of time if you were in the
same room with your children when it ended.
And:
If
you watch the video just after Charlie Brown ends a commercial starts
and it then appears as though it was fast forwarded because it jumps
from "Tuesday" and showing Iron Man to the Scandal slate screen and "New
Scandal starts now on ABC" and there was more than enough time to
change the channel or turn the tv off. I know I had plenty of time
between the time the show I was watching, on another channel, ended and
the time Scandal started to change the channel and not miss any of
Scandal and even saw the slate screen. ABC shows Charlie Brown every
year in a prime time slot and then goes straight back to their normal
programming so parents should have known that and made sure to be in the
room and ready to change the channel or turn off the tv after Charlie
Brown ended. Quit complaining and take responsibility for yourself, your
children, and both of your actions.
And:
I
just watched the transition. You can't be serious. ABC has an AD for
Scandal in the bottom right hand corner, so it is not any sort of
surprise AND Scandal has a clearly marked TV-14 rating box in the top
corner. It was clear as day what was coming up. If you don't want your
kids seeing that, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. You're the Parents Television
Council. Do some parenting before you complain about TV.
I wonder who has more relevance in this era, the PTC or (to dig in '90s nostalgia memories, since the PTC was founded in 1995) - Deep Blue Something? It's OK for the PTC to criticize Scandal and recommend against parents letting their children watch it. But to mislead its members of how ABC showed a risque show right after Charlie Brown? No wonder the PTC isn't relevant anymore (besides Netflix and Hulu presenting a market threat to traditional broadcast/cable nowadays).
So today is Columbus Day in the United States. The day is named after Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus, whose voyages to the Americas initiated Spanish colonization in the continental region. Many public schools and governments observe this holiday.
Even though Columbus's only voyage in the modern U.S. lands is in the Caribbean territories like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the greater nation considers the Columbian voyages significant enough in US and continental American history to honor Columbus with a holiday.
Beneath the celebration of the voyages lies a darker side to Columbus and his followers. Generally, Columbus was a perpetual violator of human rights. Among his sins: slave trading, religious proselytization, and spreading diseases that contributed to the deaths of many indigenous peoples wherever Columbus went.
Already, the cities of Seattle and Minneapolis have recognized the darker side of Columbus and have decided to recognize the 2nd Monday of October as "Indigenous People's Day" instead. Obviously, in today's fast-paced, must-post-my-thoughts-on-Facebook-now society where kneejerk reactions take precedent over critical thinking whenever long-held traditions or conceptions are challenged, the mainstream reaction to the Minneapolis and Seattle moves is a big load of derp, like "why aren't those cities focusing on the real issues of the day" or "typical libtard political correctness", without touching the concerns that the city councils had about Columbus Day in the first place.
When people idolize notable individuals, they tend to think that the accomplishments of the individual outweighs the flawed baggage, in this case Columbus. No one denies that Columbus changed the world very significantly. All that those who advocate "Indigenous People's Days" ask for is to think about the consequences of Columbus's actions. Also, the people that media, teachers, whoever teach us to respect and see as great almost always have flaws.
If you're reading this from the UK, you probably know about Jimmy Savile. The TV presenter had been a respected part of UK popular culture from the '60s to '90s and used his celebrity to raise lots of money for charities and hospitals. When Savile died in 2011, young and old Britons paid their tributes to Savile whether they knew about Savile from watching him introduce musical performers on Top of the Pops (1964-1979) or his "make a wish for kids" show Jim'll Fix It (1975-1994).
But soon, Britons' fond memories of Savile turned into utter disgust and disappointment. In September 2012, while Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were the top newsmakers in America, across the Atlantic, some quite disturbing revelations about the late Savile's past became a daily top story. It turned out that Savile was a serial child molester throughout his years as a BBC TV presenter. His celebrity intimidated his victims or potential witnesses from reporting his crimes to police; whenever police did question Savile (in the late 2000s) it was far too late for any real prosecution to take place.
Today, the San Francisco 49ers beat the St. Louis Rams on Monday Night Football. The arrests of multiple 49ers players over the 2014 offseason has been frequently reported in Bay Area media. Most controversially, Ray McDonald continues to play for the 49ers despite being arrested for domestic violence (but charges are still pending as of now). Aldon Smith is currently serving a nine-game suspension for multiple violations of NFL rules that stem from a drunk driving conviction as well as arrests for other crimes like illegal guns and a bomb threat. And, Chris Culliver is still playing for the Niners despite being criminally charged and sued for a hit-and-run (allegedly also for threatening his victims with brass knuckles). All these men were also part of the 49ers defensive squad that helped the team to the past two NFC championship games and the 2013 Super Bowl. But are they really people worth idolizing, now?
Let's not blindly make heroes out of notable figures in history or culture. We've got to take honest, realistic evaluations of the lives that our "heroes" lead.
I quit watching the evening news shows on ABC/CBS/NBC around the time after Charles Gibson retired and the morning shows (even worse in terms of serious news vs. entertainment) waaaaay earlier. I get my news now from the PBS Newshour, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and various Internet sites as well. Now Newt Gingrich is being confronted with a claim from his 2nd ex wife that he asked for an open marriage after he was caught cheating with his mistress turned current wife. On Thursday night's CNN debate, moderator John King opened the debate giving Gingrich and opportunity to respond. Gingrich went off on an angry attack on the media for bringing up this story:
Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.
Astonishingly, Gingrich never took accountability for his own bad behavior. (So much for the party of personal responsibility...or as the has-been candidate, fellow Georgian, and creepy man Herman Cain put it..."blame yourself!") Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus took Gingrich to task in her column "Newt Gingrich blames media for a mess he created".
We get the idea that Gingrich is a moral hypocrite for stumping for family values despite his history of marital infidelity. But there's this scarier part of Gingrich, what he would do as president. The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported on Wednesday, "Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president":
Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody.
The Republican contender told a forum of anti-abortion activists ahead of South Carolina's primary election that as president he would ignore supreme court rulings he regards as legally flawed. He implied that would also extend to the 1973 decision, Roe vs Wade, legalising abortion.
"If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it," said Gingrich to cheers.
(...)
Gingrich said the first confrontation would be over its historic ruling, known as the Boumediene decision, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US courts.
The Seriously, America? tumblr commented: "Andrew Jackson took this approach—so it’s been tried. It resulted in the Trail of Tears." (That case Pres. Jackson ignored would be Worcester v. Georgia...and I recently learned that Worcester is pronounced "wusster" not "war-ces-ter") Also, Gingrich seems to be swimming into Nixonian territory, as the disgraced Richard Nixon famously said in the 1977 David Frost interview: "...when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
More likely in the media you'll hear about Gingrich's personal life or horse race type issues than how candidates would approach different areas of government. Searching for media coverage of Gingrich's supreme court views, I found that CNN's Situation Room afternoon news show on Dec. 19 devoted a whole interview with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin about Gingrich's December statement (search "activist judge" in this transcript and you'll get there). On Dec. 27, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Gingrich and included a question about Gingrich's view on activist judges:
BLITZER: ...On justices of the Supreme Court, lower courts, you've made some very controversial comments that if you disagree adamantly with some of their decisions, you wouldn't hesitate to subpoena these guys, these judges, bring them forward, and not -- and basically ignore their decisions.
I asked Jeffrey Toobin, our Senior Legal Analyst, he's an authority on the US Supreme Court, as you probably know. I asked him whether or not you have a basis from which to speak on this issue, and I'll play the clip --
GINGRICH: OK.
BLITZER: -- of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The courts have the last word. You don't like it, you can change the constitution, you can have new justices on the Supreme Court, you can even impeach a federal judge.
But you cannot haul them in and beat them up in front of a Congressional committee. You cannot use the police to intimidate judges. That is something that is fundamentally against American constitutional history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: Well, he's wrong --
BLITZER: All right. Jeffrey Toobin.
GINGRICH: Look, Jeffrey's wrong on two counts. First of all, the courts are not the last word. The courts are one of three last words. The constitution's designed around a balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. There is on superior branch. Hamilton --
BLITZER: But until new legislation is passed --
GINGRICH: No.
BLITZER: -- the rule of the -- the decision of the Supreme Court stands.
GINGRICH: Only in the case of the law. Not in -- only in the case. Lincoln says in his 1861 inaugural address the Dred Scott case extending slavery over the whole country is not the law of the land. And he says, furthermore, you would eliminate our freedom if nine people could decide it.
Jefferson, when asked if the Supreme Court was supreme over the president and the Congress said that is absurd. That would be an oligarchy.
Jeffrey ought to look at the 54-page paper at Newt.org where, as a historian, we lay out the historic case. Alexander Hamilton says the courts would never pick a fight with the legislature and the executive because, in fact, they would lose the fight. Now, that implies something about relative strength.
Lastly, he has made my case. He said judges can be impeached. The first step towards impeachment is hearing testimony. The question I was asked was, could Congress compel testimony? By definition in an impeachment case, they can compel testimony.
Other broadcast media coverage of Gingrich criticizing activist judges (from a Lexisnexis search):
NBC's Mike Viqureira commented at the end of a generic report about the Saturday 12/17 developments of primary campaigns: "[Gingrich] has more controversial comments tonight about what he calls liberal activist judges, today telling reporters on a conference call that some judges should be subpoenaed to testify before Congress to explain their rulings, sometimes for whole courts to be abolished in some circumstances, even suggesting that presidents can ignore judicial rulings that they don't like." That was it. (NBC Nightly News, 12/17/11, see 1:45 mark of the linked video)
The next Sunday morning, CBS's Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich about his comments, and Gingrich reaffirmed his position. (Face the Nation, 12/18/11)
The following Monday, Gingrich did more judicial-bashing at a speech in Iowa, and NPR did a full story (All Things Considered, 12/19/11)
Also, MSNBC's Ed Schultz interviewed Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley from a critical angle about Gingrich's comments (The Ed Show, 12/19/11)
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed former Minnesota Republican chair and Michele Bachmann chief of staff Ron Carey (The Last Word, 12/19/11)
Otherwise, LexisNexis produces no results from ABC, CBS, and NBC reporting on Gingrich's comments on 12/19 or anytime later.. I watched the PBS Newshour that day and heard nothing there either. Lexis also showed modest coverage by the cable networks. This topic drew much discussion on the Democratic Underground forum.
The conclusion: the media just forgets like a Republican elephant and wants sensationalism, not substance.
Ah, Brent Bozell. The man who longs for the days when people would unquestionably submit to conservative Christianity and when TV was so squeaky-clean that CBS couldn't show Elvis shaking his hips. Now he's out with his latest "wah wah wah why won't the media respect my beliefs" column "The Anti-God Book, By 'God'":
Those prestigious publishers at Simon & Schuster selected All Saints Day to unleash the book world's latest attempt at mocking Christianity. It’s called "The Last Testament, by God."
The author is David Javerbaum, a top writer for 11 years for "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central, perhaps America's leading religion-hating TV network. Is it any surprise that the critics are loving it?
Publishers Weekly raves, "The Almighty opens up in this blithely blasphemous satire of monotheism." God, in this alleged autobiography, is "a complex, troubled Deity: vain, petulant, desperate for praise and burnt offerings, guiltily pensive in the after-wrath of unhinged smitings. Adherents of every Abrahamic faith will find plenty of hilarious, offensive manna for thought in these revelations." Kirkus Reviews bluntly adds, "Damned comical. Amen."
”Hilarious, offensive.” What they mean is that it’s hilarious because it’s offensive.
When has Bozell ever said that Rush Limbaugh is popular because he's offensive? It's true in a sense that Javerbaum's book is offensive to a certain segment of the US population, but keep in mind that fewer Americans choose to be religious in this age. Could it be why it's easier in the mainstream to mock religion? I thought that people like Bozell advocated free market economics (that's why he founded the Business and Media Institute as part of his right-wing Media Research Center).
Furthermore, Bozell neglects to mention Simon & Schuster's conservative imprint Sentinel that has published authors such as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Alfred Regnery.
When he criticized anti-Christian themes he perceived in the Showtime programs Dexter and Californication (keep in mind that Showtime is a pay cable network) in "Jesus Is Not a Serial Killer", he huffed that Showtime executives lacked respect for Jesus, the figure who makes us good if we follow him, concluding: "You think of the hundreds upon hundreds of people involved in this Showtime enteprise - the actors, producers, promotional and marketing staff, the blue-suit executives in New York, the advertising agencies. And of those hundreds and hundreds, not one will stand up to defend Our Lord? How sad."
Uhh, Brent, there is plenty of pro-Christian programming all over the broadcast channels, and there are even entire cable networks (EWTN, God TV, TBN, Word Network) that are devoted to preaching the Gospels. Again, considering how those cable networks with those violent TV-MA programming that Bozell thinks are rotting American culture: what's the value of those cable channels being premium if Bozell got to be CEO and fill the schedule with G-rated films, Leave It to Beaver reruns, and Sunday school all week? Since the mid-1990s with the Parents Television Council, Bozell has been pushing for the mainstream TV networks to be more family-friendly (hmm, code word for pro-Christian?), and that's why you'll hear the PTC complain every time a TV show dares to be sexual or has a dramatic storyline that happens to be violent. But do TV audiences really prefer tame, non-confrontational programming or the shows on premium cable? Let the ratings tell the story. If there wasn't such a demand for Dexter, TV networks would've stuck with the tame side.
All that Bozell can do to justify his archaic views is to play the religion/persecuted Christian card. That's it: no reasoning, logic, or reality-based evidence whatsoever.
On Friday [September 30], Gov. Chris Christie and Ray LaHood, the federal transportation secretary, announced that New Jersey would pay back $95 million that the federal government had provided for a pair of rail tunnels under the Hudson River that were projected to cost $8.7 billion. The effort, known as Access to the Region’s Core, or ARC, was one of the biggest public-works projects under way in the country when Mr. Christie decided to cancel it one year ago.
Mr. Christie maintained that his state could not afford to shoulder potentially huge cost overruns on the project, which would have doubled the train capacity between New Jersey and New York City. His unilateral decision to scrap the tunnels enraged Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, who had spent years lining up $6 billion in commitments from the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Mr. LaHood, who was also angry at Mr. Christie, demanded that New Jersey repay all of the $271 million in federal money that had gone toward the early stages of building the tunnels. The governor responded by declaring, “We are not paying the money back.”
And Republicans preach "fiscal responsibility" all the time. If Christie did join the primaries, campaign ads would devastate him over stealing about $150 million.
Most surprising of all? "Sarah Palin will not run for president in 2012" either. Otherwise the Republicans would've handed Obama an easy victory that year, something they do NOT want as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell famously said about the GOP agenda: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
LOS ANGELES (January 20, 2011) – The Parents Television Council ™ today called on the chairmen of the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees and the Department of Justice to immediately open an investigation regarding child pornography and exploitation on MTV’s “Skins.” The New York Times reported today that the network itself is concerned about violating child pornography laws. In addition to the sexual content on the show involving cast members as young as 15, PTC counted 42 depictions and references to drugs and alcohol in the premiere episode. The run-time was only 41 minutes excluding commercial breaks.
(snip)
“However, many of the actors appearing in the show are below the age of 18. It is clear that Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of any or all of the following federal statutes:
“18 U.S.C. § 1466A (2008) Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children
18 U.S.C. § 2251 (2008) Sexual Exploitation of Children
18 U.S.C. § 2252 (2008) Relating to Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of Minors
18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2008) Relating to Material Constituting or Containing Child Pornography
“Since it is not necessary for Viacom or MTV to distribute the material in order to be in violation of the law, we call upon your committees to immediately investigate Viacom and MTV for the production of this material. Furthermore, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to compel the Attorney General to mount an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the production of ‘Skins’ has violated federal law meant to protect minors from exploitation.
Yowza. Of all the PTC's complaints about TV including those artifically inflated FCC complaints and that TV is conspiring to turn all our girls into professional prostitutes who first become pregnant at age 15, I've never seen the PTC directly accuse the production of a television program of being illegal! And you thought that it was bad enough that American corporations were exporting work to Chinese sweatshops!
In an era of 9.4% unemployment in America (in my home state California being 12.4%) and with the newly Republican-dominant House of Representatives having pointlessly passed a bill repealing the 2010 health care reform bill and now targeting abortion, and all layers of government (federal, state, and city) running deficits and cutting everything to the marrow, is it really worth it for the government to investigate whether a new MTV show violated the law?
And I wonder why despite the influence of orgs like PTC, the American Family Association, the Parents Music Resource Center (now defunct though), and other orgs standing on moral pedestals holding the feet of the entertainment industry to the fire, the conditions that perpetrate all that immoral sleaze still persist in America?
Oh, PTC also disliked the fact that a teenager was cast as Jake Harper in Two and a Half Men. But they couldn't find a legal ground to get the feds to tear down the set, seize Jones, and send show creator Chuck Lorre to jail.
In October, the PTC complained about a GQ magazine photoshoot where cast members of Glee portrayed their high school aged characters in sexually suggestive manners. PTC said that the photoshoot bordered on pedophilia but stopped short of demanding that Congress grill GQ editors in lengthy hearings.
PTC must be getting desperate following that New York Times report suggesting that the PTC has been getting irrelevant for the past several years.
Now, I hate hate hate HATE Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the second biggest ignorant doofus on the radio next to Glenn Beck. I like to be informed about current events and politics and hell maybe have a bit of humour or irreverency along with it...but c'mon, Rush Limbaugh's non-stop use of racial metaphors like "reparations" to describe the Obama administration and its programmes such as settlements for black farmers accusing the US Dept of Agriculture of discrimination is just...stupid.
This video clip that I embedded is of the Rev. Al Sharpton interviewed on MSNBC's The Ed Show. Now, there's no doubt that sensible people would be offended (intellectually and sensibly) by Limbaugh's non-stop politically incorrect rhetoric. But to have the FCC police racist speech on the airwaves...I don't know if that'll ever stand First Amendment muster.
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.
So that's part of why The Howard Stern Show had to leave FM airwaves after 2005. By that time Stern had signed a contract with a satellite radio company.
The FCC's current indecency policy explains why some of your favourite songs (especially rap and rock music) need to be edited for the radio. Especially all those N-words in rap songs. Before you call Sharpton a hypocrite for targeting Rush Limbaugh instead of Lil Wayne: yes, Rev. Sharpton has spoken out against misogyny and vulgarity in hip hop multiple times...for example at a rally in 2007 after the Don Imus controversy, and in a 2002 editorial "The Hip Hop Generation" (included in Davey D's newsletter from 12 December 2002). In this case however, I don't know if Sharpton also wants urban radio stations to stop playing music that reinforces negative stereotypes about black Americans (such as illiteracy, sexuality, criminality, etc.) Examples of rap songs that create negative stereotypes of blacks: - Sex: "Every Girl" by Young Money, "What's Your Fantasy?" by Ludacris, "Bojangles" by Pitbull, "Lollipop" by Lil Wayne, "Get Low" by Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz, "Hot in Herre" by Nelly, ooh the list goes on and on and on!!!! - Crime: "The Boss" by Rick Ross, "What U Gon Do" by Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz, pretty much any song by any rapper who wears bling bling/refers to "rocks"/"blunts"/drugs/etc. and any song that promotes gang fights and stuff like that - Illiteracy: "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" by Soulja Boy, "Country Grammar" by Nelly, and pretty much any over-popular rap song that uses overly simplistic lyrics and especially Bay Area hyphy rap with all that "go dumb" stuff
While it is noble for Rev. Sharpton and others to speak out against the hateful rhetoric of right-wing bloviators like Limbaugh, making such speech unlawful on public airwaves won't really help much. Limbaugh might as well just move to Sirius Satellite Radio or XM; in fact, disgraced radio host Laura Schlessinger plans on making a comeback on XM next year. Schlessinger, known as "Dr Laura" (even though her doctorate is in physiology she frequently gave relationship advice on her radio show), infamously repeatedly used the N-word towards a black woman caller; Dr Laura apologised and resigned. Former terrestrial radio hosts who moved to satellite, such as Howard Stern, still have substantial followings in their new mediums. Furthermore, the Internet also provides a highly accessible forum for any wannabe Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
While the Supreme Court upheld the FCC indecency policy in the much-appealed 2009 FCC v. Fox case regarding accidental obscene language in live broadcasts (but got overturned by a fed appeals court the next year), the court has ruled variously on hate speech: - In the 1942 case Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, the high court ruled that fighting words (this case was about a Jehovah's Witness calling a police officer a "racketeer" and "fascist") aren't protected free speech. - The 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul dealt with a city ordinance "punishing the placement of certain symbols that were 'likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender.'" The high court overturned the conviction of Robert A. Victoria, a teenager who burned a cross on a black family's yard. Now regarding hate speech on the radio chances are the Supreme Court could use this case to defend Limbaugh and co. as it's previously found a law banning expression inciting race-based hatred unconstitutional. - 11 years later, in Virginia v. Black, the court found that a Virginia state law banning cross-burning that had intent to intimidate was constitutional as cross-burning was a "particularly virulent form of intimidation" yet overturned the conviction of a cross-burner due to flawed jury instructions that blurred ideology and intimidation intents.
Better than a "speech code" on the radio would be expanded media presence for the left wing via the Fairness Doctrine, which seeks balance, not censorship! Broadcasters have had since 1987 to be responsible when handling controversial issues...and what do you have? In 2007, a study by the Center for American Progress found: "91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive," and "2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk." In 2010, the top conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh had a weekly listenership of 15 million, about 6 times as much as the top liberal radio host (2.75 million each for Alan Colmes, Ed Schultz). Hate speech is just one of those situations in which the best solution is counter speech not a government ban. There's a reason why bloggers like PZ Myers can criticise and even denigrate religion all they want and not get arrested in the US.
Tim Profitt, the Rand Paul supporter behind the white sneaker that notoriously stomped on a MoveOn activist's head in Kentucky, sought to play down the importance of the incident Tuesday, and went so far as to ask the victim for an apology.
"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt told WKYT. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."
While the victim, Lauren Valle, said Tuesday that she believed the campaign workers' violent reaction to her presence there was "premeditated," Profitt told WKYT that he thought Valle was following a strict protocol with the intent of creating controversy.
A local news report including footage of the incident is here...warning: the video contains violent content, viewer discretion is advised.
This is just so fucked up I'm tempted to write this parody of OneRepublic's "Apologize" to reflect Tim Profitt's mind (this link is the Timbaland remix; original version here): (lyrics here):
(VERSE 1) I just pulled off your wig And shoved you to the ground, Now I'm stomping on your head So hard you can't get out,
You tell me that you're hurting, Then you go and call me out, but wait, You tell me to say sorry But I'd rather turn around, and say
(CHORUS) I don't need to apologize, but you do! I said I don't need to apologize, but you do! I don't...
(VERSE 2) Democrats have no chance, they will fall, get shot and lose Lauren, you deserved what you got So don't try to sue
Americans are voting red, firing all the blues So please sa-ay... Sorry that you came here Tricking us into welcoming you I hate your face!
(CHORUS)
So fuck Tim Profitt and his idiotic irresponsible ways. James O'Keefe anyone? Stay classy, Mr. Profitt!
Finally, I'd just like to say that Rand Paul is a kook. What kind of respectable politician would say that businesses have the right not to follow the Civil Rights Act?
This afternoon in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court for the 9th circuit overturnedProposition 8, the California ballot initiative from 2008 that invalidated all same-sex marriages. Proposition 8 followed the California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases from May 2008 that threw out Proposition 22, the 2000 state ballot initiative that restricted marriage to between a man and a woman. The state high court case from 2008 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right based on Article 1, Section 7 of the state constitution. In 1977, the state legislature (under Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who's running again for governorship this year!) amended Section 4100 of the California Civil Code to define marriage as a social contract strictly between a man and a woman; before then the law was not that specific. (Since 1992, marriage law has been in Section 300 of the state Family Code.) Originally, Proposition 22 argued that California would recognise other states' same-sex marriages given a loophole in Section 308 in the Family Code. In re Marriage Cases tossed both Proposition 22 and the 1977 amendment to the state marriage law.
After what would be a summer of joy for many Californian same-sex couples, many of whom had been waiting decades to marry, the autumn and eventually the Election Day of early November 2008 arrived. Television stations in California had been bombarded with commercials in favour of and against Proposition 8.
The first-ever ad promoting Proposition 8 excerpted a speech by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. This ad took Newsom's phrase "whether you like it or not" in Newsom's speech announcing the In re Marriage Cases case and promoted these typical anti-equality talking points: judges overruled the people's vote, everyone has to tolerate same-sex marriage, and churches might lose their freedoms.
One of the pro-8 ads was from the organization ProtectMarriage.com, which claimed that schoolchildren would have to read books that glorified same-sex relationships:
Another ad argued that public schools would begin teaching that homosexuality was OK:
Another ad regarding schools and marriage
now for some ads from the anti-8 side. This ad was from the Courage Campaign depicting Mormons as home invaders stealing a lesbian couple's wedding rings. I never saw it on TV, but I found it from a youtube search of proposition 8 ads:
Another one that I think I have seen on TV before is the ad that mocked the Apple Computer Mac vs. PC ads
This ad invoked 20th century racial discrimination
Dianne Feinstein, a US Senator of California, spoke in one advert opposing P8:
Countering the pro-8 ads about school curriculum and homosexuality, Education Superintendent Jack O'Connell starred in this ad
Then election day came. November 4, 2008. American voters elected the first-ever black president of the United States, Barack Obama. Locally, there were several other less-known propositions ranging from funding a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco (Prop 1A), authorizing parental notification for minors getting abortions (Prop 4), and helping veterans buy property (Prop 12). But then the storm came for many gay couples who had yet to be married and those already married, while the Mormons who actively campaigned for Prop 8 began cheering and partying.
California voters passed Proposition 8 by a 52%-47% margin. Notably, protests against Proposition 8 took place on November 15. P8 began attracting attention outside California; several film and TV actors participated in the satirical Proposition 8: The Musical. Perez Hilton infamously asked Miss California USA Carrie Prejean about her opinion about P8. Legal actions included a May 2009 decision by the state supreme court Strauss v. Horton that recognised P8 as a legitimate amendment to the state constitution. However, pre-P8 same-sex marriages were still valid.
In comes 2010, and oral arguments began for the federal appeal of P8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Plantiff Kristin Perry had been denied a marriage license in 2009. Neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) or Attorney General Jerry Brown (D; Brown also was Governor from 1975-1983) would defend P8 for the state. AG Brown believed that P8 violated the 14th Amendment, while Gov. Schwarzenegger merely stated that the lawsuit brought up several constitutional questions.
Plantiff arguments: (against P8)
Marriage has never explicitly, universally been defined as strictly between one man and one woman.
There is no evidence that denying same-sex marriage encourages heterosexual marriage and subsequent family planning.
Professors George Chauncey (history, Yale), Gregory Herek (psychology, UC Davis), and Gary Segura (political science, Stanford) testified that LGBT people are among the biggest targets of demonization and persecution.
Studies overwhelmingly show that children of gay parents turn out just as well off as children of heterosexual parents.
Married couples help the economy and usually are healthier.
Defendant arguments: (for P8)
Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman; that family structure has allowed for generations procreation and child raising.
Apparently things got so tough for the defendants that "[d]efendant witness David Blankenhorn, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry."
According to Professor Kenneth Miller from Claremont McKenna College, LGBTs in California had significant political power, as every major newspaper and numerous state politicians and celebrities opposed P8.
In today's ruling, among Judge Walker's conclusions: (taken from Wikipedia's article about Perry v. Schwarzenegger):
Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.
Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage.
Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.
Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination.
Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
The judge ordered an injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8 but issued a temporary stay until he decides whether to suspend his ruling while it is being appealed. The stay means that same-sex couples are still prohibited from marrying.
and
Walker's ruling is certain to be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012.
In response to the ruling, the anti-SSM crowd came out with the tired old line of "the people approved of it, but that evil liberal judge overrode the people's vote!" I'm sorry but basic human rights can not be decided by a majority vote! It's particularly silly to argue that the government is over-reaching its allocated powers with court cases like this. The way the real world works is that sometimes you need government to grant you your rights. Where would we be without the Bill of Rights? Or the Civil Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, and numerous other laws passed by Congress and cases decided by the US Supreme Court that affirmed our civil rights and liberties that the Constitution grants us? Lemme invoke the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's speech "Robert Bork's America":
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
Yep. Conservative jurists' obsession with "original intent" sometimes is self-defeating as some important liberties are taketh away in the name of 1776.
The Los Angeles Timespublished a Q&A of common questions regarding today's case and SSM overall in CA.
So what now if you're still annoyed and are unconvinced?
Well of course there are gonna be some fellow Americans who do not wish to co-habit a nation with those perverted AIDS-infested gay couples who do nothing in life but to lick each other in you know where! (of course i was being sarcastic about that description, of course there are gays in America who'd like to live just like you, me, and your heterosexual family.) Pending the possible appeals that the pro-P8 apologists will file in the coming months, there still remain states in the US that deny recognition of SSM. Currently 5 states--mostly in New England--recognise SSM: MA, CT, IA, VT, and NH. Several other states (including CA and WA) allow civil unions. (I'm only talking in state context; the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bans the federal government from recognising SSM.) And then here are the states that do not grant same-sex couples any civil union or marriage rights (most of these states vote Republican in the Electoral College): AZ, UT, ID, MT, the big ol' central section from both Dakotas to Texas, both Virginias, both Carolinas, every former Confederate state, every Great Lakes state except WI and NY, NE, KS, and MO. I'd suggest to my pro-SSM rights liberal friends (maybe some conservatives and others too) to help the stubbornly anti-gay folk find a better sanctuary where they'll be free from the evil evil gay agenda. Raise some money to get 'em a one-way plane ticket and help your fellow good ol' American work out the moving plans and possibly citizenship procedures; there still exist places outside America that make it a crime to be gay. (That idea of moving out of the country in response to dumb liberal US government laws started when the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said he'd move to Costa Rica if the US passed health care reform, unaware that Costa Rica had universal healthcare! Limbaugh clarified his remarks later.)
Speaking of which, the majority of African nations make homosexual behaviour illegal. Including the English-speaking nations of Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. As these nations are all former British colonies, English is just one language there amongst several other native languages. And Uganda once proposed a bill that punished HIV positivity or homosexual acts with the death penalty.
¿Se habla español? Then every country in Central America doesn't recognize SSM yet! (but as I said Costa Rica has...oh the horrors socialised medicine!) Regarding Mexico, only Mexico City recognises SSM, and only the state of Coahuila (which borders Texas along the Rio Grande) allows same-sex civil unions. In South America, aim for Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, or that Hugo Chavez-led dictatorship Venezuela. Both Spanish-speaking Caribbean nations, the Communist state Cuba and democracy Dominican Republic, don't have SSM, although Cuba is proposing it. (I was about to mention the American territory of Puerto Rico, but I'm not sure if the US Supreme Court decision would extend to territories.)
But if you're down for some paradise and can't speak a word of Spanish, feel free to head on over to the Atlantic island nation of Bermuda just 1000 miles east of Florida (the English dialect of Bermuda has a foreign accent like in the Caribbean). Speaking of the Carribean, try the SSM-free lands of the Bahamas or Virgin Islands, or if you'd like a place where gays get sent to prison how about Antigua & Barbada, Barbados, Jamaica, or Trinidad & Tobago?
At this time, no Asian nation recognises any same-sex relationship legally. Israel does recognise foreign same-sex couples and "unregistered cohabitation" for domestic same-sex couples. Islamic nations (like Iran, Afghanistan, and Kuwait) put the book down so hard on those homos...I mean really, those nations use Sharia to legislate harsh punishments (such as flogging or death) for people suspected of being gay or convicted of gay acts.
Now on to Europe. Nowhere in Eastern Europe, y'know the ex-Soviet nations, will you find a legal same-sex union. In the South, to avoid seeing gay couples everywhere avoid Spain, Portugal, and Andorra. In the West (the origin of white people LOL) you're out of luck unless you can find a house in the Channel Islands off France.
Alright that'll be all my research for now. Think about it: do you find that any of the nations I mentioned have as much freedom as America (or other countries that have civil unions or SSM) has granted you? Think about it. But have fun if you want to. Thank you Judge Walker, and I shall follow any appeals of this decision as they come.
Yesterday was Christmas Day, a day celebrated by Christians as the birth of Jesus Christ.
I respect their right to celebrate that. If you were wondering if I'm religious in any way, well I've been godless my entire life. Except for weddings or maybe some classical music concerts, I've never gone to church and have much much less, in fact never, attended formal religious services ever in my life. Despite what others may say, I'm proud not to rely on a supernatural power out there for happiness.
That being said, I'd like to celebrate such a profoundly religious holiday my own way: by exposing the biggest religious blunders of the year. I'm not just targeting Christianity; instead to show how dumb and irrational religion can be, I'll include any ideology that includes belief in a supernatural higher power(s).
Gwen Tompkins, "Arrest For Wearing Pants Galvanizes Women in Sudan". Morning Edition (National Public Radio): October 13, 2009. Sudanese woman Lubna Ahmed Hussein was charged for wearing "clothing causing harassment to public sentiment"...for wearing pants! Seriously, Islamic law does prohibit women from wearing pants, even in an era where pants are acceptable business wear for women in the American workplace.
Jonathan Turley, "Four Irish Bishops Resign in Wake of Abuse Report". December 26, 2009. Ireland's Catholic Church has had a big public relations snafu this year over its failure to report priests who abused children. It was so bad that two bishops resigned from the Church on...Christmas Eve! Way to please God!
Jonathan Turley, "Blasphemy Blog: Egyptian Court Upholds Four-Year Sentence of Blogger for Criticizing Islam". December 24, 2009. Yet another wacky story of Islamic law - known in Arabic as sharia - not giving a flying bug about something called basic human dignity. If I were writing this from Egypt (or just about any country in the Arab World) I'd get thrown in the slammer the next hour.
Jonathan Turley, "American Taliban: Family Group Calls for Laws to be Strenghtened That Criminalize Sex Outside of Marriage". December 12, 2009. Turley used "Taliban" in his headline for a reason: This kind of BS law, proposed by the Minnesota Family Council, translates to sharia! (Ironically, American conservatives claim that Muslims want to bring sharia to the US, but the same conservatives cheer on the Christians who want to pass laws like this that violate human rights.) Turley wrote an editorial in 2004 tackling this issue too and pointing out why such a law theoretically would violate the Constitution; it upholds a religious ideal! Specifically, the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Some may argue that it's not really religious to prosecute adultery, given that a victimdoes exist in the spouse whose partner cheated.
I take doubt in that argument though. Is it really practical to prosecute all those "man cheated on wife" cases? Given that's such a common activity among humans, it'd jam an already bulky caseload on judges throughout America. Furthermore, prison overcrowding would be worsened, especially in California.
Then comes those who are pushing public schools to teach abstinence education, promoting the idea that waiting until marriage to have sex is the healthiest choice in life. Even though the US government has spent billions in that kind of program, studies have shown that such education is very futile. In another expression, codifying abstinence in this sense would really make things worse. From 1920-1933, the 18th Amendment of the US Constitution put Prohibition in effect. This banned consumption and sale of all alcoholic beverages. Sadly though, it didn't put America back on a moral track as the Prohibition proponents hoped. Instead, organized crime went on the rise, as gangs found that they could make big profits off of the "prohibited liquid". A Cato Institute study from 1991, "Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure" finds:
Not only did the number of serious crimes increase, but crime became organized. Criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol or drugs, gambling, and prostitution. In the process of providing goods and services, those criminal organizations resort to real crimes in defense of sales territories, brand names, and labor contracts. That is true of extensive crime syndicates (the Mafia) as well as street gangs, a criminal element that first surfaced during Prohibition.
So if premarital sex were banned, teens whose hormones were raging would just go underground to evade the law, like prostitutes often do. The Minnesota Family Council's proposed law just makes the sin look all the more satisfying.
PZ Myers, "Shame on Italy". Pharyngula (Scienceblogs.com): December 25, 2009. "The Italian National Research Council is sponsoring the publication of a creationist book, titled Evolutionism: The Decline of an Hypothesis." Yep, the government is seriously helping write a book that promotes pseudoscience. I ain't surprised given that Italy's a heavily Catholic country. It's bad enough that creationists have hijacked the American public schools; we don't need other countries sinking to our level.
PZ Myers, "Ireland has a blasphemy law". July 13, 2009. Ireland passed a law saying that anyone caught offending a significant number of religious people will be fined 25,000 Euros, which translates to approximately 36,000 US dollars. Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins considered this law to be medieval. I agree with Myers and Dawkins; isn't Ireland much better than those silly Islamic nations that whiplash people for speaking out against Islam?
PZ Myers, "The pope is an evil quack". March 18, 2009. Why? Because he lied to Africans about condoms and HIV! Way to express human dignity the Catholic way.
In December 2005, Parents Television Council "Culture Watch" columnist Christopher Gildemeister responded to an allegation of homophobia by Simon Dumenco in Dumenco's Advertising Age magazine column:
Mr. Dumenco flatly states, without corroborating evidence, that the PTC is "very very afraid of gay TV characters." This is a lie. The PTC is not homophobic. It simply opposes sexual references or innuendo (of any variety, hetero, homo or other) aired where children might be exposed to them.
Flash forward 4 years minus one month, and this year's American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert (who's also openly gay) performs his single "For Your Entertainment" with many sexually-charged elements (such as S&M and simulation of oral sex and Lambert kissing his male keyboard player). It happens toward the very end of ABC's live broadcast of the 2009 American Music Awards, which ran from 8-11PM Eastern and Pacific time. Lambert's performance reportedly aired at 11PM, or 10PM Central/Mountain. Federal law prohibits broadcast of indecency between 6AM-10PM local time. (The oral sex mock was edited out of the West Coast broadcast.) Then PTC raises a stink over Lambert's performance! From its press release:
While the costumes and profanity throughout the broadcast were enough to alarm any reasonable parent, the final performance by Adam Lambert of “American Idol” fame included everything from S&M bondage with the singer leading leather-clad male performers around on leashes to another dancer simulating oral sex on Lambert. The show aired live at 8 pm ET/7 pm CT and was given a TV-14 L rating. The oral sex scene was edited out of the West Coast broadcast.
“American teenagers – and especially teenaged girls – are literally under siege by the entertainment media. It is outrageous that children today cannot watch a televised awards program for an industry that is built squarely on their backs. Teens comprise a huge portion of music sales, yet this is how they are treated? It is beyond contemptible,” said PTC President Tim Winter.
“Last night’s ‘American Music Awards’ broadcast was nothing short of tasteless and vulgar. Adam Lambert, the second-place finisher in last season’s ‘American Idol’ competition, chose to treat American families to simulated oral sex and other demeaning behavior. ABC and Dick Clark Productions had every reason to know what to expect, as Lambert himself proclaimed that his performance would be ‘very sexy’ and would include leather and chains. But the producers and the network chose to bury their heads in the sand.
So apparently S&M and oral sex, with a homosexual twist, was enough to make Lambert's performance stand out, way out, way way way out, from mentioning, let's say: - Janet Jackson's opening act, where she reportedly grabbed a male dancer's crotch; - Lady Gaga smashing whiskey bottles, and her dancers having costumes that look revealing (that was during her performance of her new single "Bad Romance"; I saw part of it on Sunday night while breaking from studying for Monday's calculus test); - Eminem boasting about an extensive criminal record of his stage alter ego "Slim Shady" before performing "Crack a Bottle" and his verse from Drake's "Forever"; - and Carrie Underwood's suggestive outfit and choreography.
Lambert's performance seemed strongly sleazy enough to be the centerpoint of PTC's campaign. On it's "Take Action" page that provides outraged viewers/members to write letters of complaint to ABC, sponsors, or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the title states: " American Music Awards Assaults Viewers with Simulated Sex Acts, S&M Themes, and Non-Stop Expletives", but the page doesn't even mention the examples I posted here. In her column (to be published on Friday's print edition), New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley also pointed out Jackson, Gaga, and Eminem as other examples of supposedly indecent performers at the AMA this year.
Taking a look at the facts and what PTC wants viewers to complain about, it seems that PTC is defeating itself in the process. Its automated, pre-written "Letter to ABC and Dick Clark Productions" template opens:
Dear Sir or Madam:
For years, the American Music Awards was a wholesome alternative to other trashy awards shows that used cheap gimmicks and sleazy, tabloid-baiting stunts to build a following. The AMAs were different, focusing instead on talent and love of music, so, like many Americans, I felt comfortable watching with my family. No longer. Last night ABC and Dick Clark Productions forever tarnished their hard-earned brands and violated the established trust of millions of parents by allowing S&M and bondage themes and explicit simulated oral sex to be broadcast into our homes, through our publicly-owned broadcast airwaves.
This opening passage seems to contrast the American Music Awards with other shows like the MTV Video Music Awards (and we all know the moral rivalry between PTC and MTV). The Video Music Awards has had its controversial moments like Madonna and Britney Spears kissing and this year, when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech. However, the PTC mentioned in its press release that the awards show was rated "TV-14-L", which in TV Parental Guidelines official lingo means "contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age" because of "strong coarse language". Given the rating, which as procedural ABC shows at the beginning of the program and after every commercial break, why would it be so surprising that the American Music Awards was so un-friendly to a general family audience? Oh, if you want an awards show that focuses on "talent and love of music", try the Grammy Awards, which will be shown on CBS next February.
Although Lambert performed just a few minutes before or just at the start of the 10PM hour in the Central Time Zone, PTC felt it wasn't good enough, so it allows just the Central Time Zone residents to file complaints with the FCC.
And now for today's latest developments.
Yesterday, ABC cancelled Lambert's scheduled performance for today's Good Morning America.
"Given his controversial live performance on the AMAs, we were concerned about airing a similar concert so early in the morning," an ABC News rep said.
However, CBS intervened and invited Lambert to perform on its morning program The Early Show instead. CBS apparently feared more retaliation from PTC or other moral guardian orgs, so the network decided to blur images of Lambert's kiss and sex simulation. "The Adam Lambert image is a subject of great current controversy, has not been nearly as widely disseminated and, for all we know, may still lead to legal consequences," reported the Los Angeles Times quoting a CBS representative.
In response to ABC's disinvitation, PTC's Dan Isett stated:
"I do think it’s a little bit unfortunate... The idea that he should be scrubbed from TV completely is not where we’re going. It may be a bit of an overreaction on ABC’s part."
And Isett insists his organisation was simply upset because the powers that be didn't censor Lambert's AMAs live performance, which was heavily edited when it aired three hours later on America's west coast.
What a surprise. I thought that PTC was going to share ABC's concern that Lambert would've repeated his sleazy choreography on Good Morning America and call on ABC also to ax Lambert's performance. It seems that PTC indirectly intimidated ABC into doing so though.
This controversy brings up a whole bunch of double standards. The one homosexually suggestive performance that began very late in the evening generated the most controversy out of all the performances from earlier in the evening that had elements some would find sexually offensive. If PTC is going to highlight Lambert's performance constantly in its campaign for tougher sanctions against broadcast indecency, it's certainly got a weak one. If the FCC finds that the indecent elements of the performance were broadcast after 10PM Central Time, then the PTC will suffer some public relations struggles.
In his Early Show interview, Lambert claims to be a victim of a double standard against gay males. This is his side of the story.
I suppose I can understand why (parents are) upset. And, honestly, it didn't cross my mind, children. It was almost 11:00. It was a nighttime show. I was there in the audience full of mostly adults. Sometimes, I forget, 'Oh, there's a camera on.' I come from the theater. And I'm programmed to kind of look at who's in the live audience, and that's kind of where I come from. So, I was looking out in the crowd and saw some of my favorite pop stars and thought, 'I want to let loose.' And it just kind of got the best of me. And I had a great time. Unfortunately, there were people upset, but I think there are also people who really enjoyed it. So, like 'Idol,' I guess I have a tendency to divide people -- apples and oranges -- you either like it or you don't.
He also stated that it's ultimately the parent's responsibility to monitor children's TV viewing:
He also said he's "not a babysitter, I'm a performer" when asked if he wanted to apologize to parents of any kids who might have been watching. "I think it's up to the parents to discern what their child's watching on television," Lambert said at one point. Later he observed, "I think it's up to a parent to watch the television. It was almost 11:00 at night. If they're concerned with certain material maybe Tivo it and preview it before your small child is watching it."
Right. And the show was rated "TV-14", for crying out loud! When will the PTC members ever realize that TV is not a baby-sitter?
And finally, for some humor, get your dirty mind on and ponder PTC president Tim Winter's statement "It is outrageous that children today cannot watch a televised awards program for an industry that is built squarely on their backs." Hmm, given the PTC's obsession with pointing out all the graphic sex acts on TV that'll turn your sons into pimps or serial rapists or your daughters into sluts or welfare queens, why not find the underlying message in Winter's statement? Maybe he's trying to get attention with a dirty metaphor referring to anal sex or rape while at the same time opposing references to these in entertainment?
