• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

Second rate reporter says what?

People are complicated. Love is not.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Good lord, these people are nuts.

You cannot shame the shameless.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

The words do not have to be perfect.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

This really is a full service blog.

A Senator Walker would be an insult to the state and the nation.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Just In Case You Can’t figure Out Your Remote Control

Just In Case You Can’t figure Out Your Remote Control

by John Cole|  June 16, 20069:52 am| 81 Comments

This post is in: Media, Politics, Republican Stupidity, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Good news for prudes who can’t figure out how to use their remote controls (although an argument could be made that without opposable thumbs, some of these knuckledraggers might have a rough time with the device)- President Bush has your back:

Complaining that television and radio shows in recent years have “too often pushed the bounds of decency,” President Bush signed legislation yesterday to escalate dramatically the penalties against broadcasters who violate federal standards.

“The language is becoming coarser during the times when it’s more likely children will be watching television,” Bush said, citing a study of nighttime programming. “It’s a bad trend, a bad sign.” He noted that complaints to regulators have exploded since he took office. “People are saying, ‘We’re tired of it, and we expect the government to do something about it.’ ”

***

The White House decided to showcase the signing of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act at a time when Bush and Republican congressional allies are trying to reassure disaffected conservative supporters that they remain committed to conservative causes. With midterm elections approaching, Bush recently gave two speeches promoting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and the Senate plans to vote on another amendment that outlaws flag burning.

The decency act, coming two years after one of singer Janet Jackson’s breasts was exposed in a “wardrobe malfunction” during a Super Bowl halftime show, increases the maximum penalty for broadcasting indecent material on radio or television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. from $32,500 to $325,000. The new law does not change the standards of indecency, which is defined as “patently offensive” sexual or excretory content.

Broadcasters and free-speech advocates argue that the legislation attacks expression and unfairly targets broadcast networks while cable and satellite programming remains beyond the reach of federal regulation. The main television networks and affiliates recently sued to challenge the government’s power to regulate on-air content.

Apparently tv ratings, the 0n/off button on remote controls, and the ability to lock channels was not enough- now the public can be protected from the evil menace of ‘indecent’ programming with the threat of massive fines. Mind you, this won’t stop our delicate and perpetually offended friends from viewing something ‘indecent,’ as the fines will come AFTER the ‘offense,’ but it will give Brent Bozell’s wingnut brigade something to champion and a reason to keep sending out fundraising letters. And, after all, defending marriage is a tough job, so now they can feel safe to turn on the tv after a tough day protecting society from the fags. Besides, everyone knows Hollywood hates America, so if we didn’t do this, society would end. Just like Rome.

And this is an election year, so we do have to do something to give the cave-dwellers a reason to come out and vote for the Grand Old Party.

You do remember the Grand Old Party, don’t you? They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Nancy Pelosi Does The Right Thing
Next Post: That Explains It »

Reader Interactions

81Comments

  1. 1.

    Pb

    June 16, 2006 at 10:03 am

    Good news for prudes who can’t figure out how to use their remote controls […] President Bush has your back

    Aw man, I thought he was going to have a little speech about proper remote control operation. It’d be cute, sort of like when he tries to explain economics to America in terms of simple supply and demand. And then we’d ‘know’ how to use them at least as well as President Bush, and we could all properly operate our remote controls in peace.

    They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.

    My mistake.

  2. 2.

    Mr Furious

    June 16, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Aw man, I thought he was going to have a little speech about proper remote control operation

    I think it would go something like this:

    “This here is what some call, a, remote control. Because it controls your television from a remote location…”

  3. 3.

    Otto Man

    June 16, 2006 at 10:11 am

    Thanks, small government conservatives!

  4. 4.

    Barry

    June 16, 2006 at 10:13 am

    John Cole: “You do remember the Grand Old Party, don’t you? They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.”

    How long ago was this true?

  5. 5.

    Krista

    June 16, 2006 at 10:14 am

    That’s right. Bush can’t protect you from the terists, but he CAN keep you from having to see a boobie!!!

  6. 6.

    The Pirate

    June 16, 2006 at 10:17 am

    Well, thank God that children will have to wait until they go to school the next day to hear the word “fuck.” This was clearly important legislation. I mean it’s not like there’s a war or anything going on.

  7. 7.

    Mr Furious

    June 16, 2006 at 10:18 am

    What’s funny is I actually agree about the courseness of television and the creep into times children watch TV. I’m a parent, and I’m sensitive to that.

    Funny thing though. It’s not a problem in my house because my daughter doesn’t get to decide when, where, or what she watches. Her parents do.

    The only TV in the house is in the basement—the “TV Room” if you will. Not in the kitchen, family room, play room, living room or anywhere else blaring at everyone all hours of the day. And my daughter will have a tv in her bedrooom when she has her own house.

    The V-chip was all the government ever needed to do and it’s done. If they feel compelled to do something else, try an ad campaign to explain the V-chip and tells people that they actually can contol the box in the corner of the room, not vice versa. And certainly not that the governement will do it for them.

  8. 8.

    tBone

    June 16, 2006 at 10:22 am

    Thank God we’ve turned the corner on wardrobe malfunctions. Our long national nightmare of boobies popping out on broadcast TV is finally over.

  9. 9.

    Andrew

    June 16, 2006 at 10:23 am

    You do remember the Grand Old Party, don’t you? They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.

    This is a cute little delusion.

    My only question is: Are libertarians stupid (i.e., they actually believe that Republicans are for less intrusive government) or just dishonest (they don’t care about any values except for low taxes)?

  10. 10.

    Jim Allen

    June 16, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Thank God we’ve turned the corner on wardrobe malfunctions. Our long national nightmare of boobies popping out on broadcast TV is finally over.

    So much for having a reason to live.

  11. 11.

    slickdpdx

    June 16, 2006 at 10:29 am

    John: I agree. A load of horseshit. But don’t forget Tipper “I Hate Music” Gore and Joe “I hate Video Games” Lieberman. I think Hillary has been hating on vids too.

  12. 12.

    Dave Straub

    June 16, 2006 at 10:30 am

    My only question is: Are libertarians stupid (i.e., they actually believe that Republicans are for less intrusive government) or just dishonest (they don’t care about any values except for low taxes)?

    My question would be: What makes you think libertarians are content to hitch their wagons to the GOP?

  13. 13.

    Ryan S.

    June 16, 2006 at 10:32 am

    Off topic… But Damn

    Read This Article

    The lead investigators for the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency told AP that the plan to prosecute KEI for those thefts stopped as soon as it became clear in late summer 2002 that an FBI agent in Minnesota had stolen a crystal globe from ground zero.
    That prompted a broader review that ultimately found 16 government employees, including a top FBI executive and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had such artifacts from New York or the Pentagon.

  14. 14.

    Ed

    June 16, 2006 at 10:35 am

    And John Cole will still refuse to vote for Democrats because they’d be worse.

  15. 15.

    Tim F.

    June 16, 2006 at 10:37 am

    But don’t forget Tipper “I Hate Music” Gore and Joe “I hate Video Games” Lieberman. I think Hillary has been hating on vids too.

    He’s right, this phenomenon is a bipartisan embarrassment. In fact, out of Bush’s many faults I never would have included sanctimonious puritanism. This has to be some sort of pandering, but I don’t see the calculation behind driving a wedge between the culture warriors and the already-wavering ilbertarian wing.

  16. 16.

    Tim F.

    June 16, 2006 at 10:39 am

    edit my post: sanctimonious “cultural” puritanism. I think that he’s a live-and-let-live guy as far as that stuff goes, but with a truly awful panel of political advisors.

  17. 17.

    D. Mason

    June 16, 2006 at 10:43 am

    My fear is that after the November election, when there is absolutely nothing left for them to lose, they will go full bore with this kind of shit. That is if they retain a majority, god forbid.

  18. 18.

    Mr Furious

    June 16, 2006 at 10:48 am

    Tim F-
    I agree on the bipartian embarrassment factor. In fact, I have less patience for this crap from Lieberman and Hillary. Though I will say, pursuing some ratings- or warning-based solution is better than the shit coming from the Right.

    I don’t think any artist was seriously impacted by the “Parental Advsory” label on a CD. (Aside from not making it into WalMart). And I would say it’s helpful to parents, and I wouldn’t doubt is actually a marketing strategy for many artists…

    I’d like to agree on your point about Bush, but I’m not so sure. I think it’s more likely his “live and let live” attitude is more closely related to his disinterest than tolerance.

  19. 19.

    Mr Furious

    June 16, 2006 at 10:49 am

    That is if they retain a majority, god forbid

    Whatever. At this point their failure to pursue or deliver on this stuff after the election is almost as dependable as their running on it beforehand.

  20. 20.

    Perry Como

    June 16, 2006 at 10:53 am

    Are libertarians stupid

    No. But the nannystatists are rejoicing. For those of us with the libertarian bent, I’ll once again recommend this article. I’ve been arguing that same point for a couple years now, but maybe now it will sink in.

  21. 21.

    McNulty

    June 16, 2006 at 10:53 am

    I pretty much agree with the sentiments of John and everyone else here. This is a colossal waste of time and change the damn channel if you don’t like what’s on.

    But, that being said, and just as an aside, I’m only 33 but even i get suprised sometimes when i see just how much you can get away with on regular TV (or basic cable, more specifically) these days.

    There are really only two shows i never miss, and that’s 24 and The Wire (although the Wire is starting to lose me with their Soprano-like 18 month to 2 year breaks between seasons), but my fiance (who gets to control the remote most of the time during non-football time of year as a reward for sitting through every Penn State and Eagles game with me and never complaining) is a big fan of a lot of FX shows like Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, and some dark comedy about people with eating disorders, the name of which escapes me.

    Watching these, I seriously can’t fucking believe some of the stuff they say and some of the stuff they show.

    As i said, I’m by no means offended by it, and i think what Bush is proposing is typical election-year pandering, but holy cripes, some of them, especially Nip/Tuck, are just…wow.

  22. 22.

    Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 10:56 am

    Bush mentions the increase in complaints since he took office. I think this illustrates the principle that if you grease the squeaky wheel, all the other wheels have an incentive to start squeaking too.

    I have no doubt that some people are legitimately offended by stuff they see on TV, although I belong to the “change the channel” crowd as well. But this explosion in complaints doesn’t come spontaneously from a bunch of offended individuals – it comes because groups like the AFA get their membership riled up whenever something offensive happens and encourage them all to file complaints. And they do this over and over because it works, because the administration gives them satisfaction, and because that means they gain political power and credibility with their membership. It’s probably a fantasy of mine that someday, if these people weren’t constantly appeased every time they whined about something offensive, maybe they’d shut up.

    And yeah, the problem reaches across the aisle, even into the Party of Hollywood. But there’s little doubt that the Republicans can out-sanctimony the Dems any day of the week.

  23. 23.

    Ryan S.

    June 16, 2006 at 10:59 am

    This regulation only applies to networks right. Not basic cable.

  24. 24.

    tBone

    June 16, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Watching these, I seriously can’t fucking believe some of the stuff they say and some of the stuff they show.

    I have the same reaction. For a long time, cable stations basically mirrored the decency standards of the broadcast networks, even though they didn’t have to. Now that some of them are pushing the envelope, it seems a little shocking to see that stuff on “regular” TV instead of HBO or Showtime.

  25. 25.

    Perry Como

    June 16, 2006 at 11:21 am

    For a long time, cable stations basically mirrored the decency standards of the broadcast networks, even though they didn’t have to. Now that some of them are pushing the envelope, it seems a little shocking to see that stuff on “regular” TV instead of HBO or Showtime.

    Heh. Let me don my old fogey hat, but I remember when nudity was shown after midnight on broadcast TV[0]. This was back in the 80s.

    [0] – Some sketch comedy show that was news-like, iirc. Most definitely involved boobies though. That’s why I remember it.

  26. 26.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    June 16, 2006 at 11:24 am

    As far as libertarianism goes, there seems to be a change brewing, as per the link rules I’ll just provide the first one

    There seems to be change brewing, will it be enough to actually shift, we’ll see.

    As someone with a fair amount of libertarian ideals to him, I’ve generally voted Democrat because I’d rather have my pocket book raped by the gov’t then my private life.

  27. 27.

    Ryan S.

    June 16, 2006 at 11:28 am

    Some people need to really get over the ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’. Who knew that almost two years ago that people would still be traumatized by Janet Jackson’s boob.

    However, if Mariah Carey where to have a ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’. I would mind splitting that fine with the networks.

  28. 28.

    Krista

    June 16, 2006 at 11:51 am

    Ryan, I believe that one needs to actually be wearing clothing in order to have a wardrobe malfunction.

  29. 29.

    Zifnab

    June 16, 2006 at 11:52 am

    The important thing is that these decency standards are being held firm across the board. For every Howard Stern who gets lambasted for saying the word “nipple” on national radio, we’ve got an equally firm grasp the somewhat risque material coming from the right, right?

    Summary: In a segment of Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto titled “Porn to Run,” guest host David Asman interviewed Steven Hirsch, co-founder and CEO of Vivid Entertainment Group, about the business of Internet pornography. Throughout the interview, the broadcast was split-screened with footage of scantily clad women pole-dancing and stripping in front of men. Media Matters for America has previously noted that Your World, ostensibly a business show, has often aired photographs and videos of scantily clad women and blurred images of nude women.

    link

    Discussing the immigration debate on May 10, Savage stated that “our brown brethren, who are so nationalistic and so anti-gringo and anti-Anglo,” are not “as enlightened as the European-American.” Warning that “the European-American, or the white person, is being erased from America’s future,” Savage doubted that “minorities, when they take over the country, will be quite as benevolent and as enlightened as the European-Americans today.”

    link

    … Hmmm… or not.

  30. 30.

    tBone

    June 16, 2006 at 11:55 am

    [0] – Some sketch comedy show that was news-like, iirc. Most definitely involved boobies though. That’s why I remember it.

    Not Necessarily the News? It was an HBO series, but it’s possible that it was rerun on broadcast TV.

    I wouldn’t classify post-midnight programming as “regular TV” anyway, unless you’re the type of person who’s trying to collect a complete set of Ron Popeil Home Surgery/Salad Shooter Combo Kits.

  31. 31.

    Perry Como

    June 16, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Krista, clothing is overrated.

    tBone, that was it. Blogospheria comes through once again.

  32. 32.

    Krista

    June 16, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    Perry – was that your “line” in college?

  33. 33.

    Mr Furious

    June 16, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    Yeah, Perry, did you use that “line” on the girls? Or just the police?

  34. 34.

    Perry Como

    June 16, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    Krista, no, I just licked my eyebrows.

  35. 35.

    Andrew

    June 16, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    My question would be: What makes you think libertarians are content to hitch their wagons to the GOP?

    Because, when push comes to pulling the voting lever, they almost always do.

    At this juncture, any “honest” libertarian should support divided government, and that means voting Democrat in all national elections this year. Therefore, if I don’t see a libertarian actively pulling for the Dems, their stupidity/dishonesty is pretty clear.

  36. 36.

    Jim Allen

    June 16, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Krista, no, I just licked my eyebrows

    Great. Just great.

    It’s going to take the rest of the afternoon to get that image out of my head. Thanks a lump.

  37. 37.

    McNulty

    June 16, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    At this juncture, any “honest” libertarian should support divided government, and that means voting Democrat in all national elections this year. Therefore, if I don’t see a libertarian actively pulling for the Dems, their stupidity/dishonesty is pretty clear.

    A Libertarian is just a Republican that smokes weed.

  38. 38.

    LITBMueller

    June 16, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    Yep, they ain’t bowing down to the terrrrrrists, but, when it comes to the religious right, they get right down on bended knee!!!!

  39. 39.

    The Other Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    What an utterly pathetic stupid reporter. I mean read this shit and try to make sense of it.

    Broadcasters and free-speech advocates argue that the legislation attacks expression and unfairly targets broadcast networks while cable and satellite programming remains beyond the reach of federal regulation.

    DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK FREE-SPEECH ADVOCATES WOULD BE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT?

    Yeah, Broadcasters sure… but free-speech advocates?

    I spit on the grave of this imbecile.

  40. 40.

    SeesThroughIt

    June 16, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    And, after all, defending marriage is a tough job, so now they can feel safe to turn on the tv after a tough day protecting society from the fags. Besides, everyone knows Hollywood hates America, so if we didn’t do this, society would end. Just like Rome.

    You know what’s sad, John? You say this, and it’s dripping with appropriately-applied sarcasm. Yet if you go to many right-wing sites, you’ll see the same statement–except they’re being serious.

  41. 41.

    Perry Como

    June 16, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    A Libertarian is just a Republican that smokes weed.

    Hint, Instafuckwit isn’t a libertarian.

  42. 42.

    Punchy

    June 16, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    And this is an election year, so we do have to do something to give the cave-dwellers a reason to come out and vote for the Grand Old Party.

    I’m guessin the effect is minimal. It’s not like they changed the standards; just made the fine–one the public will never have to pay–larger.

    If they actually legislated new stardards….cleavage maximums or minimum can coverage…then I see the cavemen getting all sweaty and worked up. But increasing a fine? Nah…this’ll play for 1-2 days and then forgotten…

  43. 43.

    ppGaz

    June 16, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    You do remember the Grand Old Party, don’t you? They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.

    Now they just champion snark.

    Hey, if your party can’t actually govern, who cares? At least you can trashtalk your opponents and feel good about yourselves. That’s what counts.

    Eleanor Clift found a good term for it: Reverse Accountability, the art of shifting blame to the people who are not in charge. The Buck Stops There.

  44. 44.

    Gary Farber

    June 16, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    “And, after all, defending marriage is a tough job….”

    Indeed, John, and that’s why they’re doing so fabulously.

  45. 45.

    Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    By the way, “freedom and personal responsibility” was a nice slogan, but hasn’t it pretty much always been the GOP who have been the prissy TV censors, and liberals who, you know, wanted to unlease the evil of the Sexual Revolution upon us all? Because I don’t think you can pin the whole thing on Tipper Gore.

  46. 46.

    RSA

    June 16, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    Heh. Let me don my old fogey hat, but I remember when nudity was shown after midnight on broadcast TV[0]. This was back in the 80s.

    I’ll don my. . .beret, and mention that probably in any western European country you can think of, there’ll be a broadcast TV station that switches to soft core pornography at midnight. It’s not an enormous deal. I remember when watching German TV for the first time, one afternoon back in the mid-80’s, and seeing a shower gel commercial in which a woman’s breasts appeared. Oh, and dolphins. (How perverse, right?) American TV has the weirdest combination of body shame and titillation imaginable.

  47. 47.

    Cromagnon

    June 16, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Goddamn fucking shit!

  48. 48.

    John S.

    June 16, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    A Libertarian is just a Republican that smokes weed.

    Correction: A Libertarian is just a Republican who doesn’t think the government should spend $9 billion a year to stop others from smoking weed.

  49. 49.

    Andrew

    June 16, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    Correction: A Libertarian is just a Republican who doesn’t think the government should spend $9 billion a year to stop others from smoking weed

    and likes un-Christian butt sex.

  50. 50.

    waddayaknow

    June 16, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    Isn’t Brent Bozell another one of the Moon-pies?

  51. 51.

    Rudi

    June 17, 2006 at 7:56 am

    A Libertarian is just a Republican that smokes weed.

    Yes, but they don’t get up on the “Family Values” soapbox. Love the Repugs “hippocrits”: SC 700 Club stepfarther daughter raper; Gingrich Limbaugh FMA audultters 3 + marriage.

    I will worry about my family, and won’t tell you what your family should be. Help little old ladies across the street, even Grandma Bush; she would have to wash my lower class contamination off her hand afterwards.

    Libertarians are OK as long as they cool it on 911 conspiricy, RFID tags for animals and such.

  52. 52.

    MikeLucca

    June 17, 2006 at 8:34 am

    John Cole says:

    And this is an election year, so we do have to do something to give the cave-dwellers a reason to come out and vote for the Grand Old Party.

    Are you seriously suggesting that only a cave dweller, as you put it, would care about what kinds of television their children watched. I guess that makes me a cave dweller then, since I shut off the cable when my first child got old enough to work the remote.

    How many of you here have children, anyway? Maybe you ought to wait until you do before you start throwing around phrases like cave dwellers.

  53. 53.

    tBone

    June 17, 2006 at 9:10 am

    Are you seriously suggesting that only a cave dweller, as you put it, would care about what kinds of television their children watched.

    He’s suggesting that people should make their own decisions about TV in their homes (like you did), not rely on Nanny Government.

    I monitor what my kids watch and I block channels I don’t want them to be able to access. If, despite that, they occasionally hear a bad word or see a naked boobie, I think they’re resilient enough to survive without the government’s help.

    Do you really think this is anything other than shameless election year pandering?

  54. 54.

    MikeLucca

    June 17, 2006 at 9:21 am

    I see your point, tBone. But let’s take a look at the Super Bowl incident. That’s supposed to be something that’s safe to watch with your family. It’s not supposed to involve dirty dancing and semi-nudity. But sex sells and we all know that television is a business. The only way to counter that is with fines large enough to create a disincentive. I wouldn’t call that pandering, more like common sense.

  55. 55.

    tBone

    June 17, 2006 at 10:27 am

    it’s not supposed to involve dirty dancing and semi-nudity. But sex sells and we all know that television is a business. The only way to counter that is with fines large enough to create a disincentive.

    Really? I’d say the public outcry alone was sufficient to clean things up at the Superbowl halftime show. Unless Keith Richards had a nipple-slip I’m not remembering.

  56. 56.

    Andrew

    June 17, 2006 at 10:44 am

    But let’s take a look at the Super Bowl incident. That’s supposed to be something that’s safe to watch with your family. It’s not supposed to involve dirty dancing and semi-nudity.

    Yes, let’s take a look at that. If dancing and a nipple destroy the good morals of your children, then there just might be some deeper issues that you need to deal with.

    Like, OMG!!!111!one!! A nekkid body!

  57. 57.

    John S.

    June 17, 2006 at 10:55 am

    I’m convinced.

    MikeLucca is DougJ’s new sockpuppet.

  58. 58.

    tBone

    June 17, 2006 at 11:08 am

    I’m convinced.

    MikeLucca is DougJ’s new sockpuppet.

    It’s been a while since we had a good contestant for “Spoof, Troll or Wingnut?”

  59. 59.

    Andrew

    June 17, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Damn, spoofed by “the moderate parent.”

    That was a really good one.

  60. 60.

    MikeLucca

    June 17, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Without knowing exactly what you’re talking about, John S, I’ll take that as a compliment coming from a DNC sock puppet like yourself. I don’t listen to talk radio, but my take is that it makes a lot more sense than most of what you hear from Howard Dean.

  61. 61.

    ppGaz

    June 17, 2006 at 11:48 am

    It’s been a while since we had a good contestant for “Spoof, Troll or Wingnut?”

    Spoof. Follows the now-obvious DougJ pattern. Once or twice a week here, for the last year or so, a new handle appears on the page, featuring the same old spoofish righty impersonation. Same material, over and over.

    This is Eleanor, nee MikeLucca. Filling in for Brian.

  62. 62.

    ppGaz

    June 17, 2006 at 11:53 am

    I see your point, tBone. But let’s take a look at the Super Bowl incident. That’s supposed to be something that’s safe to watch with your family. It’s not supposed to involve dirty dancing and semi-nudity. But sex sells and we all know that television is a business. The only way to counter that is with fines

    Even for spoof, that’s remarkably wrong. You do know that cable is the major tv pathway now, and that broadcast is more and more marginalized? One reason is restrictive regulation. There is only a limited market for Doris Day movies any more. Large fines will do nothing but hasten the demise of broadcast network tv, a demise which is well on its way to being complete. Even the phony Gee-Zus(tm) crap has run away to cable, where the audience is.

  63. 63.

    tBone

    June 17, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    I don’t listen to talk radio, but my take is that it makes a lot more sense than most of what you hear from Howard Dean

    Truthiness in action!

  64. 64.

    MikeLucca

    June 18, 2006 at 6:02 am

    Is there any real debate on this blog or just a bunch of lefties calling everyone who disagrees with them a spoof and a Republican sock puppet? And apparently in your world even voting for Gore in 2000 doesn’t prevent you from being a Republican sock puppet. You guys need to buy a clue.

  65. 65.

    ppGaz

    June 18, 2006 at 9:50 am

    just a bunch of lefties calling everyone who disagrees with them a spoof

    Yeah, you might want to do some work on this. Do a count of the names that post here, and then count the ones I’ve called a spoof. You’ll find it’s a pretty small percentage.

    Also, make a list of those spoof candidates and then make a check mark next to the ones who have actually put up a denial or defense. As far as I know, that number is zero.

    Back to you, Doug.

  66. 66.

    ppGaz

    June 18, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Is there any real debate on this blog

    Heh. Well, one tires of “debating” with spoofs and righties who just spew talking points.

    “Debating” has certain signatures, and spoofs can’t do it.
    Righties around here won’t do it. Mostly, we get just a series of snark pissing contests.

    Wnat to have a “debate?” Okay, the thread centers around a question of whether a free society needs a sex police operation monitoring and regulating the content of television broadcasts. The “decency” act. Let’s debate that. Snark about “Howard Dean” doesn’t feed that bulldog. Do you think?

    Back to you, Doug.

  67. 67.

    MikeLucca

    June 18, 2006 at 10:38 am

    ppGaz says:


    Okay, the thread centers around a question of whether a free society needs a sex police operation monitoring and regulating the content of television broadcasts.

    Unless I’m mistaken, there already are decency standards in place. The question is not about whether or not they exist, but how strictly they should be enforced. My view is that (1) we should have them and (2) that they should be strictly enforced. But I feel much more strongly about (1) than about (2). If you want to get rid of the standards, that’s another debate. But the president is pushing for tougher penalties, not new standards, according to the snippet here. So why don’t you try arguing about that instead of calling people sock puppets and comparing them to right-wing radio personalities?

  68. 68.

    MikeLucca

    June 18, 2006 at 10:40 am

    When I said more strongly, I meant to say less strongly. We can argue about whether or not to have the standards, but if we have standards, we’ve got to enforce ’em.

  69. 69.

    ppGaz

    June 18, 2006 at 11:00 am

    So why don’t you try arguing about that instead of calling people sock puppets

    I might, if you weren’t a spoof. That’s a sockpuppet who represents the view of his adversary instead of his own.

    “My view is that …… blah blah blah.” Do you think a “debate” is about stating what your views are?

    A debate is a contest between ideas. Each side makes an argument. What’s the argument for these standards, and for stronger enforcement? I don’t care what you think, I don’t take instruction from you. I care what the argument is. Make an argument.

  70. 70.

    MikeLucca

    June 18, 2006 at 11:12 am

    You want an argument? How about that you should be able to watch t.v. with your kids without hearing cursing, without seeing murders or nudity. That’s my argument…and I already made it, you idiot.

  71. 71.

    ppGaz

    June 18, 2006 at 11:18 am

    and I already made it, you idiot

    Well, you made an argument, but not the argument.

    First of all, don’t say “you” when you mean “I.” You aren’t interested in how I raise my kids, that’s my business and not yours. Yours is how you raise your kids. So get down off the soapbox, because it’s bullshit, and I will knock you off it every time you try to climb up on it.

    Second, George Bush has made the argument that supports my position. He says that the people know best how to spend their money. He says that the people would know best how to prepare for their own retirement.

    How then can he turn around and say that “the people” aren’t smart enough to run their own tv sets and maintain control over what they watch? That “the people” need protection from television networks?

    Mind you, the several networks are now competing with dozens of cable channels who are not regulated and who are beating the networks in terms of ratings and audience because people have choices and will exercise them ….. read it slowly, perckerwood. The people, the very people your president says should have choices, are making choices and doing it without government control or direction, and they are choosing to look away from the material is that is controlled.

    Do you have respect for the people, or not? If you do, then stop pretending that you have the ability or the authority to act like the thought police and protect people from themselves. Who told you that America needs a nanny government?

  72. 72.

    MikeLucca

    June 18, 2006 at 11:27 am

    ppGaz says:


    How then can he turn around and say that “the people” aren’t smart enough to run their own tv sets and maintain control over what they watch? That “the people” need protection from television networks?

    He’s not, he’s saying that they should be able to get an accurate view of what is going to be on at certain times of the day. I believe that people should be able to operate their cars, but I also believe that there should be safety standards and that they should be enforced. How is this different from that?

  73. 73.

    ppGaz

    June 18, 2006 at 11:35 am

    He’s not, he’s saying that they should be able to get an accurate view of what is going to be on at certain times of the day. I believe that people should be able to operate their cars, but I also believe that there should be safety standards and that they should be enforced. How is this different from that?

    { spits coffee }

    As if we needed more proof that you are a con artist.

    How is tv different from a car? Gee, I dunno, because a car doesn’t lend itself to “decency” standards?

    Safety is all about the laws of physics. “Decency” is some bullshit that you are pimping which is totally subjective and totally a matter of personal choice.

    Your comparison is about as inapt as it could be.

    But, thanks for making it since I can use it. Most of the safety in your car depends on how you drive it. Most of the “decency” in your tv depends on how you operate it. You want the “family” channels? They are easy to find. Your tv set makes it easy to restrict your viewing to those channels, and your kids’ viewing too.

    If you don’t want your kids to hear the swearing that goes on in public, don’t expose them to public tv. What kind of parent would do that, and blame the kids’ exposure on the tv?

    Give it up, man. Even as spoof, you can’t sell this bill of goods.

  74. 74.

    ppGaz

    June 18, 2006 at 11:37 am

    an accurate view of what is going on

    Watch the 700 Club, then. If you can’t operate a tv set better than you apparently do, you shouldn’t be allowed to own one. Do you have a license to operate it?

    I didn’t think so.

  75. 75.

    MikeLucca

    June 19, 2006 at 4:56 am

    ppGaz says:


    If you don’t want your kids to hear the swearing that goes on in public, don’t expose them to public tv.

    Public television isn’t the problem here. There is almost no swearing or violence on PBS and while there are problems with its political slant, it definitely is suitable for children for the most part.

  76. 76.

    ppGaz

    June 19, 2006 at 9:45 am

    I missposke, I meant free tv, as opposed to cable. Doug.

  77. 77.

    Tom

    June 19, 2006 at 10:26 am

    But don’t forget Tipper “I Hate Music” Gore and Joe “I hate Video Games” Lieberman. I think Hillary has been hating on vids too.

    but the difference is when the Dems are crusading to save the chi-rren, they are sincere.

  78. 78.

    Krista

    June 19, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    The two things that amused me about the whole Super Bowl kerfuffle were this:

    1. The booby shot happened at the very end of the dance. People have been complaining not just about the booby shot, but about the provocative dancing itself. Why did these people not change the channel until they were reasonably sure that halftime would be over?

    2. Why is a breast considered completely unsuitable for family viewing, whereas a violent sport where people tackle each other over a piece of leather, sometimes incurring compound fractures, is considered suitable family viewing?

    I can understand people getting a bit perturbed about the violence on TV. I think it would be good for CSI to be on a little later than it is, due to its extremely disturbing imagery. But, that’s what the remote’s for. And as far as the sexual stuff, I guess I’m weird, but I’d much rather that my young nephews see Janet Jackson’s breasts than an extremely realistic depiction of an eviscerated corpse.

  79. 79.

    Cyrus

    June 20, 2006 at 8:17 am

    1. The booby shot happened at the very end of the dance. People have been complaining not just about the booby shot, but about the provocative dancing itself. Why did these people not change the channel until they were reasonably sure that halftime would be over?

    2. Why is a breast considered completely unsuitable for family viewing, whereas a violent sport where people tackle each other over a piece of leather, sometimes incurring compound fractures, is considered suitable family viewing?

    I can understand people getting a bit perturbed about the violence on TV. I think it would be good for CSI to be on a little later than it is, due to its extremely disturbing imagery. But, that’s what the remote’s for. And as far as the sexual stuff, I guess I’m weird, but I’d much rather that my young nephews see Janet Jackson’s breasts than an extremely realistic depiction of an eviscerated corpse.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any answers to this question that do not boil down, at least in part, to “reactionaries hate it when women enjoy sex.” Violence in fiction and sports is natural or a way to sublimate urges to even worse behavior, so the theory goes. But if a woman is in control of her own sex life, it ruins a lot of the control people like Dobson have and is entirely beyond their comprehension and so on. So it must be stopped before it ruins everything.

    But now I sound like She Who Must Not Be Named (amandamarcotte), so I’d better go.

  80. 80.

    Krista

    June 20, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any answers to this question that do not boil down, at least in part, to “reactionaries hate it when women enjoy sex.”

    I think you must be right. I have yet to hear any sort of logical response from people who are so vehemently against sexuality or bad language in the entertainment industry, but have no problem with violence.

    And as far as reactionaries hating it when women enjoy sex, if they’re that bloody repressive, I don’t think they have to worry about their women enjoying sex, anyway.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Pajamas Media says:
    June 16, 2006 at 10:52 am

    “Your Indecency Is Not My Indecency”

    Amy Alkon @ Advice Goddess on the new broadcast decency law: “What scares me most is how few people are scared by stuff like this.” John Cole @ Balloon Juice thinks this law is good news to those who cannot…

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • SpaceUnit on Postcards for Wisconsin Supreme Court & Music! (Jan 31, 2023 @ 10:05pm)
  • Tony G on Is Our Democrats Learning? (Jan 31, 2023 @ 10:02pm)
  • Tony G on War for Ukraine Day 341: The Starlink Snowflake Has Chosen Putin. He Has Chosen Poorly! (Jan 31, 2023 @ 9:58pm)
  • BeautifulPlumage on War for Ukraine Day 341: The Starlink Snowflake Has Chosen Putin. He Has Chosen Poorly! (Jan 31, 2023 @ 9:57pm)
  • Tim Ellis on COVID-19 Coronavirus Updates: Monday / Tuesday, Jan. 30-31 (Jan 31, 2023 @ 9:55pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!