Democrats & Liberals: Archives

9thwave,

I’d have to say, that I am not in total agreement with your outrage. I’m somewhat torn, cynical, but not surprised.

As a Kerry man, I’m very happy to see Howard Stern using his far reaching ‘bully pulpit’ to launch yet another front against this administration. And, yes, his motives are mostly selfish and ego, but he has had an awakening.

Previously, his involvement in political matters had no altruistic connection whatsoever. It was all fodder for his show, and his ignorance of issues was evident. Whether a candidate came on his show, was the key to winning his endorsement.

Stern’s show has always been low brow with a constant outrageous sexual content. I was always turned off by the ignorance, blatant prejudice, bigotry and homophobia, that he never seemed to discourage or object to.

And, I cynically disagree with your condemnation of those Senators who voted for the Brownback bill - it was politically savvy. They score quick, easy points with the electorate, and the broadcast behemoths now risk taking still a small hit in the pocketbook for what bad behavior makes the news…wink, wink!

If Stern’s indecency was so horrible to an incredulous America, Clear Channel and the FCC’s Micheal Powell, why was he allowed back in those fined markets, and then some?

Why? Bidness.

The government is aiming to appease those letter writing, email firing citizenry of moral outrage, proving that they will clamp down on this kind of shock media. Yeah, right!

If this would’ve had a ‘moral censoring’ on the likes of a Stern or Mancow, I’ve got no problem with that. And, don’t start with the 1st Amendment ‘slippery slope’ crap either, because Gay Marriage does not lead to beastiality or legal polygamy.

Just before Stern began his crusade, he admitted to being blown away after reading Al Franken’s ‘Lying Liars…’, pleading ignorance as to the true nature of Bush and the Conservatives.

But, he had to get hit in the wallet and ego, in order for him to get wise!

Oh Bert, thank you grasshoppah.

Dude, we know about Stern. He’s an apolitical idjiot. A self-centrifical wonder of popular culture who enjoys a good fart into a microphone. He has no talent other than the daftly self promotional and couldn’t be brutally honest as he claims to be, because that would take ACTUALLY knowing something! “The king of all butt-sex references”.

I mean the man was blown away by something in an Al Franken book?!!

They targetted Stern not for political reasons but because the nepotistically positioned Powell boy wanted to show that he was being responsible and has FAMILY VAAAALUES, yeah right(which is true due to his dad getting the job for him). And this was a press opportunity to show that Baby Powell is supposedly fit to hold that position at all. Powell jr. is practically a corporate interest piss-boy and that is what this is about. He had to pretend that the FCC is morally sound like all the piles of violence and sex on TV is a morally sound thing to air at primetime hours while small kids are watching. Yes network versions of “Sex in the city” are great for child development, if you’re raising a hooker!

But more importantly what sparked it all was actually a product of the corporatism of the Bush administration as well as that of the Clinton administration before Bush. It was “Viacom” (owner of MTV), a major contributor to both parties, and so with campaign contributions go favors.

With all the violent stupid sex garbage aired on TV at primetime, Stern, with a radio show no less was made a scapegoat. Like that’s the problem with TV?!! what the hell is that?!!

Powells thinking pattern: “Here’s the problem with tv! it’s radio!-TV is too raunchy let’s raise FCC fines on radio!!”

I guess with stupid republicans that’s a surrogate for morality; a by-product of the dumbest querry imaginable suffices as a visage of responsiblity. Why are republicans so stupid?

Yoo-hoo republicans!-The problem is the crap on TV people! Aaaah what’s the use.

Well welcome aboard Howard, read the left-fotainment Begala book it should make you hemorrage.

Oh wait I totally forgot to add my point;

Throughout this whole process and all the legislation passed, we still don’t have good broadcast standards on violence or on gratuitous sex on television.

Does anyone remember the days when NBC’s “The A-team” was considered by some to be too violent for TV??? Wow them days are gone! And apparently news quality and journalistic standards went out the window with it (post sensationalistic “Hard Copy” circa O.J. 1995, hence came along “Fair and Balanced News” -“if your stupid and have no attention span, you too can have a mildly informational news channel!” inspired by Gingrich/Huffington/Coulter via Murdoch-(You know the vapid blonde channel), hence came the age of the right leaning news bimbo Soledad/Paula Zaun/the “Fox” chicks and then the uninformed yet cynical right leaning males then the leftist ones came out who vaiguely represent the left at all, then left radio that no one can find on the radio).

My point: We still don’t have broadcast standards that do what the tax payers or tax payers with families want them to do. After 11:00 though I think it should be all swearwords and tits! But before then, non-violent and without gratuitous giddy-dumb sexual suggestion (No booty-liscious nuthin’) that isn’t even remotely funny but is supposed to push the “envelope”. And I demand they kill Raymond!

I dont see the big issue with Howard Stern from a political standpoint. I doubt many of his listeners would fit into the “Bush voter” profile, if the fit into the voter profile at all. So he may end up just preaching to the choir.

I don’t find Howard Stern funny at all—I’ve tried to listen and watch, but I just don’t find it funny. Im not highbrow at all (I like Drew Carey, the Stooges, Harold Lloyd, and even Gallagher made me laugh a couple times), but Stern’s humor is simply juvenile potty humor.

To all those out there who are outraged by the FCC actions, I would ask what standards you would like. Most agree that there need to be standards—no one in their right mind is in favor of porn on CBS during the Saturday morning cartoon hours. So the line needs to be set somewhere———lets hear your thoughts on where.

By the way, the govt knows that Stern is simply an example. And also knows that there is no censorship going on… but rather business. Stern has not been silenced—he just moved his location. For those clsiming censorship, you need to grasp a better understanding of the word.

Perhaps the only thing that pisses me off more in this saga than the ridiculous FCC censorship is that any person in this country would take political advice from Howard Stern. That I think many will makes me very scared for the state of our citizenry.

Joe- in a free market the standards are set by the consumers through their buying power. if CBS ever showed porn during saturday morning cartoons, they would lose billions of dollars in add revenue because parents wouldnt let their kids watch CBS in the mornings again. I thought the right was in favor of the free market? what happend?

Why all the ranting about Republicans? Wasn’t it a puritanical Demoncrat on the FCC that was hell-bent on this new wave of “indecency” standards, fines, and whatnot?

Misha,

People aren’t taking advice from Howard it’s an outlet for a pro-Kerry platform. And yes it was Al Gore’s wife that attempted censorship in the mid eighties due to it being a much more artistically puritanical culture than now.

We still after Powell’s hearing didn’t get any TV decency standards in broadcasting just higher penalties. And the reason I pounce the republicans to some degree is that Michael Powell didn’t do anything to improve standards. The Clinton whitehouse did the V-chip nonsense and the right does the “Fine ‘em” harder nonsense.

THe reason is this:::The two political parties don’t want to inhibit campaign contributions to the DNC/RNC from telecommunications as well as from the entertainment industry. The point of this,is well, we’re whores and I think that’s the bottom line. Both sides want telecommunications industry bucks! I absolutely do want less violence shown on TV at prime time and the removal of TV shows that are of pure “potty humor” such as “The Man Show” and the stupid conquest of Sex reallity shows that are on in primetime slots.I don’t have any problem with it being on after say 10:00 or 11:00 just not on at primetime hours. We need to demand they clean it up but sensibly without the extremist puritanism.

There maybe a place for adult programming(like this stuff isn’t actually more juvenile)just not aired on prime watching hours on basic cable.

Just think of what it would say about our country if
Stern’s influence really did decide the election.

After After 9-11, the war in Iraq,terrorists beheading Americans for their snuff-film loving admirers across the middle-east, our elections comes
down to the really vital issues: butt-bongo and the Howard Stern’s right to describe on air the number of times he pleasured himself the night before. If that happens, then this country will be getting what it deserves.

Misha:

I’m not sure what you specifically mean by “free market”. Seems to me that no market is truly free. For instance, the drug industry has certain controls, as does the trucking industry, as does the accounting industry, as do virtually all industries. Without any controls or rules, there would simply be anarchy. I can imagine UPS trying to get packages to locations faster than Fed Ex simply by driving 90 mph on back roads, or to cut costs by having pilots fly 18 hours straight.

I’m generally in favor of what I consider a free market, but not totally free. Perhaps you can explain your position more completely for me.

Howard a political giant? Well, maybe.

When the FCC starts down the slippery slope of trying to control content, this is the kind of ridiculousness they wind up in.

I have never understood why we continue to persue the puritanical roots of this culture as layed out by our forefathers. Is this so deeply ingrained in us as to be impervious to enlightenment?

Joe- I do not support the regulations of any of those industries that you mentioned. All it does is lead to more government waste and corruption in the hands of politicians. Ronald Reagan worked hard to de-regulate many industries for that very reason- and conservatives should understand this point. If you dont like what Howard Stern does (I dont), then just turn off the radio. Thats your right. You do not have the right to impose your preferences through government force upon your fellow citizens. A lot of (stupid) people enjoy Howard Stern- this is what the free market is about- they can listen to him if enough people want to.

As for your pilot example- How can you make such an argument and say you believe in the free market? The pilots would NOT fly 18 hours a day for the same reason they do not make 6 dollars an hour. Because they can bargain for their working conditions and their labor is in demand. Again, thats what the market is all about.

SKBD- Those are the things YOU want, and maybe I want those things off of TV too, but we do not have the right to force people to adopt our preferences. Listening to Stern or watching smut makes some people happy- and since there is nothing inherintly wrong in watching smut or listening to stern, we have no right to stop them by force from doing it, at any hour. Again, if you dont like something, you can refuse to watch it, you can protest against companies who air the stuff (like people have done against Moore’s new movie), but you do not have the right to weild the government’s aparatus of force to get your way.

Yonivore: Who are you talking about? I thought Michael Powell was the real “demon” behind all this.

-Cf

Misha, Joe’s examples were quite sound. You are correct that pilots who don’t want to fly 18 hours a day would probably fight it through their labor unions, but what about those pilots who *do* want to fly 18 hours a day? Like the truckers who chug amphetamines to log more miles and make a few extra bucks, pilots might be inclined to do the same. I don’t want to fly in an airplane with a pilot who has been flying for 12 hours already. I want the government to legally require that pilot to stop working.

Seriously, your attitude that *all* regulation is bad is really dangerous. Take the pharmaceutical industry. Without the FDA, they could be releasing dangerous, deadly medications by the truckload. You may argue that the thousands of deaths such a business practice might cause may end up driving such companies out of business, but that argument doesn’t address the thousands of deaths.

You think the Bhopal disaster could have happened here in the USA? I don’t. Union Carbide would have probably been required to have admitted inspectors to their facilities. Did someone at UC make an business case for not adequately maintaining the Bhopal plant, taking into account the risk of disaster and, in the end, choosing to take the risk? Probably not - it was probably just blind corner-cutting - but even if they did make such a calculation, the deaths of 8,000 innocent people (people who weren’t even customers of the company) doesn’t justify UC’s internal business decisions. The lives of 8,000 innnocent people would have been saved if India’s regulations were like ours.

The government, corruptable as it is, is the only institution that exists to protect us from corporations getting out of control . We can argue about the degree of their interference, but when it comes to life and death issues, I want the government looking out for me, NOT the corporations.

I’d rather have strict government regulations cripple, and indeed snuff out businesses if it means that it prevents those businesses from causing innocent people to be harmed or killed. Your laissez-faire approach says “Businesses will fear disaster so much that they will take precautions themselves”, but the reality of deregulation is more like “Let businesses operate freely, and if/when disaster occurs, then the business will pay”. I say “Let’s prevent the damage in the first place.”

-Cf

> the mid eighties due to it being a much
> more artistically puritanical culture
> than now.

I remember the 80’s, and in many ways it was similar to today, in some ways even a little less puritanical (when was the last time you saw pubic hair in a movie?). We are living in far more puritanical times than we have in many decades. Give me the 1970’s or the 1920’s again, when open sexuality, colorful language, and irreverence for god and country weren’t condemned and even suppressed by government and media alike.

Events like Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl and the proliferation of internet porn, and indeed even Howard Stern, actually only prove my point. Instead of living in a society where sexuality is mature, open, and frank, we live in one where sexuality is made out of plastic and designed for furtive consumption behind closed doors or limited to cartoony adolescent fantasies.

Some see the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal as evidence of the moral dissolution of our culture, but I see it as exemplary of the increasing puritanism of our culture, one in which private sexuality is publicly prosecuted. My point is simply that we should all realize that we live in extraordinarily puritanical times, that we have for many years now, and that folks like George Bush, John Ashcroft, and Michael Powell are forces of extremist cultural intervention who seek to manipulate society itself into an even more backwards, repressed, and sexually stunted nation.

The way the right is trying to forcably manipulate America’s very culture should give deep pause to the libertarians in America.

-Cf

Christopher-

Your attitude is one that allows thousands of people to die each year because the drugs have not been approved by the FDA YET that could save their lives in hopes of saving lives of people who might die of the drugs prove unsafe. Is that really morally preferrable? More importantly, what gives you the right to make that decision for other people? If they believe that a particular drug, not yet fully tested, could save the life of their loved one, by what right do you have to stop them from taking that drug? You are basically choosing one group of people (those who might get hurt if the drug proves unsafe) over another group of people (those who are hurt every day by sicknesses that could be cured by drugs that are yet to be approved).

You say: ” I don’t want to fly in an airplane with a pilot who has been flying for 12 hours already.” Easy solution- dont fly on such an airline. If I want to fly on such an airline, that is my right. By what mandate do you have to take that freedom away from me?

On this thread we now have the problem with both the left and the right in our country perfectly laided out. The left does not want you to taking X drug because their goverment regulators havent fully approved it- so you get no drug, and when you get it, it costs a lot more because of the waste that comes with having to go through a government process which is way too complicated for what it does. Then, when the drug costs go up, they demand what we socialize medicine to keep “drug costs down.” meanwhile, the right wants to tell you what you cant and cannot listen to on the radio or watch on TV. Largely, they both succeed in limited our freedom and we are constantly left less free.

Democrats are great! They have as their waterbearers the likes of Larry Flyntt, Michael Moore, and now Howard Stern. Now if that doesnt shore up the stupid white pornography loving, shock jock-loving vote, I dont know what will! Terry McAullife, you are a true genius.

Misha, I know that the FDA takes too long to approve drugs sometimes, but for every one of them there are 10,000 deadly drugs that fly-by-night pharmaceutical companies will gladly sell.

The “fly-by-night” part is yet another place where your “self-correcting” model falls apart. Sure, maybe Pfizer will try to avoid selling dangerous deadly drugs, but what about Jack’s Drugs, Inc.? A company can form, sell deadly medicines, make millions or even billions, then dissolve before the public even starts getting sick.

(Your idea that I could simply choose not to fly on an overworked airline is similarly ludicrous: for starters, how could I possibly know whether or not airline X permits pilots to fly 18 hours straight? Sure, I guess could learn it when my plane crashes, but how else might I learn?)

The whole point of regulation is to prevent deadly mistakes and criminal negligence. They are analogous to traffic lights - without them, left to their own devices, people would kill each other. No amount of after-the-fact punishment by the justice system or by the market can make up for the loss of life and property that a laissez-faire system could wreak upon our nation. We cannot wait until after the fact to save lives.

I really do sympathize with the need for the FDA to become a more streamlined institution, to have more efficient methods of approving life-saving medications, such as more extensive trial groups or by in extreme instances giving the most desperate individuals the right to take drugs that are still pending approval. I support reform and the generation of creative ideas that balance the need for more effective approval of lifesaving drugs with (IMHO) the much more urgent threat of dangerous drugs being released.

You say that I am making a choice for people instead of letting them choose for themselves. If you consider the fact that the people in question are likely to be lied to by the companies who are selling drugs to them in a deregulated world, then yeah, damn right I am making decisions for them: I think that the threat of dangerous drugs killing people in a deregulated world is far greater than the threat of *potentially* helpful drugs behing kept away from people. I’d rather save millions of americans than save thousands.

The FDA has a lot of plusses and minuses, that’s for sure. They often accellerate drug approvals for drugs that seem to do exceptionally well in the trials and which are desperately needed by the public. Conversely, drugs that have been approved and sold on the market are often discovered (by the FDA, not by the company selling the drug) many years later, to actually be dangerous and need to be taken off the market.

Also, the FDA is often the target of lobbyist corruption, where drugs can be hindered in their approval progress by the undue influence of the lobbyists for competitors who already have a similar drug on the market.

So to me, it’s not the idea of regulation that’s the problem it’s the implementation. It seems like you’re saying, like many libertarians, “these rules are too complicated, lets just throw them all away”. That’s not enough for me.

This is not only a personal issue, this is an issue of the health of our economy at large. In a deregulated world, who in their right mind would get in a car and drive on the streets at all? Who besides the desperate would ever take a new drug? Who would dare live within two hundred miles of a nuclear power plant?

-Cf

A couple of points:
1. Lying to consumers is already against the law- as it should be. As a result, we do not need regulators to stop companies from doing that, we need to punish those who lie to consumers.

2. here are numerous consumer watch-dog groups, magazines ect. that can tell you which airlines have the best safety record ect. so you can make the best decision of balancing safety, price, and comfort.

3. I think you can never seperate the “idea” of regulation from its inevitable corrupt implimentation. How many times do we need to see regulators co-opted either with legal lobbying or elligal back room deals before we learn the most simple lesson of all- any time you give a group of people power, they will use that for their perseonal profit? The more powerful the regulators the most powerful the incentive for corruption, and thus the more prevelant corruption will be.

4. In conclusion, I do understand that sometimes some regulations are needed- your traffic light example is a good one. In those rare (in my opinion) cases, what we need to do is create rules that are simple, easily enforceable and leave little room for beurocratic leway. So, if we say “no driving on the left side of the road”- that is a simple rule that doesnt create that much room for corruption. But when we give an agency broad power over life-saving drugs with billions of dollars at stake, you can bet the abuse is going to be great- no matter what kind of checks you try to put in. Or, when you give the FCC power over everything that airs on TV and on radio, you can bet the abuse will run rampid there as well. Its all happening now- you can we continue to refuse to learn from it?

Misha, I agree with your assessment in principle. As long as regulatory heads are appointed by elected officials, the results of regulation will be tainted by the power that accompanies elected office.

But, the deeper root of the problem is the sheer size and complexity of life in America. Our lives are now so complex, that we must rely upon 10’s of thousands of “experts” most of whom we will never meet or whose names we will ever know, in order to maintain our complexly interdependent consumer lives.

Gone are the days (save for an extreme few homeless and die hard independents who live off the books) when one could maintain one’s own vehicle, grow most of one’s own food, build one’s own home, churn one’s own butter, and mill one’s own lumber. Consumer protection in our almost entirely consumer marketing driven society, is essential. Despite it’s necessity, consumer protection is winning some battles but losing the war to protect consumers as they are being inexorably forced by lack of funding to rely upon industry data and test results.

The sheer size and volume of data about consumer products - even the errata is so voluminous, as to preclude educated consumers from staying up on it all as it affects our daily consuming behavior. Tuna for example, the industry puts out one set of data, regulatory agencies put out another, and consumer protection org.’s put out a different set of data. All that has been agreed upon to date, is that albacore (white) tuna is unsafe for pregnant women and children.

Enter caveat emptor: but, the only way a consumer can beware is to avoid consumption in general except for necessities to sustain life, thus, radically reducing the number of product spec.’s and data one must familiarize oneself with to make responsible consumer decisions. I have been moving toward this model of consumer behavior for 20 years now, and still get burned despite my efforts, the most recent burn was from a dentist. (Another story).

Since, it is clear the consumer has no desire to adopt my trend toward less consumption and more responsible consumer decisions, regulatory agencies appear to me to be a necessary evil of such a hugely complex and market driven society.

David, if you weren’t such a Kerryish flip-flopper when it comes to living out your ideals, then you’d be your own dentist—drillin’ and fillin’ yourself with a Craftsman drill and a hand mirror. :) Just kidding… Happy fourth of July.

I think this post should have been entitled, “GOP Misunderestimates Stern at its Peril.”

Other than that I have little opinion on Stern. He’s free to endorse whatever candidate he wants. Though the democratic party is probably a better fit for him than the GOP.

Thanks for the chuckle, Martin. I did finally get the dentist to agree to do the work that I wanted for $4500 less out of pocket than doing it his way. The immensely pleasurable outcome of all this is that the work he wanted to do and the work I had done are essentially the same.

Our profitable specialists often depend upon ignorant consumers, that is why I am so disliked by so many professionals in my area, from well drillers, opthamologists to dentists. I do my homework and tell them what I need - it really does p.o. a lot of specialist vendors and I ususally have to go through a few of them to get the right work done at a reasonable and fair rate, but it is very profitable to me to spend the time in this kind of effort.

Two years ago I had 4 well drillers get angry and refuse to service my well because I bought the pipes and couplings myself saving as much as 330% markup on those materials. One of them said angrily I was trying to put him out of business, as if shopping around for the best deal was some kind of offense to his livelihood.

Good to hear that your chompers are back up to speed, David. You’ll need them for all the teeth-gritting you’ll be forced to endure if Bush wins in November. Chew on that!

Yep, me and about half or more of the rest of the country. It won’t be a pretty 4 years.. that’s for sure. But, things are looking good for that not to happen, thankfully. Pocketbooks will rule on November 2, and folks hate dishing out dough for dental work caused by teeth-gritting, eh?

I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you. I have been a Howard Stern fan for years until recently. All Howard Stern cares about is himself(as you mentioned) and what he can get accomplished for himself. The reason that he is angry about this is because Bush is a man. He says something he does it. We must have strong values and personal convictions because the enemy we are facing has none. They will rape and kill women and children and try to destroy the very thing that we fought for over 200 years ago. I would be ashamed to be called an American if the Kerry/Edwards ticket were elected. They have a “let’s go talk to the terrorists and give them money and promises” attitude. Now, returning to Howard Stern, he has been corrupting young minds for years. He blatantly promotes sex, drugs, and many other shameful lifestyles on his show. He is in it to make money, what happens if he cannot do that anymore. He loses his appeal and loses his show. There is a fine line that you have to draw between Freedom of speech and polluting the people of America. His kind of shows do nothing but infect people with rebellion, hatred, and disgust. Bush critics complain about his criminal record, but I am reminded about Gen. Grant. The man was a drunk and many people were critical of Lincoln’s chice of him to lead the Union army. When asked about this Lincoln replied, ” Whatever else he is, he’s a good general.” Isn’t that all that matters?