Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


Is there anyone left in the GOP who actually believes the shit the people on this board spout about how markets are the best way to resolve conflicts? Memo to Michael Powell --- the market has spoken, so get the fuck out.

I'm not one for regulation or censorship, but I don't really see what regulating cable for obscenity necessarily has to do with markets-pro/con. If you're talking about regulation of cable channels for playing janet jackson's breast, there's a good market-failure argument for allowing such regulation in certain circumstances. Namely, misrepresentation/mischaracterization of likely channel content. If you put justin on skinemax, no one can rightly complain, but if you put it on during sesame street, it seems reasonable to call PBS's implicit representation of clean and wholesome entertainment a guarantee that smut will not appear. When it does, the FCC comes in.

Of course, you're free to make a generalized caveat emptor argument with the whole of cable TV, but that seems a bit generalized.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
READ: lesbian experimentation

If I were gay, I would be openly gay and fight for social security and employer-sponsored benefits for my spouse by advocating for gay marriage. But it just isn't my thing.

The lesbian experimentation stuff that hetero women engage in nowadays (which wasn't in when I was in college, BTW) is done by and large to titillate men. I think some of these women are going to end up unhappy about having done this in the future. Not unhappy necessarily that they were with another women sexually, but unhappy with themselves for having done something that they weren't interested in doing simply to please a man.

When I was in college, the risque thing to try was anal sex or sex with two guys at once. Alot of women got talked into those activities by guys and regretted it. I will never be talked into anal sex because that just seems so gross to me. Call me wierd but I just cannot get past the whole fecal matter thing. Now sex with two guys I never did have but I might have considered it if I trusted the two guys. Never found college guys too trustworthy, though.

It is funny to me how the times have changed because now it seems like no men would ever engage in sex with a woman with another man around. They consider it some sort of sign of homosexuality that is to be avoided at all costs. Back when I was in college, it was considered a male bonding activity.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Interesting point. I've been reading on some blogs how some papers have decided to expand the inquiry past Bush's Guard attendance record to find out what exactly he was actually doing during '72, because we haven't heard much from the folks on that Alabama Senate campaign about the yeoman efforts of a young GWB.

The implication to some is that there might be some evidence as to why Bush skipped the annual physical (and was suspended from flight status). In other words, they raise the question as to whether Bush was actually just on a bender and wanted to avoid drug test portion of the physical.

Again, this is the worst kind of unfounded speculation, but if true it would be a lot more of a story than just that he didn't show up very often for a year.

The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
READ: lesbian experimentation

Club, you know I've always got your back, but I've gotta break party ranks on this one... I'd rather keep my reasons private.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?

I expected this much sooner. You must have been off having a morning martini with some of the other senior partners...

[Not Me]

Originally posted by andViolins
and butter.

I did the obligatory chocolate sauce and whipped cream. The stickiness was not pleasant. I now pass on the food-as-a-sexual-aid when offered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I expected this much sooner. You must have been off having a morning martini with some of the other senior partners...

I had one of my GA's program an auto-reply when there was an apparent conspiracy theory post by one of the usual suspects. The program failed on your post because your post apparently crossed a line, once the insanity level crosses a high line the program looks only at absolute value of nutsiness. FWIW, the program automatically sent a welcome back PM to SEF.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I had one of my GA's program an auto-reply when there was an apparent conspiracy theory post by one of the usual suspects. The program failed on your post because your post apparently crossed a line, once the insanity level crosses a high line the program looks only at absolute value of nutsiness. FWIW, the program automatically sent a welcome back PM to SEF.

I'm not good with computers. Does this mean I'm really nuts or sorta nuts?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?

An oldie but a goodie.

Am I the only Repub that feels sorry for Dean? I always disagreed with his positions and didn't care for his demeanor, but was that one speech so bad that the Dems had to turn on him like that? He was their champion and they just kicked him to the curb for what seems to me to be a forgiveable mistake.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not one for regulation or censorship, but I don't really see what regulating cable for obscenity necessarily has to do with markets-pro/con. If you're talking about regulation of cable channels for playing janet jackson's breast, there's a good market-failure argument for allowing such regulation in certain circumstances. Namely, misrepresentation/mischaracterization of likely channel content. If you put justin on skinemax, no one can rightly complain, but if you put it on during sesame street, it seems reasonable to call PBS's implicit representation of clean and wholesome entertainment a guarantee that smut will not appear. When it does, the FCC comes in.

Dude, he's using JJ to justify regulation not of "misrepresentation/misrepresentation of likely channel content," but of indecency. The constitutional justification for less permissive government regulation of broadcasting has been the public commodity argument advanced in Red Lion. Powell is arguing, in essence, that "because" a majority of Americans now get their television by transmission media that do not have the Red Lion justifications for limited First Amendment rights, the FCC should occupy this new field.

If your post is based on a misunderstanding of the difference between obscenity and indecency, as your first sentence leads me to believe, take my word for it --- there is a substantial difference in the law and in practice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


If your post is based on a misunderstanding of the difference between obscenity and indecency, as your first sentence leads me to believe, take my word for it --- there is a substantial difference in the law and in practice.

My post is, apparently, a misunderstanding of precisely what it is he's seeking to regulate and in what manner. I agree that Red Lion does not support such regulation and, as I posted last week (prove me wrong), would submit it no longer supports regulation of OTA channels either.

That said, to the extent the FCC seeks to regulate indecency (as opposed to the regulable obscenity), are you concerned that the Supreme Court is in cahoots with Powell, and would deny a first amendment challenge to such regulation?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Atticus, even though the response was not an (apparent) attempt at humor, and reveals instead some sort of teeth-grating earnestness, I think the term still works.

Whiff.

I see your point, and agree for entirely different reasons. NM's earnest, striving posts are, in fact, an attempt at humor, given that this sock's creation and work product are endlessly humorous to its creator. So, too, are whiff posts. So missing the joke, and posting an earnest response, is "jokey" to the poster; hence, a bona fide whiff.

I think it is an Atticus tribute sock, but in an evil doppelganger sort of way. NTTAWWT.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That said, to the extent the FCC seeks to regulate indecency (as opposed to the regulable obscenity), are you concerned that the Supreme Court is in cahoots with Powell, and would deny a first amendment challenge to such regulation?

I agree with you that the public commodity rationale is dying. I think this is precisely because of market forces. My concern is that Congress responds better to the combination of "You don't honestly expect us to watch television over rabbit ears?" and "Won't someone please think of the children?" In other words, regulating cable because it has achieved a critical mass of market share, with no constitutional underpinning other than that we used to watch this shit over the airwaves.

After this last term, I have no idea what the Supreme Court will do. I thought I had them pegged, but they've done some amazing shit in non-1Ad cases that has scared both sides. Maybe Scalia secretly likes PPV topless Foxy Boxing and will go our way. It's a crapshoot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I agree with you that the public commodity rationale is dying. I think this is precisely because of market forces. My concern is that Congress responds better to the combination of "You don't honestly expect us to watch television over rabbit ears?" and "Won't someone please think of the children?" In other words, regulating cable because it has achieved a critical mass of market share, with no constitutional underpinning other than that we used to watch this shit over the airwaves.

After this last term, I have no idea what the Supreme Court will do. I thought I had them pegged, but they've done some amazing shit in non-1Ad cases that has scared both sides. Maybe Scalia secretly likes PPV topless Foxy Boxing and will go our way. It's a crapshoot.

"Tell that bitch to chill. Say chill bitch."
You worry too much. This is no more going to happen than Gephardt's executive orders to over rule Supreme Court decisions.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I agree with you that the public commodity rationale is dying. I think this is precisely because of market forces.

. . .

Maybe Scalia secretly likes PPV topless Foxy Boxing and will go our way. It's a crapshoot.

I'd say it's because of technological forces. But perhaps the two are the same.

If the FCC can regulate indecency on cable TV, why could it (or another agency) regulate all indecency whatsoever? Put differently, what justification for abridging this speech would be sufficient to satisfy constitional strictures? I can think of none. Not me, surely can come up with three or four, starting with polygamy.

Incidentally, a quick google on the issue suggests powell is far quicker to change his position than kerry.

link 1

Commissioner Furtchgott-Roth agrees with us as well:

Link 2

While this leads me to believe that any regulation will come from the left:

www.ciaonet.org/conf/asp06/asp06h.html+fcc+regulation+indecency+red+lion&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Link 3[/URL] (cached version b/c original requires password)

Well, I've convinced myself that the worst Powell will do is waste some taxpayer dollars studying, promulgating, and then defending some unconstitutional regulations.