YCMTSU: Election year Oz brings out brainless Scare Crows again
Let's see ... there was Dorothy, Toto, the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scare Crow. It seems that Nebraska, not Kansas, simply must elect Scare Crows in need of a brain to the U.S. Senate. It was Nebraska Senator James Exon who frightened the technophobic christians of the country by telling them that, "the worst, most vile, most perverse pornography is only a few 'click, click, clicks' away from any child on the Internet" and sponsored the Communications Decency Act to be part of the huge, sweeping Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. Perhaps because Exon was a Democrat, Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had reservations about Exon's CDA but, he was obviously astute to the political game when he commented, "Clearly a violation of free speech and it's a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other, but was I think seen as a good press release back home so people voted for it."
Both of these quotes are from the same transcript of the respected PBS show, McNeil Lehrer News Hour, sent out by Shabbir Safdar of the Voter's Telecom Watch (VTW). Some of you may remember me going ballistic back in 1995 and 1996 over Exon's CDA and all of its subsequent legislative permutations. I still have packets from Michigan's legislators. Imajica BBS became the anti-CDA coordination point for the VTW for the state of Michigan and we may have helped Senator Carl Levin to check his pair and vote against it. Regardless, you need only to scan the titles on this Electronic Frontier Foundation archive page to see how many lawsuits and court battles that the brainless, unconstitutional legislation caused back in the d-a-y.
Fast forward now to the present election season. Once again, a Scare Crow Nebraska Senator sponsors another smarmy 'protect the children' amendment. According to a Reuters News article,
"The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a measure to crack down on indecency antics on broadcast radio and television by sharply raising fines to as much as $275,000 per incident and up to $3 million per day."
In a Cowardly Lion move, the Senate passed this amendment by slipping it into the upcoming defense authorization bill. While the House still has to pass it, and someone in the White House has to sneak into Dick Cheney's desk and borrow his Dubya stamp pad, it's likely to become law of the land. No one is going to commit political suicide by voting against any defense related bill during this election year. Besides, who cares ... it's just extra fines against big, rich, liberal media conglomerates, right? You'll care when they start dumbing down radio content so far you'll be treated to Clear Channel playing that annoying Barney the Dinosaur song during your commute home after a particularly stressful day at work.
Once again, as citizens of this country, we are also treated to cowardly, brainless politicians who want to legislate our morality and take the heart out of the constitution for the sake of their own careers.
And what do you think is behind the wizard's curtain in Washington, O.Z.? Sadly, it's just the floppy middle-aged breast of Janet Jackson.
I gotta say, I agree with finding a way to make it more difficult to access pornography and keep radio and TV (broadcast) clean but...this is not the way. Also, this is yet another stepping stone to total government regulated media. Parents MUST take a FULLY active role in their childrens lives not only by monitoring what they watch, listen to and surf but by regulating the time spent on these activities and SPENDING THAT TIME WITH THEIR CHILDREN! That IMHO is a much better solution than the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
JfZ June 25, 2004 05:14 AM PDT Good advice. Then again, I was a virgin until I was 16 ;)
BAC parents must have it rough ... I mean, like all parents, they have a desire to protect their children from the big bad world out there and let them be innocent little cherubs for as long as possible ... but over-protecting and sheltering kids for too long can be a disaster, too. It's a fine line to tread.
A fine line to tread? Well if you are comparing sheltering them to spending time with them I have to disagree. Sheltering them from all outside influence is a bad idea but spending as much time with them as you can is a proven way to help them become productive and valuable members of society who respect authority and don't go around breaking the law. Plus you will have children who love you (and their siblings), not hate you. My sisters kids are a prime example...they are homeschooled but have plenty of social interaction through church and friends...they are some of the smartest, most respectful and polite kids I've ever known, not to say they are perfect, they do still get into trouble but not very often and when they do they UNDERSTAND that what they did was wrong and accept the punishment without much fuss. Basically parents need to stop letting schools, society and TV raise their children, step up to the plate and be an adult...TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN CHILDREN! It's not anyone elses responsibility but your own and how they turn out is a direct reflection on YOU and the way YOU raised them! If they are unwanted by you then put them up for adoption, there are plenty of loving married couples who are waiting for the chance to have a child but are unable to have their own.
JfZ June 26, 2004 02:36 AM PDT I didn't mean to suggest that spending time with your kids was sheltering them.
Spending time with them is what I was saying was 'good advice'. They need someone around to (hopefully) explain to them the various things about which they have questions, too.
Ok guys stop fighting. I have known people that where sheltered as children and when they became of age they went hog wild. That is what JFZ was saying about being over protective of your kids. You have to be to a point but then again you also have to let them live and learn.
A good point to be sure Helleena but my point was very similar. I was trying to point out that parents need to take interest in their childrens lives and not let society raise them...this is not even close to keeping them sheltered from the real world nor does it prevent them from living and learning from their own mistakes it simply shows them that their parents love them enough to take time out of their lives to help guide them through life which is the foundation of a parents role. Besides, we're not fighting, simply debating and discussing...it's what we do, it's how we communicate, get to know each other better and become better friends.
Yea you are right Duke. But you also know that most parents just don't care. They think that they are doing right by thier kids but in the end they are not.
also you are right that this is a good way to get to know eachother by debating these kind of things. later