Crackdown on Porn

[shereads]

That's it exactly.

Hey, did you know that Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC? How'd that happen?

---dr.M.

Don't any of these guys have a son or daughter who wants to be a soldier?

Does the patriotism gene skip a generation?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I was thinking the same thing for a couple seconds. Wow, Perdita can think like Colly! P.

Lets hope not too often, Collys tend to be very Jaded & one of the joys of these boards is meeting people who don't see the lightining bolt hiding behind every silver lining

You are one of the good folks in the world Dita



-Colly

 

[ruminator]

That's it exactly.

Hey, did you know that Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC? How'd that happen?

---dr.M.

The people in this current administration go way back both in political and private business affairs. Michael Powell is a corporate lawyer and was picked as much for his talent as the virtue of the gene pool.

I've read that he's already pretty well guarranteed a job somewhere in the Carlyle Group after his run at the FCC. The CG is a private entity, but hugely successful consortium of former political leaders and business people. They are strong in the Industrial/military complex, financial, pharmaceutical, media and many other areas. The bin Laden family and the Bush family are just two of the big players in it. They are worldwide, influencing and investing our futures for their profits.

 

[panty_inspector]

As a long-time Stern listener, I was really dismayed to see him jump on the Bush War Wagon (granted, the line between satire & reality blurs so greatly on his show that it's hard to know just what he believes, imho). So, I basically stopped listening due to all of the ass-kissing Howard was doling (sp?) out to the Dubya crowd.

I'm tickled that Stern seems to be interested in alerting the public to (what I feel is) the frightening spector of Big Brother which hanging over us. Now if he'd only scrap commercial radio in favor of the net: it's hard to believe that his loyal listeners wouldn't shell out $50 to $100 a year for an uncensored show, with downloadable archives.

Here's to the day when Ashcroft, Meese, Haig, North, Quayle and their ilk are sent to play "Survivor" in Antarctica. Needless to say, there's absolutely no prize, and no returning to the mainland.

 

[panty_inspector]

She acted stupidly, selfishisly and with a lack of foresight that borders on stupidly negligent, given the atmosphere & designs of the religious right, defacto controlers of the GOP. To increse her record sales she has brought us all the spectre of big brother & the thought police deciding what we should be reading. It's absolutely infuriating to me that someone could be that selfish & self centered.

-Colly [/B][/QUOTE]

I WAS going to say "What else would one expect from a member of the Jackson Family?", but that's not entirely fair, is it?

Instead, I'll say: Phooey to those artists who are driven by greed, ego, ...what have you. Thank goodness there are still people making music not driven by fashion houses or focus groups



Like Ice Cube said:

"Turn off that muthafuckin' radio"

(commercial radio, anyhow)

 

[shereads]

The CG is a private entity, but hugely successful consortium of former political leaders and business people. They are strong in the Industrial/military complex, financial, pharmaceutical, media and many other areas. The bin Laden family and the Bush family are just two of the big players in it. They are worldwide, influencing and investing our futures for their profits.

Are you implying there's a less-than-100%-wholesome connection between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, and that this link, had it been fully explored in the aftermath of 9/ll, might have endangered the business interests and destroyed the public legacies of the Bushes, the Cheneys, and other oil-energy dynasties who might inadvertently have helped finance a terrorist attack on their own country, through their complex web of financial entanglements with the Saudi royal family?

Because if that's the case, it was a lucky break for Bush/Cheney when Ahmad Chalabi learned that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States because of his stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That, plus the urgent need to bring democracy to the people of Iraq...Otherwise, things could have gotten very ugly, very quickly, for some people who hadn't been entirely aboveboard in their global business relationships.

You're not implying that it was so important to divert attention from the Saudis, that our elected officials may have had an incentive to lie about the WMD, are you? No, you can't be implying that.

Edited to add: It would help explain why the Pentagon continues to pay Ahmad Chalabi $340,000 a month to provide intelligence.

 

[panty_inspector]

i give you....

Dave Emory:


http://wfmu.org/playlists/DX


you can decide whether he's paranoid & crazy, or peering into a looking glass

oh, since i'm a knucklehead, pardon me if i didn't paste that correctly. i'm afraid i still haven't figured everything (or anything! ) out here at Lit


cheerios & 2 per cent!

 

[ruminator]

Are you implying there's a less-than-100%-wholesome connection between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, and that this link, had it been fully explored in the aftermath of 9/ll, might have endangered the business interests and destroyed the public legacies of the Bushes, the Cheneys, and other oil-energy dynasties who might inadvertently have helped finance a terrorist attack on their own country, through their complex web of financial entanglements with the Saudi royal family?

Because if that's the case, it was a lucky break for Bush/Cheney when Ahmad Chalabi learned that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States because of his stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That, plus the urgent need to bring democracy to the people of Iraq...Otherwise, things could have gotten very ugly, very quickly, for some people who hadn't been entirely aboveboard in their global business relationships.

You're not implying that it was so important to divert attention from the Saudis, that our elected officials may have had an incentive to lie about the WMD, are you? No, you can't be implying that.

Wouldn't it be presumptuous of me to even infer that a man can rise from a history of failed business ventures, the first of which was in conjunction with a bin Laden brother who met an untimely and early death, to an unqualified President? Careless would describe the actions of such a link between a family of brothers who have capitalized on political family friendships to eek out a meager multi-million existence in financial debauchery. Why, irresponsible is the claim I would make when the brother Marvin had been high in the company that provided security for airports and the WTC for many years and right up until the disaster.

Could you imagine a brother moving into business relations with China, and after recieving a hefty regular salary, still could not explain what it is he did for them, or what it is he could actually do, for anyone?

If you are implying that Ahmed came along by luck, then some officials in Jordan would like to know how lucky they could not be in getting him back after a guilty verdict in absentia for procurement of public funds.

Please, don't suggest I invest my savings with any of these characters, I'm still waiting for Enron to close the deal in India and that's what I'm betting on. Wouldn't you choose that or the previously fraudulent Worldcomm that somehow got the no-bid contract to rewire Iraq? I'm lost on the Pipeline in Afghanastan that helped to start this whole mess. Who would've thought the Taliban would turn down Unocal and deny the gas that would let the Enron deal fly in India.



*whew*...........Did you mention Cheney and the huntin' judge who is sitting on the task force papers?

*all in one thought....'scuse the typos, please *

 

[shereads]

As a long-time Stern listener, I was really dismayed to see him jump on the Bush War Wagon (granted, the line between satire & reality blurs so greatly on his show that it's hard to know just what he believes, imho). So, I basically stopped listening due to all of the ass-kissing Howard was doling (sp?) out to the Dubya crowd.

I know what you mean about Stern, and I imagine it was, at least in part, an act to keep the portion of his audience who are also Rush's audience, and I know there's crossover. Less understandable to me has been the transformation of Dennis Miller. He used to have a balanced world view, some liberal views mixed with some conservative ones. Maybe the guys at the NFL hurt his feelings and made him feel less manly or something, but for whatever reason, Dennis not only turned into a Rush clone, he turned all the way in favor of Ashcroft. I heard Dennis on TV one night saying, "Hey, if he can monitor my phone calls and my porn-surfing and keep me from finding out about it, more power to him. It's about our safety."

Maybe there are some terrorists hiding out among the shoe fetishists, but it seems unlikely.

Safely alive, but without any personal privacy. I'll pass. Meanwhile, I have to admit I almost miss Quayle. The Danster was funny when he was stupid; nobody died because of it.

"Those who would exchange essential freedom for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety," said Ben Franklin.

 

[shereads]

*whew*...........Did you mention Cheney and the huntin' judge who is sitting on the task force papers?

No, but Perdita posted a thread about the Canned Hunt a while back. Those birds they shot were farm-raised. It's important for a hunter with global responsibilities not to waste time on the actual "hunting" part of a hunt.

I'm going to get some sleep, which isnt easy, considering. Meanwhile, I think you should Get Your War On if you haven't already:

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

 

[panty_inspector]

Meanwhile, I have to admit I almost miss Quayle. The Danster was funny when he was stupid; nobody died because of it.

yes, that's true. can you imagine the linguistic carnage of a Dubya/Quayle ticket? i'd pay to see that

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Less understandable to me has been the transformation of Dennis Miller. He used to have a balanced world view, some liberal views mixed with some conservative ones. Maybe the guys at the NFL hurt his feelings and made him feel less manly or something, but for whatever reason, Dennis not only turned into a Rush clone, he turned all the way in favor of Ashcroft. I heard Dennis on TV one night saying, "Hey, if he can monitor my phone calls and my porn-surfing and keep me from finding out about it, more power to him. It's about our safety."

I saw this too. I think that humor corrupts, and absolute humor corrupts absolutely.

Miller always seemed to have an especially nasty edge to his humor as far as I was concerned, kind of like David Spade. You know that inside that bitchy exterior is a nice guy, and inside that nice guy is a really vindictive asshole.

Miller came from the old National Lampoon school of humorists, along with P.J. O'Rourke. Both of them had strong libertarian leanings, which is understandable. I think most of us are libertarians at heart, we just have the sense to know that it wouldn't work. You take these libertarian sentiments and add a healthy dose of sudden personal wealth, and you often get these cash-induced Republicans. O'Rourke has kept his head and taken a more centrist position. I think Miller has lost his.

I also think it might be a conscious career decision on his part. He saw an opportunity to be the Will Rogers of the right. They're notoriously short on people with wit, let alone the most rudimentary sense of humor.

---dr.M.

 

[NoJo]

We had a similar thing happe in Britain when Thatcher was in power. The anarchic comedian Kenny Everett was just about the only "funny" person recruited to her camp; most of the new comedians were staunchly Labour.

Kenny Everett made a brilliant speech at a Tory conference, which had people applauding at first. But his speech got more and more outrageously right-wing, till by the end, there was embarrassment. Nobody knew whether he was serious or not. He was ostracised by everyone after that, and pretty muich disappeared without a trace.

By the way, I'm not sure what a 'libertarian' is, as opposed to a liberal. It sounds like 'libertine', from the way you've used it, mab. That's definitely something different.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

By the way, I'm not sure what a 'libertarian' is, as opposed to a liberal. It sounds like 'libertine', from the way you've used it, mab. That's definitely something different.

Basically, Libertarians believe in maximal personal liberty and minimal government. In an ideal Libertarian society, even the police and fire department would be private agencies you'd pay to subscribe to. I don't know what they'd do about an army or foreign policy, but there'd be no government regulation or interference in the personal affairs or the private sector.

That's probably an over-simplification of modern libertarian thought, but those are the essential tenets. Just like communism, it's a very seductive philosophy, and again like communism, the problem is how well would it actually work?

---dr.M.

 

[NoJo]

Thanks for the explanation. It sounds very American. Reminds me of some of the Californian hippies I knew whose attitude reminded me of some of the rednecks I met in my travels. "Fuck Government". It's aslo pretty close to "laissez faire" capitalism: Let business get on with it without government regulations.

Now I understand why you said it wouldn't work. I was confused, there: I thought you were being uncharacteristically down on liberals.

 

[rgraham666]

Sub Joe? I find it works better if every time your hear the word 'libertarian' you replace it with the word 'nihilist'.

 

[Boadicea]

I sure wish I could vote in the US elections, but unfortunately, I don't have that right.
Its rather sad that President Bush is going after people like Janet Jackson, Howard Stern and so forth.
While the US media was screaming "The horror!" over the exposure of Janet Jackson's breast, we Canadians were asking: "So what? Why didn't she show the other one?"
I'm not trying to pull the whole Canadians are holier than thou thing. Believe you me, we're WAY more screwed up than you think, we just don't get as much attention.
I think that if we want to take a stand on this, we need to do more than demand everyone use their vote, because as the case of Florida in the election that brought G.W. Jr into office has shown, the vote doesn't necessarily count. If anything, we need to start campaigns and find candidates amongst our own ranks to stand up against the censorship witchhunt coming. Thats why I salute the people who moved to make an international mockery of senator Rick Santorum, who has been more than vocal about his desire to make gay sex illegal, by naming the combination of semen and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex, after him.
(Type "santorum" into google's search engine and you'll get the latter definition)

 

[Guest]

 

[KenJames]

Sub Joe? I find it works better if every time your hear the word 'libertarian' you replace it with the word 'nihilist'.

That's really not a fair description of libertarian philosophy.

A nihilist wants to tear existing social structures down (in the hope of replacing them with something better or simply for the hell of it). A libertarian wants to replace government control of citizens with individual responsibility.

I'm met many libertarians who think of themselves as 'anarchists,' but none who consider themselves 'nihilists.'

 

[KenJames]

I agree Ken, they were just waiting for an excuse. That dose not excuse her for giving them one that was tailor made. They didn't have to spin, they didn't have to reach, they didn't have to blow up some minor incident and perhaps more importantly they didn't have to worry about enough people having seen it to create a furor.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, but if I were this incident was so perfect for what they wanted/needed to get the ball rolling you almost would have to wonder if it wasn't planned & coreographed by Asscroft & company. It's just too perfect. Blatant violation. Largest audience possible. The right kind of audience too, even the christian right watched football in force. Immideate flow of complaints. Three major corporations playing CYA & willing to "testify" before the congressional subcomittees.

If you are on the Christian right, it was damned near a miracle.

-Colly

I'm not trying to excuse Janet. It was a stupid publicity stunt, although I still think there was a one in ten chance that she didn't actually expect to show a bare (except for the hardware) breast.

So many incidents are perfect for conspiracy theories; Pearl Harbor, Roswell, 9/11, . . . Janet (Is that the biggest anticlimax since "For country, God and Yale?").

Much has been made of "titty-gate" in the corporate-owned, generally right-wing leaning, so-called "liberal" media, but after the initial titillation (Bevis and Butthead moment!), the public's reaction has largely been "yawn!"

Yeah, right-leaning Clear Channel dropped Howard Stern after getting fined $400 K (16 incidents at $50K). He's done similar things thousands of times, the fine would have been in the billions if a consistent standard had been applied. He's still on the air and his production company's attitude about future legal action is "bring it on."

Congress: $500,000 per obscene incident (whatever "obscene" means; "obscene" tits – SWAT teams to "National Geographic!"). Despite the wishes of the Ashcroft-Bush Department of Injustice (I gotta ask – was "Asscroft" a typo? It's so perfect!), that one is going to get so hammered by any conceivable Supreme Court. The law requires objective standards and "obscenity" is intrinsically subjective.

Miracles aren't what they used to be. Loaves and fishes, walking on water, resurrection . . . bare tit.

 

[NoJo]

That's really not a fair description of libertarian philosophy.

A nihilist wants to tear existing social structures down (in the hope of replacing them with something better or simply for the hell of it). A libertarian wants to replace government control of citizens with individual responsibility.

I'm met many libertarians who think of themselves as 'anarchists,' but none who consider themselves 'nihilists.'

For me, libertarianism is the best and worst of America. It's certainly a very good test of which side of the Atlantic you're from.
Europeans are much more into the idea of a State.

 

[KenJames]

For me, libertarianism is the best and worst of America. It's certainly a very good test of which side of the Atlantic you're from.
Europeans are much more into the idea of a State.

Although there is a Libertarian party in the United States, its presidential candidates have received 1-2% of the vote for the past 20 years, rivaling the Socialist Workers party. Most people recognize that true Libertarianism is intrinsically unworkable.

 

[NoJo]

Although there is a Libertarian party in the United States, its presidential candidates have received 1-2% of the vote for the past 20 years, rivaling the Socialist Workers party. Most people recognize that true Libertarianism is intrinsically unworkable.

I guess a Libertarian party is amost sef-defeating. What's their policy? I guess something like "If elected, we promise to do jack."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not trying to excuse Janet. It was a stupid publicity stunt, although I still think there was a one in ten chance that she didn't actually expect to show a bare (except for the hardware) breast.

So many incidents are perfect for conspiracy theories; Pearl Harbor, Roswell, 9/11, . . . Janet (Is that the biggest anticlimax since "For country, God and Yale?").

Much has been made of "titty-gate" in the corporate-owned, generally right-wing leaning, so-called "liberal" media, but after the initial titillation (Bevis and Butthead moment!), the public's reaction has largely been "yawn!"

Yeah, right-leaning Clear Channel dropped Howard Stern after getting fined $400 K (16 incidents at $50K). He's done similar things thousands of times, the fine would have been in the billions if a consistent standard had been applied. He's still on the air and his production company's attitude about future legal action is "bring it on."

Congress: $500,000 per obscene incident (whatever "obscene" means; "obscene" tits – SWAT teams to "National Geographic!"). Despite the wishes of the Ashcroft-Bush Department of Injustice (I gotta ask – was "Asscroft" a typo? It's so perfect!), that one is going to get so hammered by any conceivable Supreme Court. The law requires objective standards and "obscenity" is intrinsically subjective.

Miracles aren't what they used to be. Loaves and fishes, walking on water, resurrection . . . bare tit.

asscroft was no typo

-Colly

 

[RenzaJones]

okay it seems I've grown a wishbone where my backbone should be

as sexual repression can lead to aggression, a culture of war can equate intimacy with violence. So these days, it comes as no surprise that lethal weapons are often described in loving, phallic terms. What's needed is a good long look at sexuality today -
Maybe then weapons wouldn't be idolized and women dehumanized. Maybe then governmental funding for creative, life-affirming programs would outpace that for weaponry and war.