🚀 go-pugleaf

bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
news:bearclaw-04820D.11424327072006@news.supernews.com: 

> Just unbelievable. 
> 
> God help the sensitive ears of those who can't stand hearing
> veterans say BULLSHIT and ASSHOLE. Thanks for nothing, Bush
> moralists. 

The FCC regs have been in place for decades. If someone complains,
the FCC acts. 

If you want freedom in broadcast media, get rid of government
control. 

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>Just unbelievable. 
>
>God help the sensitive ears of those who can't stand hearing veterans 
>say BULLSHIT and ASSHOLE. Thanks for nothing, Bush moralists.
>
>
>The story in the NYT:
>
><http://tinyurl.com/fgjbo>

Frankly, I'm on the side of the FCC.  There are enough media streams
that are polluted with jerks and professional pottie mouths like
Howard Stern.  If they want to run uncensored, let 'em show it after
10 PM.  How hard is that?  This is not a question of absolute
censorship, but one of PBS trying to get more market share.  If they
were to win a court case, all it would mean is more lowering of the
already low standards of television, because the door was re-opened.
In this case, I'll say Hooray Bush moralists, just do the same to Ann
Cuntter.
 

In article <Xns980D7A3D1F99FVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
 Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> The FCC regs have been in place for decades.

Zatso? So, what has changed? Anything? Nothing?

> If you want freedom in broadcast media, get rid of government
> control. 

You mean like when the Florida Supreme Court graced Fox News with 
explicit freedom to outright lie to its viewers? 

Suits me. I have an on/off switch and a channel selector on my 
television. They are supplemented by a "mute" switch. 

Both are quite effective whenever profane, amoral, offensive, pinheaded 
"neocons" pop up spewing their age-old screeds-- like our "Syria Shit" 
president, for example. Or his "Go Fuck Yourself" vice-president. Why 
don't Bush and Cheney have to pay fines? Oh, right, they are above the 
laws that they use to suppress the rest of us.

Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who fought the 
kind of fascism our current government offers us. All it goes to show is 
that it is hard to soar with eagles when there are nothing but turkeys 
to lead us.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com: 

> Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who fought
> the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All it goes
> to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when there are
> nothing but turkeys to lead us.

Good thing we have elections every two years.

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

In article <44cef413.15418443@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> There are enough media streams that are polluted with jerks and 
> professional pottie mouths like Howard Stern.

When you say "enough", can you be more specific? How many is "enough"? 
What exactly do you object to? How will  government censorship of 
celebrities, much less veterans, improve the nation or the quality of 
life therein? 

> If they want to run uncensored, let 'em show it after 10 PM.  How 
> hard is that?

Supposing I *want* my kids exposed to these voices and the reality they 
represent? Why should I have to get them up after 10 PM simply to 
satisfy some bluenose?

> This is not a question of absolute censorship, but one of PBS trying 
> to get more market share.

Hogwash, Harry. This action, carried out by the F.C.C., represents 
official codified suppression policies of the United States Government. 
This is the very definition of censorship. In this particular instance, 
the content is of great historical value. Who are any of us to judge the 
value of such programming for anyone else?

> If they were to win a court case, all it would mean is more lowering 
> of the already low standards of television, because the door was 
> re-opened.

Whose standards, Harry? Walt Disney? Your local Concerned Women for 
America? The Conservative Baptist Association? Al Quaida? The American 
Nazi party? Elmer Fudd?

> In this case, I'll say Hooray Bush moralists, just do the same to Ann 
> Cuntter.

See, that's the thing about censorship. It is NEVER, EVER equally 
applied. I would guess that with this particular administration, YOU 
would be gagged and restrained before that harridan. In my view, either 
is equally unjust (although Coulter's suppression is infinitely more 
desirable to me).

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone else?

Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived.  The
argument that was used then that no censorship is acceptable was a
rallying cry to allow _adults_ who actively wanted to see X rated
material to be able to do so.

There is censorship now, there always has been, and in many cases it
has been for the good of both the individual and the community.  The
availability of adult material does not mean it has to be so blatant
that it drags society into the gutter, nor that it has to be available
to children.  Even within the adult film community, there is
censorship, both imposed and self-imposed.  Even that inherently
liberal community has limits to what it considers acceptable.

>Supposing I *want* my kids exposed to these voices and the reality they 
>represent? Why should I have to get them up after 10 PM simply to 
>satisfy some bluenose?

Now that is a debate point that has absolutely no merit.  You can
videotape and time shift a show like that and make it available at any
hour of the day or night.  There is a big difference between the ideas
of being available, in-your-face, or censored.

> If they were to win a court case, all it would mean is more lowering 
> of the already low standards of television, because the door was 
> re-opened.

>Whose standards, Harry? Walt Disney? Your local Concerned Women for 
>America? The Conservative Baptist Association? Al Quaida? The American 
>Nazi party? Elmer Fudd?

Without controls, any industry in a capitalist society is duty-bound
to provide the least product at the greatest profit they can achieve.
Sinclair Lewis pointed that out years ago.  The food and drug act is a
form of censorship.  Certain products are censored for the general
health of the public.  Try to walk into an ice-cream shop and order
cocaine in your soda.  Try to buy unpasteurized milk that hasn't been
rigorously tested.  Try to have a 12 year old go to a store to buy you
cigarettes and beer.  That is all censorship without the politically
charged label.

You ask who should set the standards.  The proper standards are
community standards that are set by the local communities and states.
Did you know it is illegal in Florida for a kid under 18 to attend an
R-rated film when not accompanied by a parent?  The film industry set
the rating as a _voluntary_ rating at age 17.  The community of
elected representatives in Florida made following that rating system
mandatory and stricter.  Does it make sense to me?  Nope, but I can
understand the concern and had no problem enforcing that law.
Standards are set whether you have censors or not, it is simply that
censorship isn't as obvious if there isn't a group "in charge" of it.
Do you really expect the media to be any less biased that any other
censor?  

>Whose standards, Harry? Walt Disney? Your local Concerned Women for 
>America? The Conservative Baptist Association? Al Quaida? The American 
>Nazi party? Elmer Fudd?

Nope, the local community via complaints and kudos.  You already know
that some individual stations refused to air, or went out of their way
to air, politically slanted programs prior to the last election.  Are
you suggesting that the censorship of the public airwaves is under
absolute control of the station owner, without any regard for the
community?  The law is against you.  The use of the public airwaves is
based on a license granted, where the licensee in turn agrees to
uphold community standards and maintain a certain percentage of
program time for public interest programming and education.

There is very little mass media material that isn't edited or censored
in some way, even if it is only the censorship of a biased film-maker.
The movie "JFK" contains glaring historical inaccuracies, yet it made
it to the screen.  The Moore films contain some nutcase associations,
yet they make it to the screen.  Rush Limbaugh lies out his ass and
yet his program makes it over the air.  In my own mind, these are all
propaganda pieces and should be immediately followed with independent
verification or rebuttal by a group of scholars with opposing views
and facts.  Censor, no.  Bring back to reality, yes.

BTW, Ever wonder why the good guys almost always win in the end, when
watching a Hollywood film or a tv show?  Censorship can be adding as
well as subtracting.

As for �The War,� Ms. Drain called it �the perfect test case for the
F.C.C., because who�s going to take on veterans of this country who
put their lives at risk for an honest, just cause?�

�It�s not pornographic; it�s not scatological,� she said. �It�s an
emotional expression of a reality they experienced, and it�s part of
the historical record.�

And it is not about relating the historical record, but providing a
wedge for other programs with less merit.  Face it, how many films and
"documentaries" have you seen about WWII that weren't one-sided?
Where are the documentaries that show any sympathetic side to German
citizens or soldiers?  Where are the documentaries that show the
events leading to war in any fashion other than as a brief prelude to
Hitler's rise to power?

For that matter, how many films and documentaries do you see on the
civil war that attempt to reconstruct the point of view of a
southerner without dismissing those views?  Censorship is inherent in
the system.

What goes over the airwaves has to meet the intent of the director,
the vetting of the production company or producers, the standards of
the network buying the production, and the community standards clause
from the FCC.  And you're complaining about the removal of curse
words, required only if the show is before 10 PM???  Methinks your
priorities are mixed up and your anger vented in the wrong direction.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:55:16 GMT, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
>>Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone else?
>
>Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
>films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
>conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived. 

Hey, I suppose I was risking arrest on the john side by going to the
theatre to see it.  Great film, and that x-rating was a joke.
Reminds me, did you show "Joe?"  That was one over-the-top
film - lol remembering the tommy-gun scene - and at least had a Susan
Sarandon full-frontal. 

ps. I'm with you on the cussing - we don't need that sh*it on TV.
Bad enough enduring the f*uckwits spouting it here.  

--Vic

Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:55:16 GMT, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>
>>>Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone else?
>>
>>Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
>>films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
>>conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived. 
>
>Hey, I suppose I was risking arrest on the john side by going to the
>theatre to see it.  Great film, and that x-rating was a joke.
>Reminds me, did you show "Joe?"  That was one over-the-top
>film - lol remembering the tommy-gun scene - and at least had a Susan
>Sarandon full-frontal. 

Yep.  Showed it.  Didn't get a chance to show Green Door or Devil in
Ms. Jones, another theatre took those.

>ps. I'm with you on the cussing - we don't need that sh*it on TV.
>Bad enough enduring the f*uckwits spouting it here.  
>
>--Vic

Thanks.

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com...

> Both are quite effective whenever profane, amoral, offensive, pinheaded
> "neocons" pop up spewing their age-old screeds-- like our "Syria Shit"
> president, for example. Or his "Go Fuck Yourself" vice-president. Why
> don't Bush and Cheney have to pay fines? Oh, right, they are above the
> laws that they use to suppress the rest of us.

People are free to use naughty words in their private conversations.
But those who intercept those private conversations and broadcast them
may get in trouble.

Don

<hchickpea@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:44d255d3.40446294@news.earthlink.net...
> Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:55:16 GMT, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>>Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone 
>>>>else?
>>>
>>>Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
>>>films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
>>>conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived.
>>
>>Hey, I suppose I was risking arrest on the john side by going to the
>>theatre to see it.  Great film, and that x-rating was a joke.
>>Reminds me, did you show "Joe?"  That was one over-the-top
>>film - lol remembering the tommy-gun scene - and at least had a Susan
>>Sarandon full-frontal.
>
> Yep.  Showed it.  Didn't get a chance to show Green Door or Devil in
> Ms. Jones, another theatre took those.
>
>>ps. I'm with you on the cussing - we don't need that sh*it on TV.
>>Bad enough enduring the f*uckwits spouting it here.
>>
>>--Vic
>
> Thanks.

My only contribution to this is to note that they are *real* words, spoken 
by *real* people, as opposed to actors reading lines.  It is a documentary. 
They are not actors reading someone's lines.  They are expressing themselves 
(maybe as best they know how) and it is the duty of the documentary camera 
to record exactly what was said.  When a lion kills a zebra on National 
Geographic we do not expect the camera to turn away at the (obscene to some) 
final moment. 

"Billzz" <billzzstring@starband.net> wrote:

>My only contribution to this is to note that they are *real* words, spoken 
>by *real* people, as opposed to actors reading lines.  It is a documentary. 
>They are not actors reading someone's lines.  They are expressing themselves 
>(maybe as best they know how) and it is the duty of the documentary camera 
>to record exactly what was said.  When a lion kills a zebra on National 
>Geographic we do not expect the camera to turn away at the (obscene to some) 
>final moment. 

That is a salient point.  Certainly the best documentaries minimize
the effect of the director in favor of the events and people involved.
However, I'm cynical enough and have been around enough ENG
(electronic news gathering) to know that the full story is rarely
related, properly or not.  I've watched talent seek out water filled
ditches to stand in to indicate life-threatening flooding, and have
seen them "enhance" reality while still staying within the bounds of
journalism. I'm also old enough to remember controversy about a
predecessor to the NGC, "Wild Kingdom," which allegedly forced some
"natural death" scenes between animals, and although I'm not quite
that old, I'm aware of the early precedent of Matthew Brady's
photographers moving the bodies of civil war soldiers into better
positions before taking stereographs of them.

The image, the screen, whether it is big or small, is used by any
accomplished film maker or photojournalist to subtly tweak responses
in the audience.  The moment you start to tell a story, provide links
between events, or use anything but an impersonal camera angle, you
begin to play with both the events and the audience.  Those are
largely what make a show interesting.  That dichotomy between art and
reality inevitably leads to conflicts.

On a small scale, I can provide a classic example of this.  A story
was just related today in a group that I subscribe to.  The writer of
a post in that group proudly described how he put together slide
images from a diving expedition and presented them in a brief but
entertaining and beautiful presentation.  One of the audience members
at that show was a person who had been on the same diving expedition
and had watched the shots being taken.  He came up to the presenter
after the show, with the immediate comment "Those slides weren't in
chronological order."  The two of them then stared uncomprehendingly
at each other, the expedition member wondering why the true story
wasn't told, and the presenter wondering why the expedition member
didn't understand the importance of the flow and art of the
presentation.

The curse words are part of the director's personal mental image of a
proper presentation.  To him, it is an important "slide" in his show
that adds color.  To others, it may or may not.  In any event, I
seriously doubt that his documentary will come anywhere close to
matching Frank Capra's admittedly biased "Why We Fight," which FWIW,
was shot on location during the war and shown without resorting to
cursing.

"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns980D82C061B17VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
> news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com:
>
> > Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who fought
> > the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All it goes
> > to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when there are
> > nothing but turkeys to lead us.
>
> Good thing we have elections every two years.

Only if somehow we can make them honest.

Bob

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:33:19 GMT, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

snip 
>
>The curse words are part of the director's personal mental image of a
>proper presentation.  To him, it is an important "slide" in his show
>that adds color.  To others, it may or may not.  In any event, I
>seriously doubt that his documentary will come anywhere close to
>matching Frank Capra's admittedly biased "Why We Fight," which FWIW,
>was shot on location during the war and shown without resorting to
>cursing.

"Biased" understates it a bit.
Some thought provoking stuff there.
While visiting his home one of my sons showed me a WWII Disney
propaganda cartoon on the whole wall projection system which the
former owner included with the house.  Pretty impressive.  The
projection, that is.  The Disney cartoon was of excellent quality, and
mocked Hitler in caricature but was essentially soft on the Germans,
depicting them as simply brainwashed by Hitler and the Nazis. 
He's a school teacher, uses this in his class, and is very interested
in historical films.
I told him to get Frank Capra's propaganda, because there is none
better.  I think it was "Why We Fight" - not sure - that I saw years
ago in a Capra bio, perhaps on PBS.
As I told my son, Capra went right after the German people and
culture, showing them dancing and drinking, then waging war, then
dancing and drinking, then again waging war.  Basically implied that
the menace of Germany should be wiped off the face of the earth.
The intended impact was to make sure our soldiers felt no hesitation
about blasting anything on 2 legs in Germany, man woman or child.
Got me going, and the war was at least 30 years in the past!
Yes, there was no cussing used, and the art performed a feat that
common cussing is incapable of doing.
Great stuff. 

--Vic        

bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote in
news:Ltednff-0aHBFlTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com: 

> 
> "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns980D82C061B17VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
>> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
>> news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com:
>>
>> > Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who
>> > fought the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All
>> > it goes to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when
>> > there are nothing but turkeys to lead us.
>>
>> Good thing we have elections every two years.
> 
> Only if somehow we can make them honest.

They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered much
before. 

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> Just unbelievable.
>
> God help the sensitive ears of those who can't stand hearing veterans
> say BULLSHIT and ASSHOLE. Thanks for nothing, Bush moralists.
>
>
> The story in the NYT:
> 
> <http://tinyurl.com/fgjbo>

At least they're being consistent.

"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns980E526FF1ED5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote in
> news:Ltednff-0aHBFlTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> >
> > "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns980D82C061B17VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> >> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
> >> news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com:
> >>
> >> > Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who
> >> > fought the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All
> >> > it goes to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when
> >> > there are nothing but turkeys to lead us.
> >>
> >> Good thing we have elections every two years.
> >
> > Only if somehow we can make them honest.
>
> They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered much
> before.

I think you should do a little reading about the last 2 presidential elections.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_exit_polls
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/26/a_call_to_investigate_the_2004_election/
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm

or
http://www.google.com/search?q=election+discrepancies+2000+2004&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
for more.

Bob

bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote in
news:3ZednTZSuPU90FfZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com: 

> "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns980E526FF1ED5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
>> bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote in
>> news:Ltednff-0aHBFlTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns980D82C061B17VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
>> >> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
>> >> news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who
>> >> > fought the kind of fascism our current government offers us.
>> >> > All it goes to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles
>> >> > when there are nothing but turkeys to lead us.
>> >>
>> >> Good thing we have elections every two years.
>> >
>> > Only if somehow we can make them honest.
>>
>> They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered
>> much before.
> 
> I think you should do a little reading about the last 2
> presidential elections. 

That's only meaningful if you believe the last two elections were
somehow different from all the elections that went before, other than
in the amount of media coverage the irregularities received. 

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
> bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote
>> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
>>> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote

>>>> Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who
>>>> fought the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All
>>>> it goes to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when
>>>> there are nothing but turkeys to lead us.

>>> Good thing we have elections every two years.

>> Only if somehow we can make them honest.

> They're as honest as they've ever been.
> It's just never mattered much before.

Doesnt matter much now either.

Thats what elections are all about, if they get too far out
of line, the plug can be pulled on the worst of the offenders.

And the chief chimp isnt up for reelection anyway. 

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:46:44 -0700, "Bob" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns980E526FF1ED5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
>> bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote in
>> news:Ltednff-0aHBFlTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns980D82C061B17VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
>> >> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
>> >> news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who
>> >> > fought the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All
>> >> > it goes to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when
>> >> > there are nothing but turkeys to lead us.
>> >>
>> >> Good thing we have elections every two years.
>> >
>> > Only if somehow we can make them honest.
>>
>> They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered much
>> before.
>
>I think you should do a little reading about the last 2 presidential elections.
>
>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_exit_polls
>http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf
>http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm
>http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/
>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/26/a_call_to_investigate_the_2004_election/
>http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm
>
>or
>http://www.google.com/search?q=election+discrepancies+2000+2004&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
>for more.
>
>Bob
>

When you're through with that, try Mad Magazine, the Onion, or perhaps
Gremm's Fairy Tales.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <Xns980D7A3D1F99FVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
>  Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > The FCC regs have been in place for decades.
>
> Zatso? So, what has changed? Anything? Nothing?
>
> > If you want freedom in broadcast media, get rid of government
> > control.
>
> You mean like when the Florida Supreme Court graced Fox News with
> explicit freedom to outright lie to its viewers?
> 

WTF are you talking about?

hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
> >Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone else?
>
> Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
> films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
> conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived.  The
> argument that was used then that no censorship is acceptable was a
> rallying cry to allow _adults_ who actively wanted to see X rated
> material to be able to do so.
>

You, sir, are a true American hero


> There is censorship now, there always has been, and in many cases it
> has been for the good of both the individual and the community.  The
> availability of adult material does not mean it has to be so blatant
> that it drags society into the gutter, nor that it has to be available
> to children.  Even within the adult film community, there is
> censorship, both imposed and self-imposed.  Even that inherently
> liberal community has limits to what it considers acceptable.
> 

Ever see any Max Hardcore flicks?

Bob wrote:
> "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns980E526FF1ED5VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> > bobnospam@gmail.com (Bob) wrote in
> > news:Ltednff-0aHBFlTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com:
> >
> > >
> > > "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns980D82C061B17VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> > >> bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
> > >> news:bearclaw-24F115.12204727072006@news.supernews.com:
> > >>
> > >> > Let's censor them instead of the voices of men and women who
> > >> > fought the kind of fascism our current government offers us. All
> > >> > it goes to show is that it is hard to soar with eagles when
> > >> > there are nothing but turkeys to lead us.
> > >>
> > >> Good thing we have elections every two years.
> > >
> > > Only if somehow we can make them honest.
> >
> > They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered much
> > before.
>
> I think you should do a little reading about the last 2 presidential elections.
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_exit_polls
> http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf
> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/26/a_call_to_investigate_the_2004_election/
> http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm
>
> or
> http://www.google.com/search?q=election+discrepancies+2000+2004&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
> for more.
>
> Bob

More conspiratorial nutjob drivel from the perpetual losers, who don't
know how to do anything else, but lose and then whine about it and cry
foul.

And Kennedy's article it was debunked by another leftist publication.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/index_np.html

millhaven@intergate.com wrote:

>
>hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
>> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>
>> >Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone else?
>>
>> Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
>> films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
>> conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived.  The
>> argument that was used then that no censorship is acceptable was a
>> rallying cry to allow _adults_ who actively wanted to see X rated
>> material to be able to do so.
>>
>
>You, sir, are a true American hero

Yeah, fuck-off, more of a somewhat scared kid who was fed up with blue
laws and looking to keep working, but then most "heroes" who are
honest have similar stories.  Damn, there is a great movie line on the
subject in Stunt Man, but I don't remember it right now.
>
>> There is censorship now, there always has been, and in many cases it
>> has been for the good of both the individual and the community.  The
>> availability of adult material does not mean it has to be so blatant
>> that it drags society into the gutter, nor that it has to be available
>> to children.  Even within the adult film community, there is
>> censorship, both imposed and self-imposed.  Even that inherently
>> liberal community has limits to what it considers acceptable.
>> 
>
>Ever see any Max Hardcore flicks?

Leave it to you to dig up the dregs.  Why not ask Bearclaw to champion
his being  on primetime broadcast as an artistic genius?   IMO, Max
just needs a dose of his own ... a few times, and then a ticket to a
padded room.

In article <epKdnfg7647dwFTZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:

> People are free to use naughty words in their private conversations.

Really? So, I can immerse a crucifix in a bottle of urine and display it 
as art?

How about an exhibition of family photos of the Iraqi girl who was raped 
and murdered, along with her family and set on fire by American G.I.s? 
You think that would be considered obscene by the government? How about 
if it was broadcast during primetime?

Can I tell some street corner preacher that he is full of shit? You 
know, without getting arrested? How about a Congressman? 

The threat of violence or imprisonment over private or even political 
speech in this country has gone far beyond justification and is rapidly 
approaching criminal suppression.

In article <Xns980E86A59B2FCVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
 Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> That's only meaningful if you believe the last two elections were
> somehow different from all the elections that went before, other than
> in the amount of media coverage the irregularities received. 

Every U.S. election is different in every respect from all preceding 
U.S. elections. 

I can guarantee that if previous elections were as contested as these 
most recent, the Federal government would have had an army of 
investigators looking into the matter. The plain fact is that 
unaddressed executive arrogations of Constitutional law have become 
commonplace enough to convince people like you that the nation has 
always been that way.

It has not.

In news:bearclaw-AA3550.21272901082006@news.supernews.com
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote: 

> In article <Xns980D7A3D1F99FVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
>  Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> 
>> The FCC regs have been in place for decades. If someone complains,
>> the FCC acts. 
> 
> In this case, if someone contributes enough to campaign coffers, the FCC
> follows orders.
> 
>> If you want freedom in broadcast media, get rid of government
>> control.
> 
> We already have a Constitution that denies the government any power not 
> specifically granted it. Not that this administration pays any 
> particular attention to it.

Just like the administration before it, and the administration before
that, and the administration before that, and ... 

The FCC has been around for decades.

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>In article <44cfb698.5077265@news.earthlink.net>, hchickpea@hotmail.com 
>wrote:
>
>> I'm more accurately saying that there is a time and place for 
>> everything, and that there will always be attempts to push the 
>> limits.
>
>For which I am eternally grateful, myself. Art that doesn't inflame 
>doesn't inspire.

That last sentence makes no sense.  You are suggesting that emotions
have to be triggered to classifiy art as inspirational.  I think you
have it confused with pornography, which by definition enflames one or
more emotions.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>Thanks, it was just the DSL modem. There was no structural damamge. 
>Everything else was on either a UPS or surge protector. The only reason 
>the modem wasn't protected was because I am such a lazy bastard.

A friend recently lost his entire computer that way, even though I had
explained to him many times about surges, and purchased protection for
his computer.  (I should talk, I lost a tivo modem the same way.)

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>In article <44cfb698.5077265@news.earthlink.net>, hchickpea@hotmail.com 
>wrote:
>
>> IMO, adults best serve children by acting in an a manner that
>> reinforces the expectations of civilized society.
>
>I hope those expectations include constant and serious (if not grave) 
>challenges to convention and taboo, most if not all of which are based 
>outside of genuine reason and thus destructive-- generally to the least 
>among us.

LOL.  Anarchists of the world unite!

Many conventions, laws, governments, taboos, etc. ARE designed to keep
the people in power in power, and the rich rich.  Many are designed to
protect the majority.  Some are designed to set mimimum standards.

I have no problem working in dirt and manure during the day, but that
doesn't mean I want myself or anyone around me in a fine restaurant to
smell of unwashed hog shit.

>Anything less is uncivilized.

As is a lot of what you are suggesting.  :-)

In article <Xns9812DC4D7CFFBVeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7>,
 Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> Just like the administration before it, and the administration before
> that, and the administration before that, and ... 

Certainly not with the brazen contempt of the Bush administration. 
Clinton was perhaps the nearest.

> The FCC has been around for decades.

Not Bush's FCC.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>I don't know about you, but I often and unreservedly use harsh language 
>when my wounds suppurate unaddressed. Doctors just LOVE me.

I don't.  But then I don't have wounds that discharge and need care.
If you need to "use harsh language" to get care, then something is
wrong in the system that gives you care, or the way you interact with
it.  Maybe swearing is the answer.  I dunno.  I know if you swore at
me I'd tell you where to stuff the gauze. if you ever did it again.

In article <44d11164.28324955@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> That last sentence makes no sense.

"Art that doesn't inflame doesn't inspire".

Great art always manages to offend. The most inspirational generally 
offends the most in grained conventions. That does NOT mean that 
everything offensive is great art. Reflexive public vulgarity rarely 
rises to great art, but more than a few great artists have practiced 
it. None of our most revered historical characters were overly 
concerned about public mores. In fact most of them were decidedly 
opposed to convention or socially accepted practices. 

> You are suggesting that emotions have to be triggered to classifiy 
> art as inspirational.

Not at all. I assert that art MUST elicit some deep _individual_ 
reaction that extends beyond thought or reason to be considered art at 
all.

Art that bores is not art.

> I think you have it confused with pornography, which by definition 
> enflames one or more emotions.

Harry, lift your eyes. Look up. Discern. You do not need government to 
tell the difference. Nobody does.

In article <44d313d7.28951625@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> LOL.  Anarchists of the world unite!

I prefer to think of it as "People of Good Conscience Unite".

> I have no problem working in dirt and manure during the day, but that
> doesn't mean I want myself or anyone around me in a fine restaurant to
> smell of unwashed hog shit.

Funny you should mention it. I live in a rural area that grows the food 
you eat. Hogshit is a staple of the food you eat or the food fed to the 
food you eat. Looks a little different when it is on YOUR plate, though, 
huh?

I never thought I would be able to tell different manures apart by their 
very smell, but there you go.

> As is a lot of what you are suggesting.  :-)

A civilization so threatened by mere words will never achieve stability. 
Without stability, no civilization can survive.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>In article <Xns9812DC4D7CFFBVeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7>,
> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> Just like the administration before it, and the administration before
>> that, and the administration before that, and ... 
>
>Certainly not with the brazen contempt of the Bush administration. 
>Clinton was perhaps the nearest.
>
>> The FCC has been around for decades.
>
>Not Bush's FCC.

You are out of your waters.  I was constantly aware of the power the
FCC in the 1950s and 1960s had to shut down or revoke the license of
radio and television stations.  One sentence out of Howard Stern's
mouth would have shut a station up tight.  Newton Minow was as close
to a king as they come in a line of kings.  No one in broadcasting
dared cross him in any way.
<http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/minownewton/minownewton.htm>

In article <44d41607.29512249@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> I don't.  But then I don't have wounds that discharge and need care.

Something to be grateful for.

> If you need to "use harsh language" to get care, then something is 
> wrong in the system that gives you care, or the way you interact with 
> it.

Bingo. It is just words. Tools used to communicate. Some use them more 
purposefully, more intentionally than others. Sometimes they can have 
enormous effect.

I tend to agree with you that cursing is usually born of a frustrating 
inability to express what is really going on. I also agree that it 
generally inhibits the flow of ideas rather than nourishing them. The 
difference between us seems to be that I believe others can and will 
figure all that out without the government commanding "YOU CAN'T 
HEAR/SEE/THINK THIS."

I think my worst fear is missing an idea that could flourish into 
something remarkable, maybe even earthshaking. Pissant terrorism can't 
hold a candle to that. Even the Loma Prieta earthquake wasn't as 
nightmarish (and it was pretty frickin' scary).

> Maybe swearing is the answer.  I dunno.  

Maybe it is, sometimes. Maybe it is just one of many.

> I know if you swore at me I'd tell you where to stuff the gauze. if 
> you ever did it again.

Damn straight. Good for you.

In article <44d51b11.30802260@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> 
> >In article <Xns9812DC4D7CFFBVeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7>,
> > Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just like the administration before it, and the administration before
> >> that, and the administration before that, and ... 
> >
> >Certainly not with the brazen contempt of the Bush administration. 
> >Clinton was perhaps the nearest.
> >
> >> The FCC has been around for decades.
> >
> >Not Bush's FCC.
> 
> You are out of your waters.  I was constantly aware of the power the
> FCC in the 1950s and 1960s had to shut down or revoke the license of
> radio and television stations.  One sentence out of Howard Stern's
> mouth would have shut a station up tight.  Newton Minow was as close
> to a king as they come in a line of kings.  No one in broadcasting
> dared cross him in any way.
> <http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/minownewton/minownewton.htm>

Okay, so is that what you are promoting? Should we return to the good 
ol' days when Lucy had to sleep separate from Ricky? When the greatest 
affection June could show Ward was a peck on the cheek (Christ, what a 
eunuchoid he was).

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>Funny you should mention it. I live in a rural area that grows the food 
>you eat. 

Does a fifth generation family farm count?

>Hogshit is a staple of the food you eat or the food fed to the 
>food you eat. Looks a little different when it is on YOUR plate, though, 
>huh?

Coprophagy is natural in pigs.  I think I was about five or six when I
first learned that by watching one enjoy a good steamer.  I won't bore
you telling you about my having to clean up humans with the same habit
when I worked in a hospital.  Being somewhat civilized, I try to
distinguish what goes in from what goes out, and dine with those who
understand the concept. YMMV

>I never thought I would be able to tell different manures apart by their 
>very smell, but there you go.

Heck, I could tell a piggery from cow dung before I was on solid food,
and silage fed from pasture fed soon after.  You must be a slow
learner. :-)

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>Okay, so is that what you are promoting? Should we return to the good 
>ol' days when Lucy had to sleep separate from Ricky? When the greatest 
>affection June could show Ward was a peck on the cheek (Christ, what a 
>eunuchoid he was).

There is no going back to that at this point, even if it was possible.
I'm not "promoting" as much as "defending."  I'm defending the concept
that one media stream, for a certain part of the day, can be allowed
to exist without the intrusion of offensive images or language.

There are magazines, newspapers, books, AM radio, FM radio, video tape
and DVDs, internet, streaming internet, pay per view, cable channels,
sat. radio, cellphones, the list goes on and on, and with the
exception of family time on tv, almost all of it is subject to
whatever vulgarity happens to sell products aimed at teens.

This one isn't about censoring freedom of expression, but about
creating a clear space in the already contaminated pool where we don't
have to hold our noses and shove away the floating poop.

In article <44d62078.32185260@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> Coprophagy is natural in pigs.

Chimps, too. I watched in horror as they happily ate fresh at the Bronx 
Zoo.

> You must be a slow learner. :-)

Coprophilia is an acquired, um, talent often denied to us born and 
raised in the city.

Although I do have to say that after just one year in the countryside, I 
can now instantly tell the difference between dogshit, catshit, 
chickenshit, horseshit, pigshit and cowshit.

Without ever actually seeing any of it, I mean.

As the great and honorable poet Loudon Wainwright III put it (in his 
immortal "Dead Skunk In The Middle Of The Road"): 

"Bless me, that ain't no rose;
 Roll up your windows and hold your nose:
 You don't need to look and you don't need to see
 'Cause you can feel it in your olfactory"

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0500, bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>In article <Xns980E86A59B2FCVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> That's only meaningful if you believe the last two elections were
>> somehow different from all the elections that went before, other than
>> in the amount of media coverage the irregularities received. 
>
>Every U.S. election is different in every respect from all preceding 
>U.S. elections. 
>
>I can guarantee that if previous elections were as contested as these 
>most recent, the Federal government would have had an army of 
>investigators looking into the matter. The plain fact is that 
>unaddressed executive arrogations of Constitutional law have become 
>commonplace enough to convince people like you that the nation has 
>always been that way.
>
You know, I hear where you're coming from, and agree with many of your
points.  The unconstitutional acts of Bush (the most offensive to me
being disclaiming legislation as he signs it) will be addressed by Dem
politicians when and if they get control of Congress, and given the
state of the Dem party that would be a mixed blessing.  In any case
all of his bullshit and incompetence and that of his cronies will be
exposed to the investigative light of time.  
And as much as the light will glare and heat and expose, it won't
cuss, because cussing would cloud its clarity.  The light knows that.
You're just over the top on that.  Same goes for a crucifix in piss.
Shock and vulgarity aren't art, and all such attempts quickly fade
away except as news items.  But I do enjoy your passion.
Have a beer.

--Vic 

hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> 
>>I don't know about you, but I often and unreservedly use harsh language 
>>when my wounds suppurate unaddressed. Doctors just LOVE me.
> 
> I don't.  But then I don't have wounds that discharge and need care.
> If you need to "use harsh language" to get care, then something is
> wrong in the system that gives you care, or the way you interact with
> it.  

I would guess that the quiet, polite people in the emergency room are 
the last to be served.  The screaming patient gets the anaesthetic. 
Triage exists, might as well take advantage of the system.

> Maybe swearing is the answer.  I dunno.  I know if you swore at
> me I'd tell you where to stuff the gauze. if you ever did it again.

Bad language is sometimes a useful tool.  A sprinkling of "shit!" 
ensures that the mechanic will not give you the "little lady" treatment.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
**********************************************
"I've had a Lucas pacemaker for years and have
  never experienced any prob

hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> Coprophagy is natural in pigs.  

Also in Dachshund puppies, as I found out when sitting with my 
grandspawn, their dog and two cats.  Damn dog regarded the catbox as an 
hors d'oeuvre tray.  Gave new meaning to "crudit�s".

Another good (and frugal) use for those long thin plastic bags that some 
newspapers are delivered in;  did you know they actually SELL bags to 
use to pick up dog crap?

-- 
Cheers,
Bev
=================================================================
"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the
  people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty
  with the Constitution."                         -- Ronald Reagan

In article <scWzg.67$4A6.2@fe05.lga>,
 The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Damn dog regarded the catbox as an 
> hors d'oeuvre tray.

I wrote a story about a guy who made a million by turning cat turds into 
dog treats. Couldn't find a publisher. I thought it was a great story.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ja4umF726s4U1@individual.net...
> freeisbest <demeter547opine@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> >> <millhaven@intergate.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered
> >>>>> much before.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you should do a little reading about the last 2
> >>>> presidential elections.
> >>>>
> >>>>
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
> >>>>
> >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_exit_polls
> >>>> http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf
> >>>> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm
> >>>> http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/
> >>>>
> >>
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/26/a_call_to_investigate_the_2004_election/
> >>>> http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm
> >>>>
> >>>> or
> >>>>
> >>
http://www.google.com/search?q=election+discrepancies+2000+2004&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
> >>>> for more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob
> >>>
> >>> More conspiratorial nutjob drivel from the perpetual losers, who
> >>> don't know how to do anything else, but lose and then whine about
> >>> it and cry foul.
> >>>
> >>> And Kennedy's article it was debunked by another leftist
> >>> publication.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/index_np.html
> >>>
> >
> >> Have you actually READ any of these articles, including the one
> >> you cite? I read it, and it does not debunk Kennedy's article at all.
> >> In fact, it only discusses one issue from Kennedy's article, and
> >> it does not at all refute it. But thanks for offering more
> >> documentation questioning the validity of the election.
> >>
> >> I love right wingers. The last thing they want is real democracy.
> >> The second last thing they want is adherance to our constitution.
> >
> >    Well put, and perfectly true.  We've all spent the last 5+ years
> > watching them demonstrate their distaste for government by the people
> > and for the people.
>
> Do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.

If you don't like what we say. please do that yourself. Our constitution
guarantees our right to state the truth.

Bob

The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bad language is sometimes a useful tool.  A sprinkling of "shit!" 
>ensures that the mechanic will not give you the "little lady" treatment.

Sometimes.  Knowing an obscure fact or two about the equipment and
casually bringing it up in context can be even more powerful, as can
calling him "sweetie" in a "bless your little heart" southern
condescending manner.

I accidentally impressed one of my product suppliers once.  The clerk
informed me that a customer of mine had received a multi box collect
UPS shipment and had managed to wheedle the driver into letting him
take all of the boxes but the one that required payment.  I was livid,
but I knew the customer took great stock in being "Christian"
(whatever that meant to him).  I initiated a three way call between
the clerk, him, and me.  Without using a single swear word, I dressed
him down with her on the line and forced him into a full apology for
his actions, and immediate payment.

Swearing would have weakened my position and been counterproductive.
What impressed the clerk was that she had witnessed a number of
similar situations where the person in my position totally lost it,
and still didn't get what they wanted.  Ever since then, she has told
me repeatedly that she would never want to tangle with me in a
dispute.

OTOH, sometimes the fastest way on usenet to make a point is to use a
swear word.  My response to one of millhaven/ss/fmg's posts in this
thread is an example.

Bob <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> freeisbest <demeter547opine@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Bob wrote
>>>> <millhaven@intergate.com> wrote

>>>>>>> They're as honest as they've ever been. It's just never mattered
>>>>>>> much before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you should do a little reading about the last 2
>>>>>> presidential elections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
>>>>>>
>>>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_exit_polls
>>>>>> http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf
>>>>>> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm
>>>>>> http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/
>>>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/26/a_call_to_investigate_the_2004_election/
>>>>>> http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/03parenti.cfm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=election+discrepancies+2000+2004&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
>>>>>> for more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>> More conspiratorial nutjob drivel from the perpetual losers, who
>>>>> don't know how to do anything else, but lose and then whine about
>>>>> it and cry foul.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Kennedy's article it was debunked by another leftist
>>>>> publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/freeman/index_np.html
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Have you actually READ any of these articles, including the one
>>>> you cite? I read it, and it does not debunk Kennedy's article at
>>>> all. In fact, it only discusses one issue from Kennedy's article,
>>>> and
>>>> it does not at all refute it. But thanks for offering more
>>>> documentation questioning the validity of the election.
>>>>
>>>> I love right wingers. The last thing they want is real democracy.
>>>> The second last thing they want is adherance to our constitution.
>>>
>>>    Well put, and perfectly true.  We've all spent the last 5+ years
>>> watching them demonstrate their distaste for government by the
>>> people and for the people.

>> Do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.

> If you don't like what we say. please do that yourself.

No one actually gives a damn what you mindlessly hyperventilating clowns say.

> Our constitution guarantees our right to state the truth.

You wouldnt know what the truth was if it bit you on your lard arse. 

bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
news:bearclaw-460BDE.22560101082006@news.supernews.com: 

> In article <44d51b11.30802260@news.earthlink.net>,
>  hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
>> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <Xns9812DC4D7CFFBVeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7>,
>> > Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just like the administration before it, and the administration
>> >> before that, and the administration before that, and ... 
>> >
>> >Certainly not with the brazen contempt of the Bush
>> >administration. Clinton was perhaps the nearest.
>> >
>> >> The FCC has been around for decades.
>> >
>> >Not Bush's FCC.
>> 
>> You are out of your waters.  I was constantly aware of the power
>> the FCC in the 1950s and 1960s had to shut down or revoke the
>> license of radio and television stations.  One sentence out of
>> Howard Stern's mouth would have shut a station up tight.  Newton
>> Minow was as close to a king as they come in a line of kings.  No
>> one in broadcasting dared cross him in any way.
>> <http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/minownewton/minownewton.
>> htm> 
> 
> Okay, so is that what you are promoting? 

Who's promoting anything?

You were apparently under the impression that government control over
the content of TV and radio programming was something new. 

Someone has now told you differently.

What's ->your point?

Are you going to try to stick to your historical revisionism so that
you can continue to yammer about how oppressive the current
administration is? 

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

bearclaw@cruller.invalid () wrote in
news:bearclaw-312233.21331401082006@news.supernews.com: 

> 
> In article <epKdnfg7647dwFTZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
> 
>> People are free to use naughty words in their private
>> conversations. 
> 
> Really? So, I can immerse a crucifix in a bottle of urine and
> display it as art?

Sure; just don't ask the government to pay for any part of it.

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <44d11164.28324955@news.earthlink.net>,
> hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> That last sentence makes no sense.
>
> "Art that doesn't inflame doesn't inspire".

> Great art always manages to offend.

Utterly mindless silly stuff, most obviously with the
Mona Lisa, virtually all classical music, etc etc etc.

> The most inspirational generally offends the most in grained conventions.

More utterly mindless silly stuff.

That does NOT mean that
> everything offensive is great art. Reflexive public vulgarity rarely
> rises to great art, but more than a few great artists have practiced
> it. None of our most revered historical characters were overly
> concerned about public mores. In fact most of them were decidedly
> opposed to convention or socially accepted practices.
>
>> You are suggesting that emotions have to be triggered to classifiy
>> art as inspirational.
>
> Not at all. I assert that art MUST elicit some deep _individual_
> reaction that extends beyond thought or reason to be considered art at
> all.
>
> Art that bores is not art.
>
>> I think you have it confused with pornography, which by definition
>> enflames one or more emotions.
>
> Harry, lift your eyes. Look up. Discern. You do not need government to
> tell the difference. Nobody does. 

<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> writes:

> God help the sensitive ears of those who can't stand hearing veterans 
> say BULLSHIT and ASSHOLE. Thanks for nothing, Bush moralists.



Surely there are weightier matters on which to vent your righteous
liberal indignation?




Geoff

-- 
"Liberace was a great piano player, but
 he sucked on the organ." -- Mike Oxbig