Friday, July 28, 2006

They Don't Want You to See It

One trademark of today's loudmouth religious radicals is their preoccupation with other people's sins. For instance, here in Montgomery County, any parent can keep their kid out of the sex-ed classes simply by not signing the permission slip. Don't want them to take it? No problem, just don't sign the form. People who don't approve of the class can keep their child out of it by doing absolutely nothing. But, it turns out, that's not really what they're after. The thing is, they don't want other people's children learning about sexuality.

You might remember the Parents Television Council. They're the ones -- usually the only ones -- who complain when somebody uses a bad word on a TV show, or like when Janet Jackson's brass pasty was exposed for several milliseconds.

You will also remember that every television set in America has a "V-chip," a thing you can program so that your kids won't be exposed to sex and violence on TV. This was something President Clinton pushed and implemented. Through the V-chip, parents have control over the content on their TV.

Of course, as you may have noticed, nobody really cares enough to use the thing. Have you ever seen anybody program their V-chip? Even once? Naw, of course not, because when you get right down to it, this is the purest hypocrisy -- nobody's really offended by the lame stuff on TV, they just want to accuse other people of ugliness.

Anyway, the TV industry is launching a big drive to remind people that the V-chip exists, and, I guess, to tell them about how to use it. In case they forgot.

You'd think the Parents Blah Blah group would love the V-chip, wouldn't you? It gives parents, not networks, control over what will be shown in their homes. You can show nothing but good, decent programming in your house, and your kids will grow up to be perfect ladies and gentlemen.

C'mon, you didn't really think they'd be satisfied with that, did you?
Family-programming advocacy group Parents Television Council on Thursday blasted a newly launched broadcast-industry campaign touting use of the V-Chip, the device designed to allow parents to block sexually explicit and violent television programming.

Calling the cable- and satellite-industry rating system on which V-Chip blocking is based "inaccurate," the PTC offered its support instead for legislation that would require cable and satellite providers to apply broadcast indecency standards or offer a la carte or new "family tier" programming. Parents group derides V-Chip ads

Man, you can think of so many ways to deal with this; nobody has to have gross, indecent, foul stuff on their TV. Like ... throw the thing out. Unplug it (throw the circuit-breaker if you think the kids will plug it back in. They'll never figure that one out). I don't know, it just seems so easy. Don't turn the TV on if you don't like what it's showing you -- nobody's forcing you to watch it.
At the press conference announcing the new bill, PTC President L. Brent Bozell described the campaign as a "shameful publicity stunt" that is "designed to absolve (the entertainment industry) of all responsibility for the raw sewage it pumps into America's living rooms night after night."

"The truth of the V-chip, aside from all the rhetoric, is that for the V-Chip to work, first and foremost it must rely on the ratings system. If the ratings system doesn't work, then the V-Chip doesn't work," Bozell told CNET News.com. The inaccuracy of the ratings system is all the more reason for parents to decide which specific channels they want to order, he said.

Yeah, that's what they want, they want you to be able to pick and choose what channels you'll get, not take some package the cable company puts together. Well, I suppose a lot of us would like that. I don't know why they have to be so ugly about it.

Hahaha, this thing cuts both ways. Did you see the news a month or so ago, when these nuts realized that if people could pick and choose the channels they got, nobody would watch the Christian channels? Yeah, you might not want to get a bunch of scantily-dress chicks gyrating on MTV, and you might also not want Pat Robertson stinkin' up your living room.

Tough call.

For some people.

31 Comments:

Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

People that worry about this...be they on the Secular Left or the Religious Right...need to exercise a little self control, turn off the tv and grab a good book to read.

July 28, 2006 10:57 AM  
Blogger digger said...

For the record:

Several days ago, Theresa made the statement that I am opposed to religiously-based clubs in schools.

Let me clear and explicit, lest I be misquoted somewhere:

I support religiously-based clubs in schools, wholeheartedly.

I have made no statement on whether or not I support the hypothetical Gay-to Straigth clubs proposed by PFOX and Liberty Counsel. They are still hypothetical.

I hope that was clear.

Robert Rigby, Jr.

July 28, 2006 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JimK you seem to be a Tec of some sort go home tonight and use the v-chip in your T.V. then come back an tell us if it only blocked out the things you did not want to see. The one I have blocks out stuff I don’t won’t my kids to see, and things I don’t mind my kids seeing. I think it is a joke.

July 28, 2006 3:05 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

so turn it off

July 28, 2006 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have just tossed out your argument. If the V-chip cannot deliver what it was suppose to do, than what is the point of having it. If I can’t block MTV and still let my kids watch the history channel or the discovery channel, than what is the point of having it? We go back to square one. I agree that cable ala-cart might be as bad simply because ala-cart always ends up costing more. The simple solution would be to have a basic package set up. A price system that was flexible. You can have MTV cable, or 700club cable, or kids cable.

July 28, 2006 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One trademark of today's loudmouth religious radicals is their preoccupation with other people's sins.
Well look at the total hypocrite JimK is and his preoccupation with other people’s kids. If you want to explain the joys of anal sex to your sons nock your self out. But it was not the religious people who insisted on pushing through a perverted and twisted sex-ed curriculum that a Clinton appointed federal judge had to stop for multiple violations of people’s civil rights. Full of outdated and misleading health information. That was Fishback and who stood up to defend this TTF. So you can just get off the sop box, your not fooling anyone. You have no moral hi ground to speak of. You would be a fool to clam otherwise.

July 28, 2006 4:20 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

If the V-chip cannot deliver what it was suppose to do, than what is the point of having it.

Anon, anybody can see the arguments for have an a la carte cable service. The idea that you have to express outrage at the V-chip in order to promote a pick-your-channels service is ridiculous. These guys are just nuts.

JimK

July 28, 2006 4:36 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Oh, and as for Anon's other comment ... all I can say is thank you for your contribution here...

Were all weys hapy to pervide a sop box four you an the uther smart peple.

JimK

July 28, 2006 4:39 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Like they say on the television show (a tv show which I do watch when I have the time) "Law & Order"..."ripped from the headlines".

Oh, and this reminds me of that old saying, cliche, bromide, whatever..."an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Then again, as long as they use a condom what is there to worry about...right?

The American Journal of Preventative Medicine

Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 163-170 (October 2005)

Which Comes First in Adolescence—Sex and Drugs or Depression?

What this Study Adds, found in box on page 7, in box so labeled.

It has long been recognized that depression prevalence increases in adolescence, particularly for girls, and that links exist between depression and risk behaviors.

Prevailing theories have assumed that hormonal changes put females at greater risk, and that youth “self-medicate” depression with drugs and sex.

We found little support for these theories; rather, risk behaviors precede depression.

Even experimentation with sex and drugs makes girls more vulnerable to depression, while boys become more vulnerable with binge drinking
and heavy marijuana use.

URL,

http://www.ajpm-online.net/home

July 29, 2006 7:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the discussion section of the report:

"Several limitations apply to our findings. First, the information on risk behaviors and depression is based on self-reported data and thus subject to unknown error; audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) technology was used to increase the probability of accurate reporting. Missing data were minimal with ACASI, except for items on parent education (about 5% missing). With respect to measures, the CES-D was developed to screen for depression in large population studies. Therefore, a score above the cut-off point is meant to be predictive of, but not diagnostic of, major depressive disorder. Finally, although temporal ordering suggests a directional and causal relationship between risk behavior and depression, these analyses cannot rule out unidentified predisposing factors that may cause both."

The authors report that the method of data collection used, self report, is "subject to unknown error." They also point out that "unidentified predisposing factors...may cause both" the depression and the high risk behaviors.

Here's one conclusion we can agree on:

"Future research is needed to better understand the mechanisms of the relationship between adolescent behavior and depression, and to determine whether interventions to prevent or stop risky behaviors will also reduce the risk of later depression."

MCPS Mom

July 29, 2006 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

July 29, 2006 2:34 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I was at RTI when Jim O'Reilly was first developing ACASI technology, and have read a lot of the studies about it. ACASI is especially useful for reporting sensitive behaviors, because the respondent doesn't have to tell another human being anything -- a recorded voice on the computer asks the question, and the respondent typically types their answer into the computer. The usual result is that people are more willing to give accurate answers to questions with a social-desirability component when they are not concerned with being judged by the interviewer.

The biases due to self-report are well-known. Some of these are warm-and-fuzzy social biases, and some are cognitive, e.g., people tend not to estimate time-frames especially well.

The real criticism of this kind of study is that correlation does not imply causation. That the same people who are involved in risky behaviors are also diagnosed as depressed might mean that a common factor -- say, alienation -- is at work on both dependent variables. The time-lag is interesting enough, if behaviors precede diagnosis, but really what it says is that kids who try drugs and experiment with sex earlier may be depressed later, and not so much vice versa. They overstate their "support" for a hypothesis, but not much, mainily the researchers are careful to use the language of regression analysis to say that one set of variables "predicts" another.

JimK

July 29, 2006 2:56 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

By the way, Wyatt, I don't think that was funny.

For the rest of you, our resident Anon tried to misconstrue this post with a statement that began, "JimK you so smart and funny. so you have not problem with foul language, and bad words let me introduced some "bad words" and lets see if you don't censer them." Then he spewed a bunch of vulgarities, mostly on a homophobic theme, and I deleted it.

The idiots do get tiring.

JimK

July 29, 2006 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JimK said...
By the way, Wyatt, I don't think that was funny.

For the rest of you, our resident Anon tried to misconstrue this post with a statement that began…and bad words let me introduced some "bad words" and lets see if you don't censer them."

usually the only ones -- who complain when somebody uses a bad word on a TV show
Well look at the total hypocrite JimK is
Well look at the total hypocrite JimK is
Well look at the total hypocrite JimK is
Well look at the total hypocrite JimK is

July 29, 2006 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It amuses me to no end how TTFers will say something one day and then say the exact opposite the next. I don’t know whom Wyatt is but if he finds this half a amusing as I do than he must be a good guy. What is wrong with you Jim, can’t take it. Mister free speech always crying about people trying to tell you what you can and cannot do. But as soon as someone says something you don’t like. You’re ready to censer them. That’s not very enlighten of you is it. I got an idea why don’t you just ignore me. Don’t respond to what I have to say. Because if you think that you can prove you are not full of s#*t than you are a bigger idiot than I already think you are. Face the facts. What is a homophobic? Just some smart sounding word made up by homosexuals as a week comeback; ouch you really burned me that time. What else have you got, other than to flip flop?

July 29, 2006 5:45 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, it turns out it's possible to value both freedom and decency.

JimK

July 29, 2006 6:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim you only value freedom if supports your own desires, and you only support your own definition of decency, if it does not fit in to your definition than it is something to be mocked. It is wrong only when you are offended. As long as it does not bother you than it is ok. Defendable as freedom of speech. Do as I say not as I do. It is ok if I do it, but it is wrong for you to do it.

Jim said “Anon, it turns out it's possible to value both freedom and decency.”
Do you want to give this some context?

July 29, 2006 7:25 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you don't have any idea what my own desires are, what I like, you don't know what I think, what offends me, what bothers me. I have no desire to make anyone behave like me, look like me, talk like me, and so I keep those things private.

I prefer to live and let live, and normally in my life that has been enough. In the past few years, even though it is against my inclinations I have found it necessary to stand up to people who think they have the right to force others to obey their ignorant demands.

The one principle I will fight for is freedom, my own and my fellow citizens'.

JimK

July 29, 2006 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim you portray more than you realize. Are philosophy is the prism that we perceive the world. And yours is represented in how you see the world around you. It’s in the comments you make, the opinions you right, and underlines the reason you created TTF. You have told me what you think on any number of topics and reading them gives me an understanding of what you think. I know how to bother and offend you, and I know that because you have told me this in the blogs you writ. You state quite truthfully that you have no desire to make anyone “Look like me, talk like me, and so I keep those things private.” But you do have an intense desire for people to think like you, to see the world like you, and to share your personal philosophy. You can deny it that would fit your M.O. Not the one you preach, the behavior you preach is “to live and let live” you state, “The one principle I will fight for is freedom.” “To stand up to people who think they have the right to force others to obey their ignorant demands.” “ All very noble, but what is the difference between “there” ignorant demands, and your ignorant demands, other than your perception of right and wrong.

July 30, 2006 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim you fight against my freedom of speech. But defend NAMBLA’s can you explain how you justify one and not the other.

July 30, 2006 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim you fight against my freedom of speech. But defend NAMBLA’s can you explain how you justify one and not the other.

July 30, 2006 2:52 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, count yourself lucky. I have deleted a few of your comments with offensive language in them and ugly personal attacks on others who comment here. But I haven't deleted them just for being idiotic; if I had, there would be no trace of you here.

The idea that I have either fought against your freedom of speech or defended NAMBLA are both ridiculous lies. I am not going to get sucked into any discussion of those topics -- this blog is not about you, and it has nothing to do with NAMBLA. If you continue to bring them up, readers will only see a note that says "Comment deleted: This post has been removed by the blog administrator."

JimK

July 30, 2006 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What JimK Does Not Want You To See"

Yes I understand, but still going back to my earlier point.

Some words should not be used in some places. Right.

“But I haven't deleted them just for being idiotic; if I had, there would be no trace of you here.”

My point was that some times language is inappropriate; you deleted my comments because the language was inappropriate. That was the whole point. The public owns the airwaves if language is used that is inappropriate than we have the right to complain. We have the right to have are grievances addressed.

If you don’t like what is bloged than you delete it some thing.

“Parents Television Council. They're the ones -- usually the only ones -- who complain when somebody uses a bad word on a TV show”

As for ugly personal attacks I have no problem when you or other members of TTF use them, as long as I have the right to counter attack in-kind. If you cannot take it don’t dish it out.
You did defend the ACLU and the right of free speech to those it represents. I don’t think the ACLU would come to my defense. They say, I don’t qualify for there protection.

I would count myself lucky if you read and responded to the statement below.

Jim you portray more than you realize. Are philosophy is the prism that we perceive the world. And yours is represented in how you see the world around you. It’s in the comments you make, the opinions you right, and underlines the reason you created TTF. You have told me what you think on any number of topics and reading them gives me an understanding of what you think. I know how to bother and offend you, and I know that because you have told me this in the blogs you writ. You state quite truthfully that you have no desire to make anyone “Look like me, talk like me, and so I keep those things private.” But you do have an intense desire for people to think like you, to see the world like you, and to share your personal philosophy. You can deny it that would fit your M.O. Not the one you preach, the behavior you preach is “to live and let live” you state, “The one principle I will fight for is freedom.” “To stand up to people who think they have the right to force others to obey their ignorant demands.” “ All very noble, but what is the difference between “there” ignorant demands, and your ignorant demands, other than your perception of right and wrong.

July 30, 2006 5:32 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

A thought or two from the Frontrange of Colorado before I get some sleep (I have to work tonite)...

Jim writes,

Anon, it turns out it's possible to value both freedom and decency.

Wow! I'll have to print that out and frame it!

Why?

Well, if memory serves me correct (and maybe it doesn't as the Mrs. seems to think that at almost 45, I forget too much - I turn 45 next this coming Friday), Jim, aren't you the one that was guffawing at those upright, puritanical, hyperventilating vight-ving whackos offended at Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"?

Yes, freedom and decency can go together...but only if a 3rd element is added: self-control. And here is a thought to consider,

"We say we want a renewal of character in our day but we don't really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels.

This price is too high for us to pay.

We want character but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame; we want virtue but without particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist upon it; we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom.

In short, we want what we cannot have on the terms that we want it."

(The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or Evil, by James Davison Hunter; Hunter teaches Sociology and Religious Studies at the University of Virginia.)

I guess I would be interested in how one could arrive at freedom and decency without self-control, and absent self-control, who would decide (hummmm, sounds like a "Pro-Choice" slogan)?

With that said, when I post on this forum I appreciate that I am on somebody elses turf, that is, I am a guest. How should a guest behave is a good question to ask. Since I have tested the bounds of free speech I have found them to be generous, certainly more generous than in other forums I have frequented.

July 30, 2006 9:34 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

And Orin, I will remind you that you agreed that nobody was probably "really" offended by Janet Jackson's clever publicity stunt.

Freedom only works if people respect one anothers' freedom. That is, tolerance is necessary. Our society has developed a rigid intolerance for anything sexual, including Janet Jackson's brass pasty; oddly, this intolerance is enveloped in a nebula of sexual obsession. Please don't confuse (here and on the other comment tonight) sexuality with indecency. We have taken a big part of our innate nature and pretended that it is unnatural and dangerous.

It is always surprising to go to other civilized countries and see nudity on television, in the newspaper, at the beach, and to see that the people, for instance in Europe, have neither the obsession nor the problems we have with sex. Not the diseases, not the rapes, not the pregnancy rates. And yet, they are quite decent people -- in fact, Europeans look down on us as boors. How do you figure? (And please, let's not go with the "self-loathing" cliches, all right?)

JimK

July 30, 2006 9:58 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

And Orin, I will remind you that you agreed that nobody was probably "really" offended by Janet Jackson's clever publicity stunt.

Ok, ok...really now, I can only speak ultimately for myself, and since I did not watch the "event" live, I could not really say what my reaction would have been if I were watching it LIVE.

Freedom only works if people respect one anothers' freedom. That is, tolerance is necessary.

Only? Only if there is tolerance? How far would you be willing to go to extend that "tolerance"?

Our society has developed a rigid intolerance for anything sexual, including Janet Jackson's brass pasty; oddly, this intolerance is enveloped in a nebula of sexual obsession.

"Nebula of sexual obsession"??? Is that anything like emanations and penumbras?

Please don't confuse (here and on the other comment tonight) sexuality with indecency.

I'll try not to do that, but I can't make any promises...

We have taken a big part of our innate nature and pretended that it is unnatural and dangerous.

Oh, you mean like birth control which is nearly entirely directed at controlling women's natural fertility? Wow Jim, better be careful with that POV...lol.

It is always surprising to go to other civilized countries and see nudity on television, in the newspaper, at the beach, and to see that the people, for instance in Europe, have neither the obsession nor the problems we have with sex.

What about Asian countries like Japan? They appear to have very similar attitudes about sexuality (and better still, none of the sex hangups of the religion of those hebrews and Jesus freaks here in the States) and yet they are genuine sex fiends.

As to the Europeans not having problems with sex...I would beg to differ. They most definitely DO have problems because they seem to have forgotten one of the primary reasons for sex, i.e. breeding (sorry, but I just could not bring myself to use the word procreation...ok, there, I used is as well as breeding...phew, that was tough). The only thing keeping western Europe's native population from going into a literal free fall is the influx of arabic/islamic populations. Take immigrants out of the equation and Europeans are de-populating Europe on a scale not seen since the Black Plague. Quite an accomnplishment...

Not the diseases, not the rapes, not the pregnancy rates. And yet, they are quite decent people -- in fact, Europeans look down on us as boors.

Two of the three most deadly totalitarian regimes from the 20th century were spawned on Western European soil. Which three, you ask? Well, the first was Soviet Communism (ultimately defeated by the indomitable will of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II), which derived from the thinking of Karl Marx - a bad human being, and an even worse husband and father). Second, was National Socialism. Between the two secular ideologies it is estimated that 30 million lost their lives. The third? Mao...who, come to think of it, picked up his idea of a perfect world from Marx as well. Wow, three for three... And under Mao millions also lost their lives.

But, hey, they are decent chaps now!

How do you figure? (And please, let's not go with the "self-loathing" cliches, all right?)

Could it be the cheese and wine?

July 31, 2006 5:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just read most of the comments from this weekend. On Saturday, there was some conversation about vulgar language used by "Wyatt" that were subsequently delted. As the anon who is usually referred to as "Wyatt" here, let me say that I wasn't on the internet from Thurs evening until this morning and didn't make any vulgar remarks on Saturday or any other day, nor would I.

H.A.

July 31, 2006 10:22 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if you want to avoid this kind of confusion, I think all you have to do is sign up with Blogger and get an ID. Maybe Dana or David Fishback can explain how they did it, you notice that their comments display their ID. You don't have to use your real name, of course, but at least you wouldn't have to keep saying -- as you have many times -- "that Anon is not me."

The way it is now, it's not always easy to tell you apart.

JimK

July 31, 2006 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jimk still running form the Issue. You show your intolerance all the time pal, and yet you seem to think that tolerance is the highest virtue in the world. As far a sex goes natural is function following form. Sex if for reproduction. This is why the neo-cons and religious fundamentalist are taking over the county. We just out produce you. We have been doing it since the 70s. Nothing you can do about it. You aborted yourself into the minority party.
P.s. I am not HA


Jim you portray more than you realize. Are philosophy is the prism that we perceive the world. And yours is represented in how you see the world around you. It’s in the comments you make, the opinions you right, and underlines the reason you created TTF. You have told me what you think on any number of topics and reading them gives me an understanding of what you think. I know how to bother and offend you, and I know that because you have told me this in the blogs you writ. You state quite truthfully that you have no desire to make anyone “Look like me, talk like me, and so I keep those things private.” But you do have an intense desire for people to think like you, to see the world like you, and to share your personal philosophy. You can deny it that would fit your M.O. Not the one you preach, the behavior you preach is “to live and let live” you state, “The one principle I will fight for is freedom.” “To stand up to people who think they have the right to force others to obey their ignorant demands.” “ All very noble, but what is the difference between “there” ignorant demands, and your ignorant demands, other than your perception of right and wrong.

July 31, 2006 11:30 AM  
Blogger Paul said...

JimK, it amazes me that the Parents Television Council doesn't like the V-chip campaign. Of course, this group always ignores the simple fact that parents can use this technology to make TV viewing decisions for their children. Or they can simply turn the TV set off. This makes government regulation of TV both unnecessary and undesirable.

Moreover, what kind of example does the Parents Television Council set when it routinely manufactures automated e-mail complaints to the FCC - mostly from people who have never seen the show that they are complaining about? Great example of democracy in action, isn't it? (Incidentally, the PTC is responsible for about 98% of all TV indecency complaints.)

Check out TV Watch, at www.televisionwatch.org, for common-sense solutions to the TV indecency debate.

July 31, 2006 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if the FCC did its job there would be no need for the PTC. If the v-chip blocked just MTV there would be no MTV

July 31, 2006 1:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home