7 words

George Carlin’s 7 deadly words - transcript of his monologue. This is sort of wandering.

I tried to think of what they were, and could only come up with 3. I asked Mr.Gopher and he came up with the same 3. (definitely not allowed to hog the dictionary for Quiddler, honey!)
Fuck, Cunt, Shit, Piss, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.

The FCC stated that it would address the legality of broadcast language on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the context presented, use of the “F-Word” [fuck] or other words as highly offensive as the “F-Word” [fuck] may be both indecent and profane, if aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

and then there's: highly offensive vs. indecent vs. obscene vs. just-a-little-offensive??

FCC rule bout what is okay
#3. whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

And they apparently think it’s okay for Fox-TV to have a bunch of sex fetishists running around dressed up in horse-bondage paraphernalia on a TV show at 7 p.m. ...??? What the hell else is that, if not intentional titillation (does that count as “tit”?) or shocking? I was pretty shocked. Admittedly, I was shocked because of the time of day and the fact it was on regular TV. After 10 p.m. would have surprised me that it was on regular TV, but it wouldn't have enraged me.

How many shows are there with a message “some content may be unacceptable to children” at 7 or 8 p.m. (because "local time" here = EST not CST) where there’s . Fine, if you need to put it there to make some righteous idiot turn off the TV to avoid seeing some woman’s cleavage = the one in front, ‘cause if you ever watch the beginning of CSI:Miami, you sure as hell have seen the one in the back with no warning notice. And that's not titillating? [well, I don't think it is, but I'm also not the target audience for them] Except, I've never seen that warning with sex, only with blood/guts/gore.

This came up with discussion about regulating cable more. Strange bedfellows, with some fearing any increase in the Fed's ability to regulate anything vaguely involving the 1st amendment on the same side as those arguing that "free market" forces means letting the customer pick which cable channels she wants, rather than be forced to buy bundled channels.

I would be very, very leery of any additional regulation given to the FCC over cable companies. They already bend & spread 'em to the wimpy wimpy wimpy whiners over those 7 words. Have you seen movies where the "offensive" language was cut/re-dubbed? It's like the Daily Show - any idiot with a 1/2 baked brain knows perfectly well what they're saying during those little bleeps. Watch Battlestar Galactica (the new one, obviously) - the F-word is 'frak'. I can't figure if it is to avoid some FCC/idiot problem [yes!] or if it is simply an effort to make something familiar yet different. Because it is patently obvious what the script writers mean.

Then Jr.Gopher#2 yesterday exclaimed "darn it!"
hmmm... I'm confronted by where to draw the line about what's acceptable abrupt language. Is Sheiße okay? 'Cause Mr.Gopher uses it, but doesn't like me to say shit. In our house, being in a foreign language doesn't excuse it from acceptability. However, what happens when a word isn't as offensive in German as it is in English?

Back to Carlin ... tits? That's banned?? Well, shit. What cocksucker thought that was obscene, but 'boobs' isn't? Does fucktard become a banned word? How about infixes? (As opposed to suffixes or prefixes, an infix is inserting the extra part into the middle of the word, e.g. holy fucking cow, whoopty-fucking-do, et fucking cetera).

I'll go back to science, and the Boltzmann distrifuckingbution.
.

[lie d'jour] Separation of Church & State

"The tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine," she said.

"The separation of church and state arises out of the Constitution," Ralston replied.

"No it doesn't, Jon," Angle said. "Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion, and that's what they meant.

Washington Post, 30 June 2010, Amy Gardner, Sharron Angle grilled on Social Security, Medicare, and 'taking Harry Reid out', retrieved 1.Jul.2010

Now, I will certainly admit that the Founding Fathers probably didn't envision the current understanding of this separation. And, I suppose someone might technically argue that she is correct, in that the separation of church and state is actually in the Bill of Rights, and not the original Constitution. This doesn't change my assessment of this as a Lie.

A church being taken over by the State...?
They would have LTAO.

Lecturing to a congregation to fear the government's actions? This would be the same Thomas Jefferson who espoused:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." [emphasis mine]
as well as
"Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason ..."
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787*

This would be the same Thomas Jefferson who, with James Madison (another Founding Father) waged "a long and successful campaign against state financial support of churches in Virginia." [emphasis mine]

These early American Citizen-Politicians' experiences would have been that the State already had a religion (The Church of England), and they were Out of Luck if they wanted to hold office and weren't Anglican. If you were Roman Catholic, you were just fucked. The majority (Protestants) were probably just pissed that they were being lumped in with the Catholics by being denied.

The C of E had the power, and the American colonists wanted it. The King was the head of the C of E (like the Pope, but with more wives). So, the Founding Fathers' experience was that the only way to get real political freedom was to get rid of the British Government which was run by the British Parliament, which required you to be Anglican to get in, and which required you to consider George III God's Vicar here on Earth.

So - their solution was to eliminate the possibility of an entire government be stuck adhered to one specific sect. How? Prohibit anyone in the new government from setting their flavor of Christianity as the Preferred Choice. In other words: "Let's have no state-mandated religion so we can all equally seek earthly power".

Their solution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Anyone who is running for a seat in the U.S. Senate should be expected to know and understand the contents of the Constitution of the United States of America. Which is unfortunate, since I am under the impression that the only parts of the Constitution most politicians read is a few sentences within the Commerce Clause. They tend to be much more likely to quote from the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second and Fifth Amendments.

It is doubly unfortunate they don't read it, since it is one of the shortest constitutions in the world. This one document has had a greater impact on the entire world in the past 220 years than anything imagined by the men who wrote it. I think they would be shocked at the scope of the impact of these 4 pages.

I think the early Americans would also be shocked at the idea of acknowledging the populist religion (evangelical/pentacostal Christianity) as the de facto Religion of Choice for the operation of the government.




*Thomas Jefferson, letter to his nephew Peter Carr, from Paris, August 10, 1787; Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 900-906.

as an afterthought ... I really hope she isn't elected; I might have to add another woman to the euphemistic category She Who Must Not Be Named.

.

Freedom of Speech?

okay, so this is a bit dated, but it's still awfully funny


Q: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is in the USA?

A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Just the same, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.


I looked for my standard file of jokes or just funny things, and found a dozen Russia/USSR jokes. I have no idea where they came from. I do wonder where my older, much longer list went...

Surprise?

What, this is supposed to surprise me?

It also said that the UK and the US have "actively undermined" international law by their actions. It concluded that many measures introduced to fight terrorism were illegal and counter-productive.

The only news here is that someone bothered to sit down and write a report which will sit on someone's shelf, letting them thing happy thoughts that they somehow have improved the situation by vicarious approval.

This I Believe ...

National Public Radio gives access to recorded archives from the original 1950s broadcasts of This I Believe ...

Some of the more intriguing records are from the not-so-famous. If you're interested, however, the NPR archive has 2-4 min. essays from Pres. Harry Truman, Martha Graham, Margaret Meade, Sen. Margaret Chase-Smith, Justice William Douglas, and Jackie Robinson.

I particularly enjoyed one on a Doubting, Questioning Mind.

The page will lead you to the modern essays produced for NPR (rather than the originals for Edward R. Murrow/).
From someone I can honestly say I admire a great deal: Health is Human Right, by Paul Farmer.



Out of the mouths of babes: Thirty Things I Believe In.

Limitations on freedom of press

The Faribault Daily News reported the school district shutting down the school (didn't mention which grades) paper due to the students refusing to give the superintendent prior review of an article about an investigation of a middle school teacher's potential inappropriate behavior.


No prior review? Are you kidding? What journalist for a commercial news outlet gets published/on-air without an editorial review? What if they were writing for the Star Tribune? The owners of the Strib are libel for irresponsible journalism. Who's libel for the school paper? The School a.k.a. The State. The students can’t legally claim sole responsibility for the paper. Editorial control rests with ownership. The students don't own it, the school board, and de facto the State of Minnesota does.

As with many other instances, a light touch is the best guidance. Shutting down the whole paper, rather than just one article getting pulled? That seems an unreasonable response.

If the article conforms to professional journalistic ethics/standards of practice - there is no reason it shouldn't be published. The cases cited by the Daily News are excellent examples of social bias censoring facts unpalatable to the local people.

First Amendment “rights” are not absolute. Slander/defamation is against the law - the unbridled freedom is only over that which is factually true. Pornography and profane language are protected under this amendment. Is that okay for high school students to publish? If your answer is no, you’re already limiting their freedom and possibly treading a slippery slope down to the Superintendent’s desk. There's no ethical difference between limitations. Whether it is disapproval about teenage sex or images of disembowled pigs in a slaughterhouse ... limitation is limitation.

Would the school district allow students to print content normally found in the City Pages or the Daily Minnesotan (U of M's student paper)? I'm pretty sure not - not due to the story content, per se, but rather due to the language choice and visual content. Sex might help distribution, but I wouldn't approve of my school board publishing it. God, you wouldn't believe the sex-advice column the U's paper runs.

My biggest question, in considering this: The Faribault paper didn't mention if this was a one-off problem - was this request for prior-approval unique to this story?

If the Superintendent realized there was going to be a story with potentially big ramifications (this sounds like it was) .. then I would expect him to want to review it prior to its publication, even if he didn't do so on a regular basis. Has anyone seen the article in question?

I can't get my knickers in a twist over this, without the School actually shooting down the article after seeing it.

[def.] Conservative

con·ser·va·tive adj
1. in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change
con·ser·va·tive n
1. somebody who is reluctant to consider new ideas or accept change
2. somebody who supports the doctrine or beliefs of conservatism
con·ser·va·tive - synonyms
traditional, conventional, unadventurous, old-fashioned
con·ser·va·tive ≠ conservation
One might have thought (incorrectly) that 'conservative' had something to do with conservation. Nope, unless one counts the conservation of the status-quo.

Afterall, what do the Conservatives want to conserve?

the environment? sure, as long as it doesn't require acknowledging the possibility that the crap dumped from my factory could possibly hurt anything outdoors

our natural resources? as long as I can go deer hunting with an AK-47, who the hell cares about barn owls?

the global environment? as long as it doesn't involve requiring operators of coal-fired power plants to do anything about their greenhouse gas emissions

our limited domestic petroleum resources? drill, baby, just fuckin' drill!

our individual liberties? sure, except if you ...
criticize my government, in which case, you deserve to have your phone wire-tapped

our ability to provide enough scientists to fuel our technology industry? as long as I don't have to actually pay for any federal research budget ... or a world-class education system. Hell, even a half-baked education system is too damn much.

our national reputation as a decent place to live? as long as you aren't queer, Muslim, from some god-awful country no one's ever heard of, or can't afford health care, you're welcome to stay

our GDP? hey, Joe, out-source that to India.

our national productivity? sure, as long as I don't have to pay for my employees to be healthy

our fiscal future? as long as my mega-business doesn't have to pay taxes in the U.S.

our ability to "spend our way out of a recession"? as long as I won't have to pay a living wage to all of them damned wetbacks doing shit-labor, and never need to learn the definition of usury.

Bumper Sticker of the Week

We've got to protect Freedom of Speech ~ how else will we know who the assholes are?



just got back from the total chaos of celebrating our anniversary. literally. I'm waiting for Mr. Gopher to get back from a short jog to the bank - part of the longer story. And, god knows, if you know me, that means a looooong damn story. Later. Good Night from Minnesota!

of course, roasting the idiots

specifically 4:33 to 5:55.



okay, so I realized what would truly, truly be funny would be the All Inclusive Political Satire: include Obama in this as a 3-way comparison. Because I am positive all of this (other than the offer of admiration at the end) could be found with his speeches, too. Now that would have been funny.

Protest signs

Favorite sign reported at the protests:
If we hadn't protested Vietnam, McCain would still be a POW.

My Eight Rules

From a reporter @ MinnPost.com, re: riots this week in StPl

Some of [the faux johnny-come-lately-I-wanna-be-a-reporter-and-say-I-was-at-something-cool] them are pretty interesting. Covering the protests in St. Paul this week, I saw a woman with a media card around her neck who was dressed neck-to-toe in army surplus, had a motorcycle helmet on her head and wore a mask like the Lone Ranger's. I saw a big silver-haired guy in a huge photo-vest with the pockets packed full, shooting a cell phone camera. I saw a two-person video crew, a small attractive young woman and a tall rangy young man, and when something was going on during a march, the woman would sit on the man's shoulders, and run the camera, while the man maneuvered through the crowd to give her best shot. The CBS crews could learn from those two.

But the problem is, a lot of these new guys don't know what to do in a riot.

My eight rules

So here's a list from a long-time riot aficionado, who would prefer not to see anybody get hurt. Especially media people. However off you are.

1. Always — ALWAYS! — know where the cops are and what they're doing.
St. Paul cops busted an AP reporter by accident a couple of days ago; he was pretty experienced, but he apparently lost track of where he was, exactly, and he wound up on his back. That happens if you don't take great care. They'll usually let you out of jail pretty quickly, though.

2. Don't mess with riot cops during a riot.
A San Francisco radio talk-show host did that, and she got busted. One of her associates described the arrest as brutal. I saw the tape and I'd call it "gentle." She got lucky. Cops don't have time to listen to windy explanations during a riot, and if you deliberately push into them, as she did, you're toast. Don't do that. Be polite. Smile. If you need to talk to them, look for a guy with stripes, or a silver bar or two. You gotta remember, the cops get scared and angry, too.

3. Always — ALWAYS! — know where the Little Assholes are.
Most people in protest mobs are pretty sincere, and don't want to fight cops or break things. But there's a subset of most any anti-war mob, the LAs, who are similar to the football hooligans in Britain. They are there to break things for their own entertainment. They don't have much real interest in politics — they're just LAs. You can pick them out because they wear fashionable bad-ass street dress — black or olive drab, boots or heavy running shoes, bandanas, hoodies. They tend to pierce themselves a lot. The dress is usually pretty worn, and they tend to cluster; so look around the crowd and when you see a sudden darkening of dress, you've found the LAs. You need to know where they are, because when they start breaking things, that's your film-at-six.

4. Very important. Learn to walk backwards.
You'll notice that in the best riots, the real pros spend a lot of time walking backwards, but rarely run into anything. That's because they're pros. If you don't know what you're doing, you can walk backwards into a parking meter and damn near kill yourself.

5. All riots have their own geography, or shape.
When you find the LAs, watch their relationship with the cops, and find an angle where you can see both. When the trouble starts, you want to be close enough to see and hear, but not so close that you suddenly get cut off and find yourself with no place to run. You need the room to wheel. You don't want to be the first guy to arrive at trouble, before it has a chance to shape up — you don't want the cops to unexpectedly come in behind you. Be the fifth or sixth guy to arrive, after you know how things are shaping up. If a real fight gets going, people tend to run in the channels — the streets. If you're absolutely caught, get your back against a wall, your hands in the air, and looked scared. There's a good chance everybody will ignore you.

6. Listen carefully.
Breaking glass or sudden gusts of screaming means good photography. If you hear loud pops, that's probably flashbangs meant to frighten people, but it could be gas. Gas can mess you up, if you get too close. If you get gas, try to run out of it. It's usually pretty local, so if you can run 50 yards, holding your breath, you can often get out of it. It'll still burn your skin a little, but at least it's not in your lungs. Bandanas are useful for dipping in water and washing your skin, and for concealing your identity, but I can tell you, they're no damn good for breathing through in a gas attack. Of course, loud pops could mean shooting. If there's been shooting, then the photography could bring a Pulitzer, but it could also get you killed. That's decision time. If you're a true media, run toward the loud pops. Just don't be the first to arrive. (See rule 5.)

7. Dress right.
If you're really going to get your ass whipped, it'll more likely be by the cops than by the protesters, because the cops are better at it. Therefore, dress for the cops. I recommend khaki slacks and a golf shirt; something that sends a fairly respectable middle-class message. Neat jeans and a golf shirt or a collared shirt will work. You don't want to push it too far — if you wear really nice grey slacks, an oxford cloth shirt and a sport coat, some LA might throw a bottle of urine on you. You want to look exactly like a semi-intellectual media. Or would it be a medium? Also, listen — if you're going to be a media, you've got to get something better than a photographer's vest and a $59.95 digicam.

8. Given a choice, at a riot, it's better to be a reporter than a photographer.
A reporter can put his notebook in his pocket and impersonate an innocent bystander. A photographer is stuck with a lot of equipment, and if the mob turns ugly, that can get you in trouble. If you're a reporter, keep track of the photographers with flash units; they tend to attract attention to themselves, as do TV cameramen with their lights. Keep a little distance. If you're a reporter with a cameraman, and things get ugly, and he asks you where you're going, tell him you have to check something out. I'm not saying that photographers are dumber than other people, but they are the folks who walk around with brilliant white lights in nighttime riots.

Follow these simple media rules, and you probably won't get hurt, and you'll probably get the story. Best of all, you'll also look like a pro.

no big surprise

okay, anyone who knows me will quickly realize that this is simply another method of expressing deeply held sociopolitical opinions. You are likely a member of the raving angry left (except for mom, who's so far left, she's right). You will likely find this simply amusing, if you bother to watch it at all.

I love democracy. I love the 1st Amendment even more. But, god, I love Comedy Central. Um... the one on TV, not the one at 1600 Penn. Ave.


p.s.
a little plug for Polinaut
We explore the universe of campaigns and politics. Join us in the search for intelligent life.

People v. ?

Really, come on out to visit in 2 weeks! Minnesota Nice will even assure you that you have legal representation after getting arrested!

15 seconds of fame

On Friday, I attended a forum hosted by Minnesota Public Radio regarding the current relationship between the Media and the Public. One of the media people there was taking notes. It was a chat about how We The People see the current and the desired relationship between the public and the media. It was interesting. Certainly biased simply based upon the fact all 14 of us are MPR listeners and are (with one or 2 exceptions) college educated and interested in politics/media. That said, it was still interesting. If you look about 80% of the way down the page linked above, one of the things I said got quoted. If it ever gets broadcast, I'll let you know.

Got plans for the 1st of September? Come visit!

Freedom of Speech. Freedom to Congregate. Two cornerstones of the politicians who forged our Constitution. Can't very well screw the king and the greatest empire on the earth, if you can't meet publicaly. Oh, I guess they did. Which is why the oppressive monarchy across the ocean didn't want them to.

We the People are stuck with the same damn crap.

"This protects free speech…the strength of the proposal is that it sets forth responsible guidelines for police to address any problems." -- Yup, the strength of the new rule is not to protect the people, it's to strengthen the Police State.

I don't know why they don't just give up the fake concern for the law and just enact friggin' martial law during the convention.

Protesting in the street in violation of some fascist effort to squash my rights?

Sign me up!

This is exactly the sort of thing that on GPs gets me to *want* to go hangout on the streets of Mpls during the RNC just to enjoy my constitutional rights of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly.

I got arrested once on a stupid problem with parking tickets. I got arrested once on a case of mistaken identity (you try being named Smith). Those are stupid and a good party story, respectively.

I would be proud of getting arrested defending my constitutional rights. Collecting on the sidewalk, as long as it doesn't spill into traffic or into private businesses ... yup, sign me up.

Freedom of Assembly:
"If the assembly in public is expected to involve more than one participant, its organisers are obliged to notify [authorities] of the upcoming event few days in advance in writing. However, legislation does not foresee an authorisation procedure, hence the authorities have no right to prohibit an assembly or change its place unless it threatens the security of participants or is planned to take place near hazardous facilities,...prisons, courts,... The right to gather can also be restricted in close proximity of cultural and historical monuments.

The regional and local authorities can issue secondary regulations, but limitations and prohibitions on public events can only be introduced by Federal Laws."

sounds okay? not so bad? the Feds can't go changing this ... uh, Yeah, but the above quote is from current Russian law. Unlike Boston 4 years ago. Or like the dorks here want.

In Michigan, the state gov't regulates and rather tightly restricts the right to assembly on the capitol grounds. This is okay with me. One must 'reserve' a space for the day, with a first-come first-served rule. They have given permits to the KKK and some rabid left-wing group. As discovered during the KKK demonstration, they didn't restrict the right to assemble on the sidewalk across from the demonstration area. I'm okay with needing to 'reserve' a spot in front of the capitol. Not here! The Minneapolis City Council wants to make people "voluntarily register" to "reserve" a designated spot in public areas. With the ability of the police to forcibly evict you, if you haven't "registered".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- apparently Congress can't, but the Minneapolis City Council can.

2nd post today on anarchists

on the RNC Welcoming Committee's website, there's a page for tourist information for St. Paul. The first document is a copy of the St. Paul Police Department policy for "first amendment activity". God, I love the First Amendment and the internet. The first paragraph of the police dept. policy states:

We [the police] will not initiate or participate in the investigation into groups or individuals based solely upon their lawful exercise of First Amendment Rights.

sounds grand, eh? Stop here and I would be thinking such grand thoughts of our state capitol's law enforcement, despite the whole Taser thing. But ...

2nd sentence:

Where [we] must initiate or participate in investigations involving First Amendment activity, [it will be in compliance with the state & federal constitution and fed. laws].

So, we aren't going to do it. Unless we have to do it. ???

That excuse didn't work when I was 6.