Family Hour? Not so much.

The media watchdog group Parents Television Council has issued a report which states that sex and violence are on the rise during what is traditionally called the “Family Hour” on network television. 

The group studied 180 hours of original programming on six broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, MyNetworkTV and the CW) during three two-week ratings sweeps periods in 2006 and 2007. It found that instances of violence had increased 52.4% since a similar study in 2000-2001 and that sexual content had increased 22.1%.

The Parents Television Council is hoping that the FCC begins to regulate violence on television the way they already regulate “indecent content.”

The network response is that with the vastly increased number of options available to families, with so many more channels now available in the basic cable package, there is less need to provide that type of programming. 

 To be honest, I agree with the networks on this one.  One of the reasons the FCC had the authority to regulate television was a combination of two factors – 1. the finite number of frequencies used to transmit broadcast signals were publicly owned and 2. there was a scarcity of options in broadcast television.  To the extent that #2 becomes less of an issue, the authority of the FCC to regulate broadcasting should be diminished. 

What the regulate-television-on-behalf-of-families crowd seems not to be able to understand is that television is a value neutral tool.  Like the internet, it has nothing to say about what it is transmitting.  It is not a substitute for parenting in respect to instilling values and exposing kids to what’s out there in the world.  Developing technology that allows “parental controls” to prevent kids from watching whatever they want while the parents are not around is appropriate.  

But the world is a dangerous place sometimes.  And people have sex all the time (at least that’s what I hear…).  I’d like my television shows to have something thoughtful to say about reality.  It’s an art.  Sometimes good.  Sometimes very, very bad.  But it should be free to tell stories that are important and relevant to all of us, even if often it does not.   

Artificial restraints based on someone’s notion of “sensible family” programming simply isn’t the appropriate role for the government.  Especially if there is a vastly less intrusive way to accomplish what is purported to be the goals of the movement. 

Read Full Post »

New Mexico and Medical Mary J

Looks like Governor (and Democratic Presidential Candidate) Bill Richardson is going through all the motions necessary to implement a state sponsored medical marijuana program without actually doing it. 

Gov. Bill Richardson ordered the state Health Department on Friday to resume planning of a medical marijuana program despite the agency’s worries about possible federal prosecution.

However, the governor stopped short of committing to implement a state-licensed production and distribution system for the drug if the potential for federal prosecution remains unchanged.

The department announced earlier this week that it would not implement the law’s provisions for the agency to oversee the production and distribution of marijuana to eligible patients. That decision came after Attorney General Gary King warned that the department and its employees could face federal prosecution for implementing the law, which took effect in July.

Even if Governor Richardson decided to implement the program he is planning, it seems like a smart move to keep that close to his chest for now.  He can control the story at this point and possibly put the Democratic congress and President Bush on the spot. 

Also Friday, Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, sent a letter to President Bush urging the federal government to allow states like New Mexico to implement medical marijuana programs without fear of federal prosecution.

Such as exception would require Congress to approve legislation changing the law, Gallegos said.

Last month, the U.S. House rejected a proposal _ on a 165-262 vote _ that would have blocked the Justice Department from taking action against state medical marijuana programs, including New Mexico’s.

Personally, if a doctor wants to prescribe marijuana and a patient wants to take the prescription and states want to allow it, I’m not entirely sure why Bush believes he’s got anything to say about it. 

Read Full Post »

What was that saying about forests and trees?

An interesting passage in William Saletan’s otherwise ho-hum editorial on the anti-tobacco crusades:

Urine tests are a warning sign that the war on smoking is morphing into a war on nicotine. The latest target is snus, a tobacco product that delivers nicotine without smoke. Despite studies showing it’s far safer than cigarettes, most European countries allow smoking but prohibit snus. In the U.S., sponsors of legislation to regulate tobacco under the FDA are resisting amendments that would let companies tell consumers how much safer snus is. The president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids complains that snus will “increase the number of people who use tobacco,” letting “the big companies win no matter what tobacco products people use.” But the goal shouldn’t be to stamp out tobacco or make companies lose. The goal should be to save lives.

Well, I’d say that the goal “to save lives” goes a little far, as well (at least insofar as it’s done not by preventing nonsmokers’ exposure to smoking but by criminalizing smokers themselves), but whatever. You get Saletan’s drift. The anti-smoking crusade is not just about protecting innocent third parties from the potential dangers of second-hand smoke, or even “protecting” those poor smokers from themselves. It’s about the complete eradication of tobacco use and sale. Not that this observation is anything new, obviously, but it’s just nice when anti-smoking people come right out and say it (much like when anti-choice fundies let it slip that their motives are less about Loving the Embryos!!!!!!! and more about preventing The Sex).

Read Full Post »

What’s wrong with New York City?

After banning the use of the word nigger last month, elected officials in NYC are now suggesting banning use of the word bitch as well. Because if people can’t say racist or sexist words, the sentiments behind these words will cease to exist, obviously.

While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word.

The rest of the article focuses a lot of folks who insist the word shouldn’t be banned because it can be a term of endearment or used in non-negative ways. I like that the conventional reasoning against banning the word seems to be based on its linguistic versatility rather than on the fact that it’s downright loony to ban a fucking word.

Anyway, I’m with Sharon here:

The English language is quite durable and can handle its misuse, even when such misuse is designed to hurt or threaten others.

I don’t like the idea of giving words so much power that they need to be regulated. And in the case of the N-word, society has changed enough that, in my lifetime, that word has a level of offensiveness that’s higher than even the F-word. It seems to me that society has done the best job ostracizing that word and that we don’t need legislation.

Edit: When I first read the article, I thought that some of the council members’ quotes alluded to some pretty heavy underlying racial anxieties/fears or just outright racism, what with the several mentions about how this legislation was designed to combat use of the word bitch by hip-hip artists and rappers. These were just vague thoughts, though, that I was too lazy to flesh out in posting. Luckily, Amanda does the good thinking, as always, so we don’t have to:

The dreaded “rappers” have been brought into the debate, which is basically a badly concealed code word for “young black men” at this point, who are presumably the only people who’ve ever called anyone a “bitch.” “Bitch” and “ho”, being popular in a form of music where a solid majority of the artists are black, are wrong, but “cunt”, which is the favorite word of Bill O’Reilly fans when they’re writing me, somehow passed the notice of the council. To make the irony even deeper, they’ve also gone after the word “nigger”, because it’s all over the place in rap music, too. I’m getting the impression they’re trying to ban hip-hop word by word. The sound of scratching records is an assault on my womanhood, I say, and that should help the process along.

Read Full Post »

Attempts to save your own life are too risky, appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that terminally ill patients whose only chance of survival lies in investigational medicines should, essentially, suck it up and wait it out ’til the FDA rules that the drugs are 100 percent without risk.

That makes sense. I mean, if terminally ill patients take some drug without the FDA’s permission, it could be dangerous. They could die. Oh, wait …

Two judges dissented, pointing out the injustice of this situation:

The two dissenters said the ruling ignored the Constitution’s protection for individuals and their right to life, and instead bowed to “a dangerous brand of paternalism” that put the government’s interest first.

The majority, however, says people don’t have the right to “assume risk” that may save their lives unless a regulatory body says they can:

Judge Thomas B. Griffith, writing for the majority, said a right to experimental drugs was not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. Judge Griffith said the right of self-defense “cannot justify creating a constitutional right to assume any level of risk without regard to the scientific and medical judgment expressed through the clinical testing process.”

Sorry you’re dying, but we have rules and procedures, mind you This is no time for attempts at self-preservation, we have a bureaucracy to run here!

But perhaps I’m making this out to be more clear-cut than it is. The group filed the suit under a 5th Amendment claim, saying that not allowing patients these drugs deprived them their right to life. Perhaps the judges were not so much ruling on whether or not dying patients should be allowed to take test drugs but whether or not they have a constitutional right to do so. One of the judges in the majority noted that this is perhaps a matter better left to Congress than the courts. If these judges in the majority are truly constitutional purists, so be it. I think there are major merits to originalist interpretations. But as one of the dissenters notes:

“In the end, it is startling,” Rogers wrote, that the Constitution has been read to include unnamed “fundamental rights” to marry, to control a child’s education, to have sex in private and to have an abortion, “but the right to save one’s life is left out.”

The group who brought the suit, the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, said they’ll appeal to the Supreme Court.

Read Full Post »

secondhand smoke: The numbers don’t exist, but I swear it causes cancer.

Sitting in a bar the other night, drinking $3 martinis by myself because I had nothing better to do, I was reading the spring issue of Regulation magazine, because I thought that would be less awkward than reading a book.

There was a great article in which Gio Batta Gori debunks the “science” behind secondhand smoke reports, frequently relied upon to push smoking bans across the country.

The plain truth is that no credible measure of ETS exposure has ever been possible.

The Surgeon General’s latest report on environmental tobacco smoke (a summary of previous studies) assesses the risk of contracting lung cancer after being exposed to ETS is 1.21. “Such a precise assessment of risk,” the article claims, “… must fulfill some careful, analytical requirements.” In other words, one would expect some sort of scientific process to have been put to use, representative sample sizes, accurate measurements, precise data collection, control groups, etc, to be able to report such precise results.

In reality, though, the studies mostly rely on potentially biased self-reporting of elderly men and women, asking them to recall vague instances of ETS exposure throughout their lifetime:

…The studies asked 60-70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars, or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during lifetime since early childhood, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, were the windows open, and similar vagaries. The resulting answers – usually elicited in a few minutes as part of an interview, a phone survey, or by proxy recalls provided by relatives of deceased persons – are then recorded as precise numerical measures of lifetime exposures, as if the digits recorded were error- and bias-free.

The article goes on to claim issues of publication bias, that only studies supporting increased risk of lung cancer from ETS exposure actually get published. Apparently, though, there are almost as many studies claiming decreased risk of cancer and most studies actually claim no change in risk at all.

The antismoking crusaders avoid all confrontations about the accuracy of their reports, claiming it it is all for the greater good, the “higher goal of abolishing cigarettes and tobacco.”

Even “a leading intellect of the campaign against ETS” could not offer anything to the UK House of Lords.

Sir Richard offered his personal belief that “I think there has got to be some risk” for which he admitted not having any testable evidence.

And so it seems that all of the smoking bans across the country – New York City, the entire state of Ohio, etc – that claim to be based on overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer are really just one more attempt by the paternalist government of the day to dictate what we as citizens do in our personal lives, what business owners can allow in their establishments, all for some “greater good” that may or may not even exist.

Read Full Post »

V-Chip coming to a cell phone near you?

My super hero name would have something to do with protecting inanimate objects from being banned. I am protector of all things loose, digusting, and uncared for. So when I read about a V-Chip for a cell phone, it looked like I was going to have to get back in to fighting shape.

Here’s a bit from Slash Dot on a V-Chip for everything.

“The Senate Commerce Committee has stepped in and approved a legislation asking the Federal Communications Commission to ‘oversee the development of a super V-chip that could screen content on everything from cell phones to the Internet.’ Since the content viewed by children is no longer restricted to TV or radio Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., the sponsor of the Child Safe Viewing Act, feels that the new law is necessary. ‘The bill requires the FCC to review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, TV makers are required to embed the V-chip within televisions to allow parents to block content according to a rating system.'”

I read about this early this week from a daily trade e-newsletter I subscribe to. I meant to post it early, just to gage what the consensus is. When are we protecting youth and when we are going to far? What is too far?

Read Full Post »

No more Incense in Yoga Studies?

I owe a big thanks to YogaDawg for sending me the link to MetaDish.

Another study in Catholic churches had similar conclusions. All that time we’ve spent in down dog trying to align our Chakras and elevate our Qi, we’ve been huffing in pollutants and crap.

And look, there’s a real Bloomberg quote!

“We consider this a major health issue”, Bloomberg said. “We have made major strides in the health of our citizens by banning cigarettes from bars and restaurants and now tran fats used in cooking. Burning incense and second hand incense smoke is the obvious next step”, he added. He will introduce legislation next week.

I’ll leave the witty comments for later. Maybe I’ll go make myself some tea with formula milk.

Read Full Post »

Shhhh! You’re not supposed to know this!

A strange twist in Congress’ attempt to give the FDA regulatory power over tobacco: it must be kept a secret.

Anti-smoking advocate Michael Siegel even thinks this is silly:

In a last hour maneuver, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman – Senator Edward Kennedy – inserted a provision into the bill which would prevent the companies from making any statement to the public, in any communication, that informs people of the fact (the truth) that cigarettes are now regulated by the FDA.

You know that regulation of cigarettes by the FDA is a terrible idea if the supporters of the bill have to insert a clause into it preventing tobacco companies from telling the public that the FDA regulates cigarettes. You know that FDA regulation of cigarettes is a pretty bad idea if we need to hide the truth from the public lest it have the expected adverse consequences for the public’s health.

Apparently, the only way this legislation will work is if we trick people into thinking that the FDA does not regulate cigarettes.

Think about it. What kind of cockamamie regulatory scheme depends upon the public not knowing about that scheme in order to avoid severe public health consequences?

How sensible can a regulatory approach be if we need to hide from the public the very fact that the regulatory scheme is in place?

Kind-of agree. Although I never quite get why anybody is all up in arms about this or that (FDA regulation, labeling cigarette’s “light”) misleading people into thinking cigarettes are safe. How stupid do they think people are? Nobody these days thinks cigarettes are safe. They smoke anyway, but they know it’s not “safe.” (although, when you look at it from the general persepctive of public health fascists who think the government needs to regulate all behavior, you can kind of see how this mindset makes sense; it’s absolutely mind-boggling to them that people sometimes engage in risky behaviors because they’ve weighed the costs and benefits and decided to engage in that behavior anyway; no, it makes much more sense to assume that the public is a bunch of silly, uneducated morons decieved by Big Something — business, tobacco, Planned Parenthood, Pharma — who need the gentle hand of Uncle Sam to prevent them from having decisions to make).

For the record, I don’t really have any particular problem with the FDA being given regulatory power over cigarettes; I was actually kind of surprised to find out they didn’t already have it. The only part of the legislation I really have problems with is the banning of certain flavors of cigarettes in some sort of misguided attempt to “protect the children” (maybe because I give the anti-smoking people too much credit, and think they’re not really idiotic enough to believe the clove-cigarettes-are-extra-desirable-to-kids tripe and are really just trying to slowly chip away at smoking being legal in the first place, much like anti-abortion advocates and the “partial-birth abortion” ban).

Anyway, let’s end with one more quote from Siegel:

If the FDA legislation were, as suggested by its anti-smoking group supporters, going to produce safer cigarettes, then we would not need to go to extreme measures (violating freedom of speech rights) in order to shield the public from finding out that indeed, cigarettes on the market do comply with FDA requirements. In a brilliant way that I only wish I could have thought of, Senator Kennedy has revealed to the nation just how stupid this legislation is. What the bill is now essentially saying is the following: “We previously issued propaganda suggesting that FDA regulation of cigarettes will save millions of lives by reducing cigarette smoking and making the product safer through product standards. However, we now acknowledge our opponents’ arguments that in reality, the legislation will create a perceived stamp of approval for cigarettes, undermining public health messages about the hazards of smoking. In addition, we now acknowledge that the product probably won’t be safer, and that we need to go to great lengths to make sure that the public does not think that cigarettes actually comply with the FDA standards. Given our propaganda, they may think that compliance with FDA safety standards implies a safer product. But the truth is that our proposed safety standards are not actually ‘safety’ standards.”

Read Full Post »

strippers, gays, wingnuts, campaign finance corruption, trademark infringement … Ohio controversy has it all

Via As Ohio Goes, the Cincinnati-based (and Daddy Dobson affiliated) conservative christian group Citizens for Community Values (the driving force behind Ohio’s recent draconian strip club legislation and the perpetuators of Ohio’s 2004 amendment banning gay marriage) are now suing opposition group Citizens for Community Standards for copying their name.

Charles Allen, a Virginia attorney who specializes in intellectual property rights and represents the Christian group, sent a letter Tuesday to opponents demanding that they stop using the name. Allen accused opponents of picking a similar name “with the intention of creating confusion and misleading voters.”

That’s not the case, argues Sandy Theis, spokeswoman for Citizens for Community Standards. “We picked the name for one reason because it accurately reflects what we stand for,” Theis said. “We believe local communities should determine what is good for them, and we define ’community’ as a local government.”

CZawadzki at OAG speculates:

This is how I imagine the thought process went: ”You can’t say you have “standards”. We’re the only ones who represent the community and have standards. In fact – we have a lawyer who is going to take you to court and say we own the word “community” and all political groups that use it have to ask our permission. Nah Nah Nenah Nah”

And if the suit actually goes to court, things could get complicated. In June, the state of Ohio announced that it would initiate a probe into the 2004 anti-gay marriage campaign, after a complaint was filed by Progress Ohio alleging that the amendment’s backers used CCV to channel campaign donations, since Ohio law requires political campaigns to report contributors but nonprofit charities don’t have to.

A group that in 2004 advocated for passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage appears to have intentionally concealed its campaign donors and expenses, according to a complaint filed earlier today with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Citizens for Community Values Action raised and spent more than $1.4 million to promote the amendment, known as Issue 1, but filed no campaign finance reports in 2004 or 2005.

Now Dave Harding wonders whether this new trademark suit might be a dangerous proposition for CCV.

Careful there CCV . . . Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. If you go to Court, you’re going to have to disclose the “services” that you provide that are the basis for your trademark claim. Those “services” are the same ones that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is already appointing a special counsel to investigate. Are you sure you want to expose all that information to legal discovery in Court over a trademark complaint?

Regardless, Joseph at Plunderbund notes that the names may sound alike, but so do the names of at least 50 other Ohio community groups.

Read Full Post »

teens are also disproportionate consumers of wine coolers, arbor mist, mad dog, and natty lite

The Senate health committee is scheduled to consider a bill tomorrow that would allow the FDA to regulate cigarettes. It is getting stalled, however, because it would keep clove cigarettes legal. This is apparently unacceptable to sponsors of the bill, who are insisting that clove cigarettes, along with all other flavored cigarettes, should be banned. Their logic is that cigarettes flavored like strawberry, chocolate, and vanilla appeal too much to children, and therefore should be illegal. You know who also likes flavored cigarettes? Me. And a large number of other adult smokers. And you know what’s already illegal? Kids smoking in the first place.

This is just another variation on the recently proposed FDA regulations — kids shouldn’t watch violent TV, so we should ban all violent TV. Nevermind that adults might enjoy this TV. Nevermind that adults might enjoy flavored cigarettes. Never mind that adults might enjoy any particular thing — if it is bad for “the children,” it all must go. Entirely. Heaven forbid parents, schools, or anyone else ever have to prevent kids from doing anything themselves.

Read Full Post »

we can’t have people making their own health care decisions

A 50% cut in health insurance premiums would only reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 3%, estimates a Rand study out Monday, which suggests that incentives and government tax cuts won’t lead to universal coverage.

The study, published online Monday in the journal Health Services Research, says cost is just one obstacle to health coverage, with many uninsured citing other barriers, such as the hassle factor of buying insurance, the desire to spend money on other things or a belief that coverage is not necessary.

“A lot of people aren’t willing to pay for insurance; they have other things they feel are a priority,” Marquis says.

Hmm, people have other things that take priority over spending on health insurance. That makes sense. Some of them don’t feel it’s worth the hassle it takes to do so, some of them need their money for other things, and some of them are just pretty healthy and don’t think they need the coverage. Yep, yep, these all seem like pretty reasonable and rational reasons for choosing not to get health insurance. Cool.

Oh, wait … did we just determine that people are making reasonable and rational decisions based on their own indivudal economic status, health status, cost/benefit and risk/benefit analyses? Shit, man, we can’t have that! Cue government intervention!

A federal requirement that all people have insurance may be the only way to achieve (universal coverage), says study author Susan Marquis, an economist at Rand, a think tank.

Bleh. I don’t have a lot of opinions about health insurance, but this universal requirement business is the one plan I find absolutely infuriatingly awful. I think I’d rather have complete government-funded healthcare than this. Government-funded healthcare might be anathema to conservatives/libertarians for a lot of reasons, but at least it’s more onerous on the government than on the people, and not as infringing on people’s ability to make their own decisions. You wanna give me health insurance? Fine. Just don’t tell me I absolutely must buy it myself. It’s just raising the bar once again on what it takes to be a proper and law-abiding citizen …

Read Full Post »

Memo to Republican senators: Please get back in big business’ pocket. Please? I could stomach your “family values”* better when you at least didn’t want to tax everything

From a USA Today article on SCHIP and proposed tobacco tax increases:

“It really does come down to a choice between children and tobacco,” said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who originally proposed the 61-cent increase.

Except …. not at all? But nice framing there, Gordo. Not at all inflammatory and completely misleading.

(It only comes down to this if you first make the concession that it is the federal government’s duty to fund state-run health insurance programs, and from there leap to the insistance that the only place these funds can come from is increased taxes on an already-heavily taxed product but that it is somehow okay to persistently increase taxes on this product every time you can’t find the money elsewhere because the product is something you disapprove of)

Also, I find this “fact” apocryphal:

A 61-cent increase, said (William Corr of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids), would prevent nearly 1.9 million children from smoking and help nearly 1.2 million adults to quit.

*okay, okay, I lied; I could never stomach your “family values” no matter how many taxes you don’t raise

Read Full Post »

this is not about animal rights

Baylen Linnekin of the blog To The People has a great article in the summer issue of Doublethink about Chicago’s foie gras ban. What I like about the article is that it illustrates how, regardless of whether you think the process of making foie gras is cruel to animals or not, Chicago’s ban is still pointless and unfounded.

First of all, there are no places that even produce foie gras within city limits, and even if there were, the ban doesn’t cover the producing of foie gras nor the selling of it in grocery stores — only its sale in restaurants. Effectively, it harms businesses without even touching any of the purported animal rights violations.

But second, and most importantly, it is a complete waste of legislative time. Baylen quotes a Chicago chef discussing the alderman (city councilman) who pushed the legislation, Joe Moore.

“There’s no duck farm in [Moore’s] 49th Ward. There’s not even a restaurant serving foie gras in the 49th Ward. What is he doing?

“An aldermanic position is a part-time position,” Chef Didier says. “There are other things to work on. They don’t understand why they got elected. They don’t understand what their constituents want.”

I think this gets to the heart of one of the most important issues about legislation such as Chicago’s foie gras ban: it is an abuse of legislative power. This man was put in office to serve his constituents, to be the voice of the people and hopefully make decisions that attempt to improve their lives and well-being. When legislators decide that they’re going to take that power and use it to push legislation that is of no concern to their people, they have crossed the line.

Get beyond animal rights issues, whether it is right or wrong to force-feed animals. Get beyond the nanny-statism aspect, whether the government can tell citizens what and what not to eat. What you are left with is a politician who failed in his responsibility to his constituents to do the job they put him in office to do: look out for their interests.

And that is my soapbox for the day.

Read Full Post »

more on SCHIP and tobacco taxes

Via WSJ:

Anti tobacco groups also have been advocating a higher tobacco tax, which also appears to be getting attention in the House. Recently, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids presented to House Democratic aides a survey it funded that showed substantial support – even among smokers — for raising tobacco taxes.

So I was skeptical of this statement, but I looked at the survey and results memo, though and the question seems pretty straightforward.

Would you favor or oppose a 75 cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax,
with the revenue dedicated to the program that provides health care coverage to uninsured children?

And apparently 51 percent of “current or occasional smokers” favor the tax increase. I suppose these could all be the “the-government-should-save-me-from-myself” contingent. There could also be some desirability bias at work here, though. Not many people really want to be perceived as saying, “No, I don’t want to help save poor children if it’s going to cost me an extra 75 cents!” (which isn’t exactly the issue, but you know, it can sound that way).

Read Full Post »

No sex in the champagne room on your cell phone.

Doesn’t it just suck that you can only get porn on your computer, television, downloaded to you iPod, but you can’t take it on your phone?

… porn already is widely distributed across the Internet, on cable TV, and video-on-demand channels in the U.S. without much fuss.

Why can’t we get our porn on our phones? Who is this “Big Brother” that is stopping me from my mobile porn?

“The carriers make so much money on voice, and it’s a lot to have them stick their head out there and compromise a base that’s largely Midwest or largely family to say we have adult content,” he said, during a porn panel at the Santa Monica, California conference.

Well isn’t that great. I get awful reception in my apartment, texting sucks without a crackberry or Trio, and damn if downloading videos don’t eat my phones battery. So all of this to save me from myself. To save me from my porn on the go.

Honestly, I can’t speak for my porn habits, but my bus riding buddy, if they want porn, why not? Why even our neighbors across the sea have it on the go, how is that for liberty?

While mobile porn is popular in Europe and other parts of the world, where mobile carriers can block minors from viewing porn, U.S carriers have declined to adopt age verification infrastructure—or take any other steps to peddle porn—for fear of the reaction from conservative Americans, said Clint Fayling, of BrickHouse Mobile, which bundles porn content for mobile phones in Europe.

It’s blocked. Okay. But is there a need? Will there be consumers? If there isn’t a demand then the carries have no purpose to pursue the mobile porn. Why would they if they don’t make money.

Sex content is widely believed to account for 60-80 percent of Internet traffic, and it’s expected to become a $3.3 billion mobile industry globally by 2011, according to Juniper Research.

One carrier will eventually take the plunge in to adult content on the cell phones. It will either create a massive economic boom or interest groups around the country will jump at the sexualized images of America. My bet, both will happen. Who comes out victorious though will say a lot for where our country is headed.

Read Full Post »

Ohio: we hate fun, naked ladies, gay people, nicotine …

Oh goodness. My home state is banning-things-crazy these days. In 2004, it was gay marriage. 2005, smoking. 2006 — I don’t know, I think perhaps we were too temporarily consumed with the midterm elections to ban anything this year. We’re making up for it in 2007, though. The past few months, have been all about banning touching at strip clubs, and discussing banning school choice. And now? Gambling.

Gov. Ted Strickland and Attorney General Marc Dann this morning called on lawmakers to ban nearly all forms of gambling in Ohio, including so-called games of skill that Dann had attempted to legalize.

(For the record, Mark Dann is an idiot who will sign on to just about any old thing in order to get his name in the news. In the months leading up to the November election, in which he was running for Attorney General, he sponsored all sorts of nonsence bills about “Myspace predators” and other frivolousness).

Read Full Post »

Paternalism: “I know you better than you do” says government

Let’s talk about Paternalism for a moment.  This has been on my mind for a couple of days, triggered by a TV commercial regarding Ohio’s seatbelt law.  Now, most people agree that wearing seatbelts in cars is good and people want to be safe while they are driving, but look at the big picture here.  Why is there a law requiring it?  The government is trying to make all of our decisions for us because obviously we aren’t smart enough to make them for ourselves.

And this is happening everywhere.  With drug laws, laws regarding suicide, smoking, alcohol, pornography, and the reasons are all the same; the government is “trying to keep us safe.”  Safe from what?  From ourselves?  I think most people would agree that we are more capable than the government of making decisions about our personal safety.

I think it’s time for our teenage nation to stand up and fight for the right to decide for ourselves what is safe and what isn’t.  Maybe we’ll get hurt, maybe we’ll make mistakes, but dammit, they’ll be our mistakes!

Read Full Post »

Well do you want homeless people to get lung cancer? Do you?

A while back, an art dealer in NY tried to sue homeless people for messing with his storefront ambiance. What’s new in the world or atrocious measures to get rid of homeless people news?

As Mayor Tom Bates sees it, the alcoholics, meth addicts and the like who make up a good portion of the homeless population on Shattuck Avenue downtown and Telegraph Avenue on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus “almost always smoke.” And because smoking bans are the hot ticket these days for California cities, why not meld the two as part of a “comprehensive package” for dealing with the street problem that Bates says “has gone over the top”?

Another city councilman added that this would make things “better for the homeless.”

Well, that’s nice. They might be destitute and dying of starvation or violence or disease, but at least they won’t get lung cancer. And at least the people shopping in Berkeley won’t have to look at homeless people OR smokers. Cicero at To the People sums it up:

I’ve argued for years with many of my leftie friends over whether or not smoking bans are fascist. I’ve always thought they were just too stupid to understand the implications of the policies they support. Lately, I’ve been realizing that they understand the implications all too well. They’re fascist and proud.

Read Full Post »

nanny statism 101 / next they’ll come for our butter!

So I guess Montgomery County in Maryland approved a ban on trans fats for the entire county yesterday. I found myself arguing about trans fats with an acquaintance the other night, and his initial response was complete shock that I didn’t think it was a good idea.

“But they’re really bad for you!” he said. “Why wouldn’t you want people to not be able to eat something that’s really bad for them?”

“Why wouldn’t you want people to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they should be able to eat something that’s bad for them?” I asked.

“Oh, yeah,” he said. “Yeah, I guess you have a point.”

! And then it occurred to me that there are perhaps a whole subset of people who’ve just never really stopped to consider that maybe the whole point of having laws isn’t just to “protect” people from making “bad” decisions. Huh.

I liked this line from the WaPo article:

Restaurateurs say that it could be difficult for them to find healthy replacements for trans fatty oils and that they might have to use artery-clogging palm and coconut oils or butter.

So really what we gain here is … nothing. Unless bans on palm and coconut oils and butter are next.

And on that note, I’m going to the gym. Seriously, I’m going to the gym, at 8 in the a.m. It’s this new thing I’ve started. All of 3 days ago. Hey, maybe we should think about that, in lieu of banning butter and oil — mandatory gym time for all Americans. I mean, it’s bad for you not to exercise, right? Why wouldn’t we want to prevent people from things that are bad for them?

Read Full Post »