Blogcritics Comments on A Stern Look At the Airwaves

Comment by smutma

Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:03:00 EDT

why are there so few comment s on this page. \what has happened to the momments people have since March 14, 2004?

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:35:19 EST

Some days, I just feel like walking down the street with my tits hanging out and deepkissing a girl while eating pork products and saying FuckIty, Fuck, Fuck... Then I remember that I've had my tits out in public before and it was like "so what", I don't like girls for sex, I hate pork, and I already say FuckIty, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.....

Comment by mike

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:31:33 EST

Oh, and by the way, per comment 10, West Germans in 1960 enjoyed a far higher standard of living and more personal freedoms than Germans in 1860 did. In between, there were some irregularities.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:31:08 EST

I said what I think about 3/11 Frankly, I am sorry that people died and people are sad but in general, I don't care. It was bound to happen. It will happen again. And it will happen again. So is the nature of life and the human animal. This is a fact of life these days folks. Deal with it. Terrorism is like your plane losing an engine and blowing up. Someone shoots you in a robbery. Having a car accident. Random death.

Comment by bhw

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:29:38 EST

the chorus from the insane left right after 9/11 that said we had it coming. I think it was the insane *right* that said "what did we expect when we had turned away from God and embraced homosexuality, etc., etc." Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, remember?

Comment by mike

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:23:34 EST

It's true the only people directly responsible for the Madrid bombings are the Madrid bombers. But if I indulge in a reckless action, like the Iraq war, that any idiot could have foreseen WOULD PUT INNOCENT PEOPLE AT RISK, PEOPLE WHO IN THIS CASE WERE OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED TO THE WAR, then, goddamit, I've got some explaining to do. In this case, the Andrew Sullivans and their ilk are cranking up their "Anyone Who Points Out the Obvious is Blaming America for 3-11" routine. Then, out of the other side of their mouths, they are blaming Chomsky for 3-11. They can go fuck themselves.

Comment by JR

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:06:03 EST

Mike, a better argument would be that the Iraq war diverted resources and effort which could have been used to prevent these attacks. Still, the only people responsible for the Madrid murders are the terrorists.

Comment by mike

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:55:40 EST

Before the war, we predicted that the invasion would unleash a fury of terrorist bombings and that invading would put innocent people--in Europe, America, etc.-at mortal risk. The invasion unleashed a fury of terrorist bombings and put innocent people--in Europe, America, etc.-at mortal risk. It's time for people who yak on in right wing blog fashion about the war on terror to take some personal responsibility for the consequences of their political positions. My hands are clean.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:24:35 EST

"People who supported the war have the bood on their hands" ????? This is among the most repugnant, illogical, morally obtuse thing I have heard since the chorus from the insane left right after 9/11 that said we had it coming. The blood of Madrid is ONLY on the hands of the motherfuckers who committed the crime, period. Are you giving the perpetrators the moral standing that their attacks are somehow legitimate?

Comment by mike

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:12:52 EST

I'm with Tommy Franks: a military dictatorship is coming, right after the next terrorist attack in the U.S., which as Madrid shows, is inevitable. Most Americans will go along with it in part because such regimes often lead to booms in economic growth, per Chile in the 1970s, or Brazil in the 1960s. By the way, people who supported the Iraq war have the blood of Madrid on their hands. We said this was going to happen. Told you so.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:03:12 EST

mike, I despise gambling of all kinds and never bet, but I would be willing to make an exception, that the U.S. will not see a military dictatorship in the lifetime of anyone alive now. I would also be willing to bet that the standard of living and the level of personal freedom for the average American will continue to rise and increase, respectively, over the long haul, as measured, say, decade by decade, over that same period of time - say, the next 100 years, jsut as it has, with some bumps along the way to be sure, since the founding of the nation. As long as we as citizens and the press (including the "amateur" press of the Internet) are vigilant and active we have nothing to fear but despair.

Comment by mike

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:46:00 EST

They'll also provide a good start for the speech rules imposed under the pending U.S. military dictatorship. Clear Channel's leadership during this time of crisis--again, "I feel slightly uneasy about it, but our resolve must not weaken, etc"--will be exemplary.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:45:59 EST

The answer is for those who cannot, or who choose not to fit within the standards to move to satellite or the Internet Basically, you are saying that the public who wants to listen to this stuff needs to pay for it. Not everyone can afford satellite radio or the internet. Hell, if I had the money, I might try satellite radio. So, the only way to be free in the US is to have money. Well, that is no shock.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:12:32 EST

I think the rules are pretty reasonable as they now exist; please remember we are talking the limited public airwaves. It is okay to have standards, and the FCC standards are hardly prudish. The answer is for those who cannot, or who choose not to fit within the standards to move to satellite or the Internet, neither of which are regulated for content at all. If you don't have any standards for the limited public airwaves then you guarantee a race to the bottom, which is close to where we are now, or at least were prior to this latest crackdown. Simply changing the channel doesn't work if there is nowhere to change to - these are limited public airwaves.

Comment by Shark

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:01:36 EST

You mean people still listen to the radio? Talk about an endangered species...

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:46:26 EST

David: Incest might very well one day become accepted. I don't think this is a good thing, but in a country that is experiencing radically shifting views on the homosexuality taboo, the divorce taboo, and the illegitamcy taboo, can we really continue to deplore incest, or bestiality ( see here ), for that matter? Or sex between a 14 year old and someone in their 30s? Or anything? Oh yeah, and rape probably did give men an evolutionary advantage before civilization developed. That's not to encourage such vile behavior, but to simply point out a hypothesis on why such hideous behavior exists in the first place. Tek: I agree that profanity should be allowed. Fuck and Shit and Cunt should all be accepted as synonyms for Sex and Feces and Vagina. However, graphic conversations about the actual acts of sex should not be allowed on the airwaves at, say, 8 AM. There are laws on the books about this. They are finally being enforced. Good for the FCC.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:51:22 EST

LOL... We've established that I cannot spell- even with spell check. Now I can't cuss. I should just end it right now!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:28:35 EST

MT, I always thought it was "FuckEty, Fuck Fuck."

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:55:10 EST

This is easy. As I have always said: Lowest Common Denominator. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Basically, anything that will cause an immediate threat to the life an property of another is wrong. This means if someone is saying "Fuckity, Fuck, Fuck" on the radio, no one is going to die. No one is going to get hurt. Sure, some people may not like it, but they can CHANGE THE CHANNEL. There is the Disney stations, The Christan Stations, etc... Some music IS about SEX, DRUGS, and ROCK AND ROLL... and it shouldn't be any other way. I just don't get it... All these uptight, conservative Christian folks keep screaming about how society is screwing up their children and how they feel so persecuted when in fact they are the ones trying to force their values down everyone else's throats. You were given free will. If you don't like something, don't buy it, don't watch it, don't listen to it. You have no right to tell ME I cannot listen to, hear, or watch, Fuckity, Fuck, Fuck if I want to. I'm over 21, pay taxes, and don't want to come to your house or know you. There is enough room in the country for everyone to have their space and what they want. I'm all about freedom. I respect that you may not want to see my tits or hear me say fuck. Therefore I won't go into your house or around friends, strip naked, and say Fuckity, Fuck, Fuck. At the same time, you should not be able to come into my home and tell me what I can watch or listen to on my radio or television. It really is quite simple. The problem is some folks are preaching love thy neighbor, family values, bullshit, then going next door and stomping on the roses. Not cool.

Comment by David Flanagan

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:23:54 EST

Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have." Is George Carlin, then, advocating for the legalization of rape, incest, and other "taboos" that are a result of "religious superstitions?" There have to be some standards of behaviour, or should we make anything and everything acceptable? There are already people in the world who believe that murder is acceptable, unless you get caught. A couple of years back, a book was published explaining how rape gave males an evolutionary advantage. Do we want standards or not? David