CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette
Showing posts with label Indecency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indecency. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Industry Giants Ply Congress In Entertaiment Industry


ENTERTAINMENT / INDUSTRY GIANTS PLYING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITH SATCHELS OF CASH SUPERCEDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE


Brent Bozell  III

Bozell Columns Mast Head



Smiley Flag Waver

Law makers in Washington DC face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm.

On the outside are the American people. Across the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with Hollywood’s assault on their values, using the public airwaves they own. On the inside are the lobbyists for the entertainment industry giants, plying members of Congress with satchels of campaign cash, and demanding only … inaction. Which has a greater effect in politics today?



Nobody Runs Against Hollywood


~ By L. Brent Bozell III
November 2, 2006


Looking back at the fall campaign, it’s yet another cycle in which the Republican political brain trust sidestepped the issue of America’s growing concern for indecency oozing out of almost every perfumed pore of Hollywood. This time it may have been the fatal mistake.

The number one issue of importance coming out of the ’04 elections was “moral values,” thus presenting the GOP with the opportunity to pounce on the indecency issue during the ’06 campaign. I visited with one Republican incumbent running for re-election and suggested that this would be an ideal theme for his campaign. He responded that in all his years in the Senate he’d never received as much constituency mail as what landed in his mail box, his email and his voice mail following the Janet Jackson Super Bowl striptease. But he also left me with the clear impression, validated later by his campaign performance, that he’d do nothing on this front.

Republican strategists pull muscles just thinking about Dan Quayle scorning the “Murphy Brown” single-mom plot in 1992.

Here and there was an exception. In TV ads in Pennsylvania, family-values stalwart Sen. Rick Santorum told voters “I'm even working with Hillary Clinton to limit inappropriate material in children’s video games, because it makes more sense to wrestle with America's problems than with each other.” I’m sure a few other candidates had throw-away lines in their stump speeches. But there was nothing of substance, nothing serious coming out of this crowd.

And it was a lost opportunity in another way. The biggest rap against the GOP from its conservative base has been its do-nothing approach to governance, yet on the issue of decency the Republicans could point to a smashing legislative accomplishment. Still, no one could seem to locate the fact that on June 15, President Bush signed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which act increased tenfold the potential of FCC fines to those who continue to violate the public trust by pouring garbage on the public airwaves. The House version of the bill passed in June by a 379-35 margin, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent -- no roll call vote. It was a smashing success, exactly in line with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans.

So why the campaign silence? Maybe it’s because, as with so many other “values” issues, the Republican leadership was never enthusiastic. It’s important to note that it took the Republicans in the Senate two and a half years after the Janet Jackson breast-baring to pass their version of the bill -- and they did so only after massive constituency pressure.

And there’s the rub. The problem is that law makers in Washington DC face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm.

On the outside are the American people. Across the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with Hollywood’s assault on their values, using the public airwaves they own. On the inside are the lobbyists for the entertainment industry giants, plying members of Congress with satchels of campaign cash, and demanding only … inaction. Which has a greater effect in politics today?

Take the idea of cable choice, which would allow viewers to choose their cable channels a la carte and, more importantly, not have to pay for networks they don’t watch or, more emphatically, find personally offensive. It’s a slam-duck idea, one conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike, could endorse.

In June, Sen. John McCain offered an amendment to a Senate telecommunications bill that would have offered regulatory incentives to cable operators to offer cable choice to their subscribers. But it was defeated in committee by a vote of 20 to 2. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike -- they all fled. Only Sen. Olympia Snowe joined McCain in support.

One big reason? Common Cause reports that between 1991 and 2006, major cable industry interests and their trade groups spent more than $105 million on campaign contributions to federal candidates and on lobbying in Washington. Since 2003, major cable companies have ramped up “government affairs” spending and donating to keep Congress and regulatory agencies from asking tough questions about cable mergers, cable price increases, and to suffocate cable choice in the crib.

Will a strengthened Democratic presence in Washington prove to be any different in the indecency debate? In the Senate particularly there are members of that party -- Joe Lieberman, Jay Rockefeller, Byron Dorgan, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lambert Lincoln and Clinton come to mind -- with proven records. A move in this direction could bring waves of conservative Democrats, once-disaffected with their party, and now disdainful of their adopted GOP, back into the fold. But would these Democratic leaders be willing to buck the lobbyists as well as their Hollywood benefactors? What of the Republicans? Will time in the wilderness allow them to rediscover their roots? It’s a wide open question, with a wide open field, and a continuing political opportunity. Time will tell who grabs it.






MRC Logo

Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Founded in 1987, the MRC is a 501 (c)(3) non profit research and education foundation.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Dad's Brownies: Rating The Movie Ratings



ENTERTAINMENT / DAD'S BROWNIES: RATING THE MOVIE RATINGS




CYBERSPACE NEWS



SmileyFlagWaver-1A father of some teenage children had a rule that they couldn't attend PG-13 or R rated movies. Still, his three teens wanted to see a particular PG-13 rated movie that was playing at the local theatre.

If any of the kids could eat a brownie which contained just a "bit of crap" and not be effected by it, then he knew they would also be able to see the movie with "just a bit of smut" and not be effected.



Dad's Brownies


~ Cyberspace News
November 2001


A father of some teenage children had a rule that they couldn't attend PG-13 or R rated movies. Still, his three teens wanted to see a particular PG-13 rated movie that was playing at the local theatre. The teens interviewed friends and members of the family's church to find out what was offensive in the movie. The kids also made a list of pros and cons about the movie to convince their dad that they should be allowed to see it.

The cons were that it contained "only" three swear words, the "only" violence was a building exploding, and you didn't actually "see" the couple in the movie having sex; it was just implied off-camera. The pros were that it was a blockbuster movie that everyone was seeing. The movie contained a good story and plot. There were fantastic special effects and the most talented actors in Hollywood. Many of the members of the family's Christian church had even seen the movie and said it wasn't "very bad."

As there were more pros than cons, the teens were asking their father's permission this ONE time to see the movie. The father looked at the list. He said he could tell his children had spent some time and thought on this list and he wanted a day to think before making his decision.

The next evening the father called them into the living room. On the table, he had a plate of brownies. The father told his kids that he had thought about their request and had decided that if they would eat a brownie, they could go to the movie. But just like the movie, the brownies had pros and cons.

The pros were that they were made with the finest chocolate and other good ingredients. They were moist and fresh with lovely chocolate frosting on top. And the brownies had been made lovingly by their own dad.

The brownies had only one con. They contained just a little bit of dog poop. But the father had mixed the dough well -- the kids would probably not be able to taste the poop. Plus he had baked it at 350 degrees so any bacteria or germs from the poop had probably been destroyed.

So if any of the kids could eat a brownie which contained just a "bit of crap" and not be effected by it, then he knew they would also be able to see the movie with "just a bit of smut" and not be effected.

Of course none of the teens would eat the brownies. And they never asked to see another PG-13 or R movie again.





Cyberspace News




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below







Saturday, September 16, 2006

Liberal Democrats: The Party Of Moral And Intellectual Bankruptcy



POLITICS / LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: THE PARTY OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY





SmileyFlagWaver-1An indictment of today's Democrats -- in their own words, and meticulously documented -- revealing them to be a party of moral and intellectual bankruptcy with little promise of redemption in sight. Our country needs a responsible opposition party -- a party willing to participate in an honest policy debate -- but sadly, the Democrats fall way short of the mark.



Why The Democrats Deserve To Lose


~ By David Limbaugh
Posted Sep 08, 2006

An excerpt from the new book, "Bankrupt: The Intellectual And Moral Bankruptcy Of Today's Democratic Party," from Regnery Publishing, a sister company to HUMAN EVENTS.

Democrats have few policies beyond attacking President Bush and have long lost any legitimate right to claim they are a responsible opposition party. The "Scoop Jackson" Democrats of the 1970s who understood the need for a strong national defense are long gone, with few exceptions, like Senator Joseph Lieberman, whose responsible statements on the war have led to his ostracism by the party elites. The 1970s Catholic, Southern, and blue-collar Democrats who stuck by their traditional moral values are now mostly "Reagan Republicans."

In their desperation to regain the power they held for decades, Democrats have seized on a few isolated scandals and manufactured others, trying to paint Republicans as fostering a culture of corruption. But the real systemic corruption is in the Democratic Party, from its highest positions of leadership to the bowels of its Bush-hating, antiwar base.

The party's decline took firm root in the late 1960s and 1970s, but has accelerated dramatically over the last decade. Today's Democratic Party -- the party of Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Joseph Biden, Edward Kennedy, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is the party that sacrificed all moral principle to defend Bill Clinton in the 1990s no matter what the scandal. It is the party that adopted the Clinton mode of conducting politics as an art of personal assassination -- while accusing the other side of doing it.

It is the party that tried to steal the presidential election in 2000, then convinced itself that Republicans did steal it -- and has been paralyzed with bitterness and conducting revenge politics ever since. It is the party that demands bipartisanship and reconciliation, but whips President Bush with the olive branch he extended at their behest.

It is the party whose ex-presidents routinely violate the longstanding tradition against criticizing their successors -- and even do so on foreign soil.

It is the party that falsely claims President Bush is trampling on the Constitution -- while making no secret of its own willingness to subordinate the Constitution to its own political ends, most notably through using the judicial branch to "legislate" policy it cannot achieve through democratic means.

It is the party that isn't honest about its core convictions, knowing that honesty will render it even less electable in a center-right America. It denies its liberalism in favor of the euphemistic "progressivism." But while "progressive" implies "forward-looking," Democrats are mired in the past, reactionary on issues from Social Security (don't change a bankrupt system) to Iraq (don't defeat a hostile dictatorship and try to make it a democracy).

It is the party of elites who look down their noses at red-state America. It is the party that snubs Christians and "values voters" yet claims to be their authentic representatives. It is the party that can't decide whether its electoral difficulties stem from its failure to effectively articulate its message or from the wholesale stupidity of an electorate that's too Christian, too much in favor of traditional family values, and too patriotic.

It is the party that often doesn't even bother to offer alternative policies, but chooses instead to slander President Bush and obstruct his policies. In the last few decades the party has increasingly engaged in the destructive partisan politics of class and race warfare, further alienating and dividing Americans. But it has sunk to new lows more recently with the egregious practice of playing partisan politics with our national security.

What follows is an indictment of today's Democrats -- in their own words, and meticulously documented -- revealing them to be a party of moral and intellectual bankruptcy with little promise of redemption in sight. Our country needs a responsible opposition party -- a party willing to participate in an honest policy debate -- but sadly, the Democrats fall way short of the mark.




Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Absolute Power and Persecution.

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.





Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail icon [envelope], below.