Brain Fertilizer

---

« Hide Comments

*Since their headline section is dynamic, there will likely be no evidence of this headline linked from their site after something new pushes it off.

« Hide "Maybe Therapy Might Have Helped Terri Schiavo"

---

Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll definitely comeback.

posted by samsung un46d8000 on March 13, 2012 07:04 AM

---

My coder is trying to persuade me to move to .net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the costs. But he's tryiong none the less. I've been using WordPress on a variety of websites for about a year and am worried about switching to another platform. I have heard great things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can import all my wordpress posts into it? Any help would be really appreciated!

posted by Serena Abdi on February 23, 2014 10:39 AM

---

Hello, i think that i saw you visited my weblog thus i came to “return the favor”.I'm trying to find things to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

posted by Natural Hair Care on February 24, 2014 09:01 PM

---

You completed several nice points there. I did a search on the topic and found most persons will consent with your blog.

posted by Divorce Lawyer on February 25, 2014 05:26 AM

---

I wish to show appreciation to you just for rescuing me from this particular dilemma. Just after surfing around throughout the the web and coming across thoughts that were not powerful, I believed my entire life was well over. Being alive devoid of the answers to the problems you've solved as a result of the guide is a serious case, as well as the kind which might have in a negative way affected my career if I had not come across your web site. Your own personal know-how and kindness in dealing with every aspect was valuable. I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't encountered such a solution like this. I am able to at this point look forward to my future. Thanks for your time very much for your reliable and effective guide. I will not hesitate to propose your web site to any person who should get support on this issue.

posted by wood art on February 25, 2014 02:05 PM

---

Excellent goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely magnificent. I actually like what you've acquired here, certainly like what you're stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it smart. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a great website.

posted by corporate law on February 25, 2014 11:34 PM

---

{also, darker lantern, Teacher finances shook his particular top of your head, may well cease crooks. Chen Pierces 5 to find the medial with several undiscovered mucus.

posted by air jordan on March 5, 2014 02:12 PM

---

Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I to find It truly helpful & it helped me out much. I'm hoping to provide something back and aid others like you helped me.

posted by Mireya Dekay on March 7, 2014 08:46 AM

---

Hello, i think that i saw you visited my site thus i came to “return the favor”.I am attempting to find things to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!

posted by healthy children on March 12, 2014 06:06 AM

---

Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.

posted by Nuclear Energy on March 12, 2014 04:22 PM

---

I¡¦ve recently started a site, the information you provide on this web site has helped me tremendously. Thanks for all of your time & work.

posted by Casual Dresses on March 13, 2014 11:05 AM

---

Very interesting topic, regards for putting up. If you have more time, please visit my site: http://trangsucphukiendep2015.wordpress.com

posted by Virgen Tolchin on March 17, 2014 12:45 AM

---

http://themoneymaker.dk/

posted by chess for schools on April 11, 2014 06:55 AM

---

Perfectly written articles , thanks for selective information .

posted by Cyrus on April 13, 2014 05:19 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

I see that this only applies to high school cheer.

I was pretty surprised during the 2004 college football season at some of the routines. I mean, it's one thing on TV, but when you're ten feet away from them, it's even...more uncomfortable. There are two groups, one pretty much does cheerleader stuff, and even though they're wearing about seven square inches of fabric, it's ok. But the other group does this weird sexy dancing stuff, in these outfits that would be highly appropriate for someone who makes her living on a pole.

I mean, I don't want to put the girls down or anything, they're very lithe and obviously work very hard, but...really, if you look at most of the women spectators sitting nearest the field, they all exchange nervous glances with each other or suddenly start studying the roster really really hard when the girls come by for a dance. It's bizarre and awkward.

posted by Jo on March 18, 2005 09:20 AM

---

Birth rates in this country are dangerously low right now. If it weren't for Cheerleader dance excited jocks and the resulting teen pregnancy, our population would already be shrinking.

posted by BJ Buckner on April 10, 2005 11:29 PM

---

« Hide Comments

Please note: This is the post by Mr. Bothwell; all the words following are his, not mine:

This is absolutely unbelievable. It appears Montgomery County (Maryland) public schools can implement a new sex education curriculum singing the praises of condom use and homosexuality, and, apparently, teaching about anal sex, but state taxpayers who write the school board to complain of such trash are being censored due to inappropriate content in their emails!

That's right. Here's the exact message I sent to the Montgomery County Board of Education last night after being informed by a member of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum that the school district intends to instruct children in the practice of anal sex:

Dear Montgomery County BOE [cc: Gov. Robert Ehrlich]:

I strongly oppose your use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate Maryland's public school students with the Left's visions of a hypersexualized society, including discussion of anal sex and the like. It is absurd that our schools would provide our kids with the knowledge to indulge in their basest fantasies, much less neglect to educate them about the potentially disastrous consequences of having sex out of wedlock. And please don't attempt to justify these actions; I'm a former Maryland public school teacher from St. Mary's County and am well aware of how our districts operate. It is because of ridiculousness such as this that I am now a "former" teacher in Maryland.

http://www.therightreport.com/bothwell/2005/03/liberal_indoctr.html

Best,
Trevor Bothwell
Host, therightreport.com

Now, here's an automatically generated email that I received from the board of education's email administrator informing me that my message was not delivered due to "inappropriate content."

The message referenced in the details below was not delivered due to inappropriate content. It surpassed the threshold set in the Adult Content dictionary.

The action on the message fell into the following category:

Messages that were dropped (Content Filtering)

If you believe the message was blocked in error, please resend it to "Help_Desk@fc.mcps.k12.md.us" and include the name of the intended recipient so it can be forwarded.

E-mail Administrator, Montgomery County Public Schools

I'm struggling to pinpoint exactly which portion of my letter "surpassed the threshold set in the Adult Content dictionary," but my guess is that the words "anal sex" might have had something to do with it.

So, you got that? It's "inappropriate" for one adult to write to a group of adults expressing concern over topics addressed in a school district's curriculum (indeed, the board's own web server admits the terms "anal," "sex," "anal sex," "hypersexualized," or any combination thereof, violate standards of appropriate language laid out in the "Adult Content dictionary" and are thus filtered from receipt by the school board), but it's apparently fine and dandy to reference such terminology in schools filled with impressionable tenth-graders.

Email the Montgomery County Board of Education at boe@fc.mcps.k12.md.us. Oh, and be sure not to offend their delicate sensibilities by mentioning sexual terms that are good enough for our adolescents but not those who thrust this smut upon them.

« Hide "Simply Mind-Boggling (UPDATED)"

---

Hmmm... the story seems to be missing now.

posted by andy on March 12, 2005 08:57 AM

---

OK, read it.

Unfortunately, his argument is flawed at its very core. Similar problems have happened with the word "breast" even thought I doubt many would take issue with a discussion of various cancers.

The goal of the filtering is to prevent e-mails like "Super XXX Hot Anal Doggy Action Sluts LIVE!" from getting through and junking up e-mail inboxes, not from preventing legitimate dissent with school administrators.

Unless the author wishes to ininsuate that the teachers are in favor of hard core porn movies in the classrom (which I would highly doubt), I'm afraid it's much ado about nothing.

posted by andy on March 12, 2005 09:55 AM

---

I see your point. This is doesn't actually prove anything...although it is fairly ironic.

Because while we wouldn't have a problem discussing breast cancer, the words "anal sex" were blocked for sexual content, not scientific...and the classroom curriculum is also sexual in content, not scientific.

While I still agree with you that his email doesn't prove anything, your argument actually strengthens his point to some slight extent. If adults cannot look at sexual content in a professional setting, it seems silly to designate a public classroom as a professional setting in which sexual content is required.

There are ways that sex education can be conducted in a purely clinical matter...but I think a discussion of "anal sex" as an alternative itself goes way beyond those boundaries.

posted by Nathan on March 12, 2005 10:55 AM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

Please. we have coffee houses, bars, and the library. ;)

posted by Jo on March 7, 2005 02:20 PM

---

You know what the Dems need?

A catapult!

posted by Sharp as a Marble on March 7, 2005 05:35 PM

---

...and they can build a big wooden badger...

posted by McGehee on March 7, 2005 06:16 PM

---

I thought the People's Front of Judea had all this worked out. Or was that the Judean People's Front? I can never remember.

posted by IowaSoccerMom on March 9, 2005 07:51 PM

---

...splitters!

posted by Nathan on March 9, 2005 07:54 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

Well, the series is about Buster's travels. Buster's "postcard" came from Vermont, a state that happens to be very open and accepting of gay unions. I would say portraying a a family with gay members is not inappropriate. Furthermore, kids are going to have schoolmates with homosexual parents. Maybe it's kindergarten, maybe it is 1st, second, or not until sixth grade. All those years ago, I was a freshman in high school when first chair alto sax had a openly gay dad.

That said, I can understand why some parents are upset, and think it was best to inform parents of the content ahead of time.

But gay parents are out there, they are part of the social landscape. So what do you do?

posted by Jo on March 7, 2005 09:17 AM

---

Well, for starters, how about not treating Christians like whacked-out freaks while treating lesbians like the bedrock of normalcy and stability?
That is an unfair juxtaposition, I admit. PBS wasn't sneering at Christians, and the Washington Post doesn't use public funds.

Maybe a better explanation is: Sometimes my posts cannot be taken singly. With all the discussion recently about what can/should be shown on broadcast vs cable TV, the "public" ownership of the airwaves was cited many times (completely ignoring that the bandwidth devoted to satellite transmission of cable TV signals is also just as owned and regulated by the government...). And so I thought it was interesting that with all the furor over not being able to say "F***" in prime-time on cable TV, it might be interesting to glance at what doesn't ruffle the same feathers on broadcast.

Then again, I wouldn't bar my kids from watching that show. There are all sorts of things I don't agree with going on at PBS, but I can deal with it.

However, this underscores the fact that if you separate out children's entertainment from adults, someone with an agenda will always try to hijack the kids' minds for indoctrination.

Far better to make adult entertainment be safe for kids. As I said before, there are appropriate ways to deal with adult situations and sex and violence that won't impinge on what the kids' understanding or consciousness in an inappropriate manner.

posted by Nathan on March 7, 2005 09:25 AM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

*I'm really not. I've existed for the last 10 years just fine. I just can't stop my knee-jerk reaction to the (probably inadvertant) hypocrisy in knee-jerk reactions to someone advocating "Standards" or "Morals". I guess it's a character flaw on my part.

« Hide "I'm Still Irritated"

---

Of *course* we're defenders of American freedom, just as you are a defender of morality. It's not that you hate freedom or we hate morality, it's just that we fall on different sides when the two collide, which is what this debate is all about, really. Freedom vs. decency. Any time ideals clash, both sides are on a high horse. If we sound self-righteous to you, rest assured that the feeling is mutual because both sides believe they are right and since it's not a tangible issue with measurable results, neither can prove it.

I could address your points. In fact, I've spent the last half hour or so researching and writing about it. But honestly, as long as our point of view is ipso-facto hypocritical, you won't be convinced and further discussion on the matter is pretty futile.

posted by R. Alex on March 4, 2005 06:35 PM

---

I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, but my point is, if you are "for freedom", how do you live with standards on broadcast TV? How do you live with the current standards that we have for Cable TV? ...because I'll bet that XXX porn and snuff films are not allowed.
How do you stand for copyright laws, then? Because "freedom" would mean that I should be able to copy anything I want, anytime I want.

I'm for freedom, too. Maybe a different emphasis, perhaps, but I'm for freedom. I'm for the freedom of a child to be a child without the parents having to follow along being ready to cover eyes and ears at a moment notice, in case someone wants to use their freedom to turn HBO on at the doctor's office, in the Best Buy, etc...

Or maybe it's more accurate to say I don't care that much, I can live with the way things are, but I'm just getting irritated with the way Sen. Stevens was vilified for bringing up what he thought might be a good idea, and how moderate Republicans and Libertarians seized on the chance to sneer at Christians as being prude Puritans.

Look through my archives, and you won't see me advocating even once for tougher standards on cable TV.

But I already made 3 cases for stricter regulation of cable:
1) at least hundreds of thousands of homes get Cable TV automatically with their apartment, so they don't choose to get cable
2) ignoring how they actually got cable, (obviously, many by choice) still, millions of children watch Cable during prime time, just like broadcast TV
3) many homes cannot receive broadcast television, so "public" airwaves are not. Some people have no choice but to get cable to have the same opportunities for news, warnings, and entertainment.

Sure, "hypocritical" was a little overwrought...
...since no one says more than "because that's the way it is" when I ask for the logical thought process, I guess I thought I'd try provocation.

So, "hypocritical" is withdrawn. Still, explain why standards on broadcast TV standards are okay, but Cable TV standards are a horrible infringement on basic freedoms.

posted by Nathan on March 4, 2005 07:25 PM

---

Can't respond until tomorrow, but before I do I want to make sure which we are discussion: Why is the distinction okay constitutionally or why is it okay policy-wise?

posted by R. Alex on March 4, 2005 07:46 PM

---

No, not "okay", because it's been that way.
No, if Sen. Stevens is wrong, then it must be this way, and the evidence that it must be this way should be found in policy and the US Constitution.

If the Constitution and Policy do not demand that broadcast TV has standards and Cable TV has different but looser standards, then it is just arbitrary.

...which is what I think is the case. But if it is arbitrary (i.e., merely "okay" from a US Constitution and policy viewpoint, but not required), then there is no reason to condemn Sen. Stevens as so many people have.

I guess this is part of the battle over the future of the Republican Party...social moderates feel uncomfortable with social conservatives, and so any issue will be fair game for trying to occupy the high ground...and that's one of the reasons I won't stand for it.

Look, I see nothing wrong with Cable TV and broadcast TV having different standards. But unlike pretty much everyone else in the blogosphere, I don't see it as an assault on freedom to change the standards for Cable TV. Maybe a bad idea, sure. Maybe unnecessary, yeah. Maybe even impossible under the current laws, fine. But an attempt to impose religion on the masses? No. An attempt to curtail essential freedoms? Not even close.
But the arguments I've seen used against Sen. Stevens proposal have all been predicated on his idea being a reduction of freedom. I don't see it that way at all, and to even formulate that argument, you have to ignore the number of households who get cable without choosing to pay for it, the number of kids who are exposed to cable just as much as broadcast TV regardless of the choice of the parent, and the number of people who cannot get broadcast TV stations without having cable TV as the method of access.

"Arbitrary" is fine. But if so, just say, "I don't like Sen. Stevens' proposal, and I don't think he can get the votes or the support of enough people in the US". There's no reason to turn this into a Freedom vs Oppression debate, as the social moderates and libertarians seem to be wanting to do.
That's the part that makes me irritated.

posted by Nathan on March 4, 2005 08:31 PM

---

http://sevencastles.blogchina.com
A Shanghai blog featuring news and views of great interest

posted by Zhang Liping on March 4, 2005 08:36 PM

---

I can't imagine where you've been looking, Nathan; it seems quite clear to me.

Profanity, obscenity, and luridly sexual entertainment, while there are currently moderate consensuses (and there were once stronger ones) about their offensiveness, cannot be proved to be harmful in and of themselves. There are millions of people who partake of these things, very few of whom sustain objectively demonstrable damage or go on to commit crimes. Therefore, the contention that these kinds of entertainment harm the body politic is unsupported by the evidence.

Political freedom under limited government imbeds as a principle that the State may act to curtail the individual's freedom only insofar as the practices to be banned or limited produce demonstrable harm -- not merely offense -- that can only be averted by legislative action. Inasmuch as no case that harm flows from the availability of salacious entertainment can be sustained by the evidence, there is no sound argument that the State should act.

More, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars Congress from censoring private expression, unless one wants to take the extreme position that only vocal speech and inked paper are covered by "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press." So not only can no case be made that Washington should act; there's an absolute prohibition against it.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

posted by Francis W. Porretto on March 5, 2005 03:21 AM

---

Francis,
You still don't get my point, I think. I specifically said that, "Because that's the way it is/has always been" isn't a sufficient answer. As fancy as your words are, that's about all you said.

See, if Sen. Stevens' proposal is so offensive to freedom, then all of you should be up in arms about the standards broadcast TV is held to. It should be as offensive to you as taxation without representation was to our forefathers.

No, every single argument, including yours, says simply that the standards are arbitrary. As such, Sen. Stevens proposal may lack majority support, but there is nothing inherently wrong with his proposal.

It seems as if the liberally biased MSM still has excessive influence: the default assumption is still that Republicans are prudish fundamentalists trying to impose a theocracy. And so he floats a proposal, and instead of just saying: "Nah, I like things the way they are," all the moderate Republicans have to turn this into a paranoid, "The Religious Conservatives want to take away Boobies and the Sopranos!!!!!! Cable TV is the last bastion of freedom and to impose standards would mean we are all slaves! We must resist this tyranny to the last man!!!"
No. That's stupid.

1) There are standards on Cable TV already. So strengthening them slightly is no big deal. Not what anyone wants, perhaps, but not an attack on freedom.
2) Cable TV is ubiquitous enough and enough people get it (or are exposed to it) without choosing to purchase it, that the 'self-election' argument is ridiculous. Any argument that Broadcast TV standards are okay or even advisable applies to Cable TV.

If you put those two together, then everyone who complained about Sen. Stevens should now be fighting for the right to watch porn on Saturday morning broadcst TV; after all, it's a freedom of speech and freedom of press issue, just like you said, Francis.
Right along with it, all of you should be willing to die to erase what standards there are on Cable TV. See, it's principle, and not just arbitrary, then it doesn't matter if you personally don't want to watch snuff films and XXX 24 hours every day, because this isn't about your personal preferences, it's about freedom.

I expect to see you take up your arms any minute now against the Theocrats. Because it's about freedom.

The reason I blame this on liberal MSM is that if Sen. Leiberman had said the same thing, it would have been pretty much ignored. But because a GOP Senator mentions increasing standards, Outrage Must Be Drummed Up By Any Means Possible!

Just like when Sen. Santorum made quite reasonable remarks about the implications of homosexual marriage being a right, everyone got to Express Their Outrage at the Moralizing Republicans Trying to Throw Homosexuals Into Concentration Camps!

...but when a liberal later said pretty much the same thing, it was pretty much ignored, because it the MSM couldn't position it as a Religious Conservative assault on freedom.

The thing that makes me angry in all this is not that people opposed Sen. Stevens, but that they felt they (you?) had to seize the "moral" high ground by citing freedom and the US Constitution and "people pay for cable, so can't complain about the low standards", and "If you don't like it, turn it off".

You know, I expect Political Correctness techniques of "The debate was over years ago, so all we need to do is bludgeon any oppostion into submission" from liberals. I never thought I'd see it used by conservatives. I'm a little disgusted, to be frank.

Look, Sen. Stevens wasn't going to get this even written into a bill, much less passed. But if he did, it would not be a betrayal of 1st Amendment rights. Or else broadcast TV standards already have been a greater betrayal for the last 50 years.

I'm not arguing the issue as much as I'm reacting to the reaction, as I've said many times.

If everyone had said, "This is stupid, and I don't support it," I wouldn't be so irritated. But everyone had to couch it in terms of, "This is why I hate Religious Conservatives", "This is an assault on our Freedom", "This is why I can never consider myself a Conservative".

There is more outrage over Sen. Stevens than there was against applying McCain-Feingold to political blogs. Where's the logic in that?

posted by Nathan on March 5, 2005 07:51 AM

---

Nathan,

I suppose I'm not who you're arguing with. I've never used to word oppression, never targeted the GOP (it's my party, after all) or religious Republicans (I can be described as such), and I'm not part of the liberal media. But as long as I'm burdened with carrying the flag with such people, there is no way I can even remotely make headway in this discussion.

posted by R. Alex on March 5, 2005 10:50 AM

---

But what the heck. I'm clearly a glutton for punishment.

To address your original points:
1) 95% of the parents that cannot get cable can get satellite. If they get satellite, they have the option of Locks & Limits, which allow them to "turn off" channels with questionable content. In most urban areas, you can get local channels through one satellite provider or the other. A large number of cable companies (including Time-Warner, the biggest) have similar features with their services.
2) If they get a television with the V-chip (all TVs 13" or more produced since 2000), they can block shows with a "rating" higher than they want their children to watch. This is regardless of how the cable is coming into their house.
3) You're correct, they are. This is where I was curious whether or not you were asking about the constitutionality of the distinction or whether or not making a distinction is a good idea comes in. If the question is one of Constitutionality, the difference is that the airwaves are "owned" by the public in the sense that frequencies and whatnot are run by the government. In the case of cable and satellite, the wires and satellite are owned by the vender and the customer, making cable and satellite more similar to a movie theater (also privately owned) than broadcast television. As far as to whether or not regulation of cable would be a good thing or a bad thing, because we accept censorship in one area does not mean that we must accept censorship in every area lest we be hypocrites. Part of the reason I haven't been up-and-arms about the FCC's crackdown on indecency in entertainment was precisely because alternatives exist. It was a compromise. Jeff Jarvis has been saying from the get-go that they wouldn't stop at broadcast television. I more or less scoffed, but it's becoming apparent that I've been fooled by those (from the right) that told me one would not necessitate the other. To add insult to injury, they're telling me that since I accept one I must agree with the other. The further along we get into this argument, the more I'm rethinking my previous acquiescence to regulating broadcast television.
4) Content on cable is not, to my knowledge, regulated by the federal government (or the FCC) right now. It's self-regulated. Cable networks avoid things that are too risque because advertisers want them to. This is why you rarely hear cursewords on most (non-premier) stations (to the point of bleeping them out), but SouthPark (a cartoon, no less) dropped the S-bomb over 100 times in a single show (ironically to make a case against needless cursing in entertainment).

And your additional two points in the comment section:
1) See above.
2) Children also watch R-rated movies that their parents rent. For the most part, parents have the tools necessary to block the most objectionable content if they choose. Some parents do not choose to do this. Some parents say they don't want their kids watching smut but don't take even simple measures (V-chip, Locks & Limits) to do so. I'm all in favor of giving parents as many tools as possible to filter what their kids watch. If you want to force the cable companies to offer a "family friendly" package or some other corporate regulation like that, then let's talk about that. More options are a good thing. Helping parents wade through the cultural wasteland of television is also a good thing. But at some point the choice has to lie with the consumer and not the government. In order to keep things away from the kids of the parents that don't care or want their children watching such things, we would have to go so far as to ban risque material from everywhere except Gentlemen's clubs.
3) See above.

posted by R. Alex on March 5, 2005 11:39 AM

---

Nathan, consult the dictionary on the difference between "tradition" and "principle." And perhaps, the next time you think to tell me that I haven't understood you, you might want to think twice.

posted by Francis W. Porretto on March 6, 2005 02:53 PM

---

Francis, you gave me the exact explanation I had already considered and rejected. What else am I supposed to think?

posted by Nathan on March 6, 2005 03:47 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

Actually, this is a great reason to oppose Mr. Stevens: I don't trust the courts to determine whether or not it's constitutional. The last time I counted on the courts on the courts to overturn something I oppose ("campaign finance reform"), I was sorely disappointed. The oath of office, I believe, is to accept and defend the Constitution... not to punt it to the courts and see what you can get away with.

The "public's airwaves" argument justifies censorship of airwave TV and radio, but to regulate what can be transmitted through private channels (no pun intended) cannot be differentiated to what movies a theater can play. That's not even a slippery slope... they're both on the same plateau.

posted by R. Alex on March 2, 2005 08:59 AM

---

So let me get this straight: you state you do not trust the courts...but you apparently don't trust Sen. Stevens, either, since he's a part of the legislative branch. So, by extension, you don't trust the people of the United States, since they are the ones who elect legislatures to represent themselves.

If you trust democracy, i.e., you think people are smart enough to know what they want, then you should allow us to vote for Senators who will vote to regulate cable TV's standards. The courts only enter into it if the legislature passes a law that violates the Constitution. Regulating Cable standards doesn't rise to that level, I don't think.

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 10:09 AM

---

I trust democracy, but not entirely. That's why we have a Bill of Rights - because few of us (right, left, or otherwise) trust the voters to legislate anything they want. I don't trust the courts or legislature individually to adhere to the Constitution, but I would like each to evaluate for themselves the implications rather than leave it to the other. In the case of the legislature, those that believe in the Constitutionality of regulating opt-in entertainment fully evaluate the implications of what they're asking for and take a stand for what they believe the Constitution to say (and not just say "We'll see if the courts agree"). Instead, what Stevens appears to be doing is quite short-sighted. A ruling that allows the FCC to prevent breasts from appearing on television could easily allow the state of California to prevent Passion of Christ from appearing in any movie theater. Do we really want to open the door for that? Do we trust the courts that much? Do we trust anti-religious voters out there not to try to ban movies they don't like or keep "culturally insensitive" shows off the cable airwaves?

I know that I don't. I don't trust anyone that tells me what I should be able to watch. I don't believe the government has that right to decide what voices can and cannot be heard through private media.

(And I say this as someone without cable or satellite and would not be affected by Senator Stevens's law in the slightest.)

posted by R. Alex on March 2, 2005 10:46 AM

---

Well, there we disagree.

I do trust the people. I trust the legislature to largely remain responsive to the overall desires of the people, and I generally trust the judicial branch to stop the miscarriages of justice (although recently they are giving me some doubts).

I don't expect it will happen quickly, mind you...but I do think our system is working pretty well. We might go through a Prohibition-type mistake while we work it out, but the whole Prohibition debacle (which will probably soon by joined by an in-retrospect-acknowledgement of the Roe V Wade mistake/debacle) makes me feel pretty good about the chances that things work themselves out in our political system, eventually.

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 11:04 AM

---

« Hide Comments

---

Deal.

I've often thought about this same thing... you and I are on the same wavelength, I think.

posted by Kris on March 2, 2005 08:45 AM

---

I'll answer, since we are largely in agreement on most things but not, apparently, on this:

The long and the short of it is, broadcast networks air on "publically owned" spectrum to all viewers with machines capable of receiving and displaying the signal. Satellite and cable do not and are only accessible to those who expressly choose to get extra equipment and pay for the service.

That being the case, the two methods of content distribution, while they result in output that can be displayed on the same equipment, are not perfectly comparable products. Rather than treating them as two types of apples, they ought to be looked at as apples and pears. It's the same as the difference between what can or should be allowed to be on a billboard v. what can or should be allowed in a novel.

Lileks has had some very, very good remarks on this topic lately, also, which I would commend to your attention.

posted by Dodd on March 2, 2005 08:57 AM

---

Yes, the sexiness of the lure versus the full exposure is definitely where it is at. Another current example is a comparison between the Sports Illustrated swim suit issue and anyone's favorite nudie magazine.

Nice post!

posted by Steve S on March 2, 2005 09:44 AM

---

Dodd,
Okay, you surprised me with a good argument.

I still feel irritated with this whole mess. This series of rants is my (now) knee-jerk reaction to other people's knee-jerk reaction to discussions and legislation regarding "standards".

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 10:03 AM

---

Also, I can't check out Lileks at work. He's blocked (like your site was about 2 months ago, too...ARGH!), so I'll have to wait until I get home to check it out.

The thing is, this is our country, not the US Constitution's. It exists to serve us, not the other way around.

So if enough people want something, it will happen. It will happen through laws, or through judicial activism attempting to enforce accepted public standards, or through a movement to change the amendment.

So, yes, there is a real legal difference between cable and broadcast TV. There is an increasingly small difference in effect, when basic cable is considered the default minimum for more people than just broadcast stations, particularly when there are a huge number of places where you cannot even get the local stations without cable! There is always a move toward pushing the envelope, and the envelope pushes back. I'm part of the pushing back part.

If we get enough people on our side, standards will be tightened and enforced through some mechanism or another.

What is the argument that keeping people from saying f-bombs on primetime broadcast is okay, but keeping people from saying the same f-bomb during primetime cable is somehow the imposition of a fundementalist theocracy?

It's not the number of under-age viewers... It's not the voluntary aspect of cable purchase, because that same arguement could be made for having to purchase a TV to get broadcast programs....

What is the compelling logic behind saying "my standard (which still prohibits snuff films and XXX porn) is the essence of freedom and liberty, but your standard is prudish and hopelessly outdated" ?

I'm not saying the compelling logic doesn't exist. I'd even be willing to admit that I might not be able to accept the compelling logic when I see it. I'm pretty certain someone out there is making the argument on a blog I can't access or haven't yet stumbled across.

But I still haven't seen it yet. I still don't see anyone making the first steps to explaining that logic...everyone would apparently rather just spout cute phrases instead.

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 10:22 AM

---

Nathan,
Another difference between broadcast and cable/sat that you should consider. With satellite, you can block certain channels. I used to take calls for DirecTV and got a large number of calls from parents concerned about this or that. DTV even has a (free) feature where shows are "rated" and you can block anything and everything above a certain rating. So by taking ten minutes aside, you can make cable "clean" to whatever your definition of clean is. Broadcast television, to my knowledge, can't do that. Not sure about cable, but the price difference between cable and satellite is marginal (and often beneficial to satellite). There are places where satellite does not offer local channels, but between DirecTV and Dish Network, those places are fewer and fewer every year.

On the general subject I agree with the points you make about "censorship" (and I very much support it for broadcast television) and I more than share your agitation with the senselessness of much of the sex and violence. But I simply can't get on board on government setting standards for optional entertainment, even if it starts with things that I would much rather not be on television.

posted by R. Alex on March 2, 2005 11:52 AM

---

« Hide Comments

*yeah, that was snark

« Hide "Decency Standards"

---

Okay, with this expansion and context, I think I get your point. And generally, I agree with it -- all of us desire censorship in any form to be specific to our own personal desires. Not that my agreement (or disagreement) probably matters a fig to you, but there it is. When we're right, we're right...

I will still respectfully disagree with your analysis of Titanic though. That movie was good, darn it! It was good, I say, good...

;)

posted by Morgan on March 2, 2005 08:41 AM

---

Heck, now that I am "grown up", I can't believe my mom let me watch M*A*S*H, LOL

Ever watch Rugrats? My Godson watches it because it's a cartoon. I watch it to see how many references to David Bowie lyrics I can find. ;)

posted by Jo on March 2, 2005 09:31 AM

---

Yeah, in retrospect, my inclusion of Titanic was a cheap shot on the basis of taste, not standards. I can write a post of why I don't like Titanic for you tear apart later, if you want. [grin]

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 09:59 AM

---

Believe it or not (given our disagreement above), I agree with 98% of this post.

posted by R. Alex on March 2, 2005 11:02 AM

---

I do get more reasonable after I get my emotional rants out of my system! [grin]

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 11:07 AM

---

« Hide Comments

*No, I'm not serious. But I'm getting angry, and it makes as much sense as the reverse.

« Hide "Counter Proposal"

---

« Hide Comments

*I say "Democrats" in reference to "Keep Republicans out of my entertaiment", okay? I don't actually think Democrats are setting the standards.

« Hide "More on Censorship"

---

I have no problems with him putting forth the legislation and he should have no issue with the outrage from the public at his suggestion.

I'm a firm believer in the public decency laws as they pertain to publically (i.e. everyone can get them) available sources like the networks,PBS and the radio. However I draw the line at the government censoring something that people are opting into. People actively seek out and sign up for cable, it isn't forced on them.

There are no laws for cable decency, they have imposed that on themselves and there isn't a lot that is overly indecent on the non premium channels. Sure you can find some things like nip/tuck and the like but parents do have the option with cable these days to lock out those channels.

The laws aren't applied to cable currently and it is fairly well self regulated. It isn't porn all the time or constant cussing like Steven would suggest it is becoming. Cable's been with us for nearly 25 years and all of the sudden it's an issue that needs to be addressed for decency?

As for your assertation on Republican standard brought movies I guess you wouldn't lump things like Black Hawk Down in there because of the incessant (and realistic) cursing. Being an ex-sailor myself, war movies without cussing or blood or actual reality in them are just candy coated banter trying to hide the actual horrors of reality.

30 years ago entertainment was more "good" as you put it because that is your taste. I still love I Love Lucy, but I also love a little Platoon or Saw or *gasp* national geographic channel that occassionally shows some guy in the jungle in a groincloth and his ass hanging out.

If something isn't to your taste just don't watch it. Don't try to force everyone to watch only what you like. After all if you don't like your kids watching all the cable channels you can get basic cable and lock out every channel but PBS, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon and Disney channel so they can't accidentally see anything offensive at all.

posted by Digger on March 2, 2005 06:45 AM

---

Good points.

I think you're wrong. I think you want to impose standards just as firm as the ones you decry, you just want yours. That's fine.

Simple fact: in many places in this country, if you don't get cable TV, you don't get TV.

Simple fact: cable TV had looser standards because it was the only alternative to broadcast TV in the beginning. Right now there is another alternative: the internet. And Cable TV is part of the standard entertainment package for most people.
Simple fact: I can't even watch all NFL broadcasts without cable TV.
Simple fact: I can't even watch broadcast NFL games without indecency.

And when a company tries to give people what they want by editing profanity out of movies, people get up in arms about "censorship".

So while there is nothing objectionable about your response, the endless glib statements of "you can always turn your TV off" and facile, self-serving comments of "No one forced you to get Cable TV" are really starting to make me angry.

posted by Nathan on March 2, 2005 07:46 AM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

*a hint/suggestion to LaShawn Barber...**

**inside joke.

« Hide "Hard To Argue With"

---

It's revealing how the pro-choice attitude parallels that of a certain Dr. Marcia Angell of Oregon, who's concerned that the state's assisted-suicide law is "not being used enough."

posted by Francis W. Porretto on February 25, 2005 03:11 AM

---

Man! There's no place like Oregon!

posted by Nathan on February 25, 2005 05:22 AM

---

I am proud to live in a state where we allow people to choose if they want to end their life.

The shame is that the federal government continues to threaten Oregon doctors who actually provide this service...and now less and less are willing to provide a lethal dose of medication for fear of having their licenses revoked or receiving other punishment from the gubmint. I don't think there's less people who want to end their life peacefully with a modicum of cognitive ability. I think there's just less doctors willing to help them.

But hey, maybe all my years working in hospice makes me a little opinionated on this one.

posted by Jo on February 25, 2005 07:20 AM

---

Quick fact check, BTW: Are you sure she's a doctor in Oregon?

Ah, the beauty of blogs: no need to actually make sure the statements are accurate.

posted by Jo on February 25, 2005 07:22 AM

---

As long as we meet the standard set by CBS News and the New York Times, I see no problem.

[grin]

posted by Nathan on February 25, 2005 07:29 AM

---

That's all right, Jo, you go ahead and be proud. And try to stay that way when Oregon starts to abound with reports of the elderly being euthanized at the doctor's decision, rather than their own -- just as has happened in the Netherlands.

We kill babies when their continued existence would inconvenience us. Now we're killing the sick elderly, who can seldom put up an adequate fight against the concerted pressure of medical men and relatives. Does anyone else remember what Martin Niemoller said on this subject?

posted by Francis W. Porretto on February 25, 2005 08:04 AM

---

I will be addressing that issue in a post, Francis; please avoid letting the discussion lapse into the personal.

posted by Nathan on February 25, 2005 08:06 AM

---

I believe the beauty of living in America is having the freedom to choose. I wake up in the morning and choose what I do with my day. I choose what I put into my body, I choose a God that I worship, I choose an existence of my own design.

And when the day comes, I know I will have a choice of whether or not I continue my existence.

I believe I deserve the right to choose how I die. I believe you deserve that right, too. And I believe all my neighbors should be best judge of when the time to leave this life is...not doctors who can keep us on machinery and extend our "lives" indefinitely.

Your insults mean nothing. And I do remain proud. One day we will look back on this and be stunned that the government ever wanted to interfere with such a personal decision.

When you spend years caring for the same person who only parts their lips to painfully whisper "please, I want to die, I can't take the pain", you might have some idea why I feel what I do.

posted by Jo on February 25, 2005 08:17 AM

---

And again: fact check please. Is that so much to ask?

posted by Jo on February 25, 2005 08:18 AM

---

« Hide Comments

Exhibit B is particularly interesting, actually, in that it touches upon something I've been trying to add to the discussion for years (but no pro-choice/pro-stem cell research advocate is willing to address):

The concept that abortions are the sole choice and responsibility of the woman because "it's her body" cannot stand without ignoring that the "fetus" (or: baby, or blastocyst, or what-have-you) has different genetic material than the woman. It cannot, therefore, be acting on control of "her own body", can it?

As the push for stem cell research grows stronger, genetic material will have a dollar value, and it would only be a matter of time before a man sued for control of his genetic material after it left his body.

This case was a different development than I anticipated, but it is the same thing: he is asserting the rights to his genetic material and the disposal thereof. The idea that--

The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm.

"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee.

--is incompatible with the idea of child support.

There are multiple conflicting principles at work in this court case. It will be interesting to see how they play out. It won't be in the favor of liberal ideology, I don't think.

« Hide "Why "Roe V Wade" Will Not Stand Much Longer"

---

Actually, this proves that a fetus -- or blastocyte, or whatever -- is a third entity. It is composed of more than just the biological mother's cells or the biological father's, and is thus an entity unto itself. The idea, therefore, that the mother has greater standing to terminate its existence is absurd.

posted by Grouchy Old Yorkie Lady on February 24, 2005 05:32 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

I can't stand Caillou either.

1)What is up with the name?
2)He's a total whiner.
3)He just gets on my nerves.
4)Where's the hair?
5)Just spank him and get it over with.

Need anymore reasons? I refuse to be induced to guilt for disliking a cartoon character.

posted by Rae on February 18, 2005 08:44 AM

---

Maybe it's a pro-logging message. ;)

posted by Craig on February 18, 2005 11:57 AM

---

I have always ALWAYS hated Caillou. Whiny little snot that needs a good spanking and a set of parents who ARE parents. The times that we have watched it, we've actually discussed why Caillou should've been punished for certain behaviors. My kids know the difference. It's the same thing with D.W., Arthur's sister; she's a whiny little brat that everyone just allows to be that way. For a while, Arthur wasn't allowed in our house because my oldest daughter thought D.W. was the coolest and had begun acting just like her.

Cartoon characters may be fictional, but to my kids, they're quite real and have significant influence. Things we don't allow: Dragon Tales (because I despise the syrupy crap and that one two-headed dragon's screamy way of talking), SpongeBob (it's just not appropriate), most of the anime shows (because their worldview is just wrong), and most of the Cartoon Network fare... except for PowerPuff Girls and Dexter's Laboratory, which are truly wonderful.

posted by Kris on February 18, 2005 02:16 PM

---

Ha, I had to go Google the name to even figure out whattheheck...

Seems like it's a series created in...argh...FRANCE! Maybe that explains the offense, dunno. On the other hand, it IS on PBS, so...

posted by -S- on February 18, 2005 07:09 PM

---

My daughter loves the show. I like it because I have a whole series of jokes behind it and I can imitate the old lady narrator's voice perfectly.

Ever notice no matter where Caillou goes, he gets treated extra special? If he's on an airplane, he gets to see the cockpit, if he's at the zoo he gets to feed tha animals, etc? I always use my old lady voice to narrate special events for Caillou

"Caillou had never performed brain surgery before..."

I'm sure it's better in person.

Anyway, one thing to understand about children's programming is that all concepts must be broken down into their most simplistic terms. Because most agendas (on both the left and right) tend to be simplistic, it's easy to confuse children's shows for some sort of hidden message. I doubt it's the case.

Yes, I agree a good fanny whack would help Caillou understand why he can't play with the knives, but corporal punishment isn't exactly something any kiddy show wants to get involved with.

posted by Sharp as a Marble on February 19, 2005 05:39 AM

---

Good point, SaaM. I wish I could think of a snide comment to add to that, but you'll just have be satisfied with a simulation: [insert snide, insulting response here.]

posted by Nathan on February 19, 2005 09:00 AM

---

Oof, I'm a nanny and I HATE Caillou! I have banned it several times now, but the parents I work for keep letting him watch it again, even though they know it's a bad influence. Seriously, this kid already has enough behavioral issues... if i have to hear "I don't WANT to!" or "No, it's too HARD!" one more time I think I may smash the TV... that and Thomas the Tank Engine... he's obsessed with it... all those trains are SO disrespectful of each other! The other day, little Stephen looked me square in the face when he was mad and yelled "You don't work hard enough! Rubbish!" Took me about five minutes to locate the exact Thomas video with that phrase and chuck it... well, I hid it in the garage... and wouldn't you know, his Daddy found it a week later and stuck it right back in the VCR... I'm quitting soon, and if I were a lesser person I'd take all the videos with me and melt them down...

posted by Alicia on March 16, 2005 03:44 PM

---

I'm filling my mind with a picture of beating Caillou’s huge, misshapen head to pulp! Thoughts so primitive they black out everything else. I'm filling my mind with hate for Caillou.
Is your blood red like ours Caillou? I'm going to find out. All I want to do is get my hands on you. Can you read these thoughts Caillou - images of hate, killing?
You'll find my thoughts more interesting, thoughts so primitive you can't understand.
Emotions so - ugh!
No. Don't help me. I have to concentrate. Caillou can't read through hate.

posted by Christopher Pike on May 28, 2005 06:47 PM

---

Don't hurt Caillou - he doesn't mean to be evil.

posted by Veena on May 28, 2005 07:10 PM

---

You ppl are all sick and disturbed nutcases you are a bunch of adults(and I use that term loosley) tearing apart a childrens cartoon character.As for Caillou being a bad influence my 6 year old learned plenty of manners and sharing skills from all the P.B.S shows and my 23 month old is doing the same.

posted by tiffany on September 7, 2005 08:35 AM

---

« Hide Comments

*because, I seriously doubt this level of invective would be directed at someone for merely liking puns, or being a Jew converted to Christianity.

« Hide "Don't Irritate the Pro-Choice Powers"

---

I guess when you have no morals about killing babies, you don't have morals about lieing either.

posted by The General on February 6, 2005 10:56 AM

---

« Hide Comments

---

That is just sad! Yes, the girls probably shouldn't have been out that late, but sheesh, to sue over it?! Especially when the families offered to pay the medical bills!

posted by ReaderMom on February 4, 2005 11:10 PM

---

« Hide Comments

*safe for work. Safe for husbands, too, if only because the girls just aren't that attractive, in my opinion...

« Hide "Hmm...or is that, "Ugh."?"

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

The American Civili Liberties Union. What a surprise, huh? If you thought their lawsuits indicated a hostility toward Freedom of Religious Expression, this does nothing to counter that assumption.

From today's Best of the Web.

Anybody want to get a screenshot of it before they correct their inadvertant admission?

« Hide "Expect To See This All Over The Web"

---

Disgusting. Plain and simple.

posted by Sharp as a Marble on January 11, 2005 05:55 PM

---

I'm not so sure the omission was inadvertent. I saved the source though, just in case the decide to go back and actually quote the actual 1st Amendment.

posted by Mike Howard on January 11, 2005 07:04 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

It's amazing how issues can be so easily confused in the simple mind.

posted by Leonidas on December 29, 2004 02:33 PM

---

How does it stack up next to the number of people dying as a result of the 'no-condoms-please' policy?

I guess you're right: 100,000 dead really isn't that big a deal.

I don't know how people like you sleep at night.

posted by Yepp on December 29, 2004 04:50 PM

---

How many people have died from the "no-condom policy" again?

Zero? Oh, yeah, because sex is voluntary, and responsible sex (only inside a life-long commitment) is 100% safe if neither has a previous marriage.
How many people have died because they trusted the people that said condoms would make them safe?

Probably closing in on a million by now, just in the US...

posted by Nathan on December 29, 2004 08:11 PM

---

Oh, and I sleep in a bed. You?

posted by Nathan on December 29, 2004 08:22 PM

---

But the real suprise is that 30,000 or so children die each day of starvation in the world and there is no news coverage about it at all. Is that because we have become complacent about it? Are the pictures not as sensational. Or just that we expect it to happen every day and we don't expect tsunami waves to hit?

posted by Guy on December 31, 2004 12:41 AM

---

Guy,
Is that number correct?
That would be nearly 11 million children dying every year. Only children, and only from starvation. When you add in disease, wars, disasters, car accidents, adults, how many people would that be per year?

This site says that only 8 million die from starvation each year, and that 6 million of those are under the age of five. That would be more like under 20,000 children dying of starvation each year.

But to actually address your question, I think the reason it doesn't get as much attention is that we are inured to the idea. That's much the same as passing all sorts of gun control laws even though more people are killed with household objects like golf clubs and hammers than guns, even though more than twice as many people die in car accidents than with guns, even though more children die per year in swimming pool accidents than by guns. Or why AIDS gets so much funding when more people die of cancer. Or heart disease. Or malaria (worldwide). Whereas, yeah, a tsunami that kills more than 100,000 in a matter of minutes shocks us in a way that starvation doesn't. There haven't been many disaster movies that detailed a few hundred people dying from starvation every few hours. Death unexpected stirs the emotions more.

Part of it is also that it would be impossible to eliminate death from starvation. So many people die of starvation because of political decisions of leaders, or disruption of normal shipping channels, not amount of food available.

I wish I had a better answer. There's no reason to give up trying to solve the starvation problem, though, of course.

posted by Nathan on December 31, 2004 05:21 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

Should I abstain from commenting?

posted by Sharp as a Marble on December 10, 2004 11:56 AM

---

That would be the consummate courteous thing to do.

posted by Nathan on December 10, 2004 12:50 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

In the war against Christianity, don't forget the casualties in the Salvation Army.

Yours,
Wince

posted by Wince and Nod on December 7, 2004 06:40 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

I have no problem with the government "paying the salaries of military chaplains," so long as they provide pay for rabbis and muslim clerics as well where such are desired, or with it "building chapels on military bases," so long as it provides synagogues and mosques if such are in demand. Certainly you do not take having "In God We Trust" on the currency as religious? If it is intended as a religious expression, it is a thoroughly misguided one, as there is no more worldly a thing as money, and perhaps no better way to break several Commandments at once than to invoke God on our cash. Opening sessions of Congress with prayer can hardly be objected to by anyone but the Congressmen and women themselves. If and when Congress is populated by muslims or atheists, they can open their sessions with what *they* see fit for themselves as well. I see the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience as another non-religious expression. I would not, if I were you, rely on such changeable things as what is "constitutionally sound and appropriate," as that tends to vary quite a bit over time, regardless of what time you're talking about, e.g. 1880-1905 OR 1980-2005. And maybe I'm just dull, but what distinguishes a faith-based charity that does not proselytize from a secular one? What the people who run the charity carry around carefully closeted in their hearts? Nonsense. Faith-based charties are merely extensions of the church, formed to do the church's work. As such, they should not be funded with public money except that which they can collect in their plate on Sunday morning.

posted by susie on November 25, 2004 12:58 AM

---

"Got it? Note the capitalizations implying proper nouns. Once you understand the full implications, you should see that deflates the majority of atheist/secular arguments in one stroke"

Really? But the very article you quote also includes a statement that various Constitutional scholars interpret the First Amendment as prohibiting favoritism in action or policy. Let's face it, the Supreme Court has been fairly clear about this interpretation as well.

A proper State position on Church and religion would be an agnostic one. By agnostic I mean the State should expressly have no interest in matters of faith or religion. In short, the State should remain mute and exist without official reference to deities. To do otherwise is provides the basis for a State Church.

The State has no business forming an opinion, endorsing or denying any deities. The State has no business endorsing or denying various religious teachings as such. Therefore, pledges including reference to gods, mentions of gods on money, forced prayer in schools, commandments on State-owned buildings and funds to Bush's proselytizing faith-based organizations are improper because they provide funds and endorsement to one or more deities, religious beliefs and religions. That endorsement implicitly provides governmental recognition and validation to specific religious doctrines at the expense other beliefs.

The State's action creates a de facto State religion (Church) of a new State demonination, no matter how watered down or seemingly inclusive of other religions, by specifically endorsing religious belief such as "under God" or "In God We Trust." Clearly, this is violation of the Establishment clause. Again, the State has no business in this realm and should refrain.

Why are the religious so terrified of an agnostic State? Such a State wouldn't require the citizens to believe anything (religious freedom) and wouldn't use their money to support religious expressions that all can't agree on. An agnostic State furthermore wouldn't mean that morals would be forced outside the halls of government or that individuals and private organizations couldn't express their faith in the 'public square.' The only conceivable reason that theists keep trying to force religion from the public domain and into the realm of government is to force the rest of us into submission. This is exactly why we need explicit and strict separation of Church and State.

posted by a-[e] on November 25, 2004 01:49 AM

---

[No saracasm/humor, well, maybe humor) alert] "Religion" is nothing more than a sub-heading under which we group certain types of similar belief systems. To base government upon only one specific belief system is dangerous, because then other belief systems are derided and excluded.” Nathan

See how silly everyone has been being? All you silly Red Sox and Yankees fans. We have no problem here at all. So, since the Yankees were founded prior to the Red Sox, from now on we will play yankeeball in yankee stadiums using yankeerules. The Yankee Hall of Fame will be in Yankeetown. The yankeetickets will be purchased with yankeemoney and prior to each game we will all sing Hail To The Yankees. You, of course, being a Red Sox fan, don’t have to sing. Just pretend that you are not there. Part of your ticket costs, even if the Yankees are not playing, will be used to build a Yankee clubhouse in each stadium to cater to the needs of Yankee fans and to provide pin-striped officials to attend all league games and to minister to Yankee fans who might attend the game. Another portion will be used to provide a Yankee representative at all meetings of the League officials, who will take a few moments prior to each meeting to praise the Yankees and thank them for their contributions to yankeeball. And always remember: all teams are equal in this league. Your team is just as good as any other team and there is no official league team. May the Yankees bless us.
Uh huh. That'll work.

posted by notherbob2 on November 25, 2004 06:15 AM

---

Nathan: Good points, but you're mistaken on a crucial point in my argument. Specifically, I'm in favor of an agnostic government, not an atheistic government. An agnostic government would be one that refuses to take a position or endorse any religion or deity because it has no place making such decisions. Essentially, the government is mute and refrains from religious action and policies. Of course, that does not mean there should be restrictions on believers serving in office.

An atheistic government would explicity deny the existence of god or gods, a position that would be an endorsement of a view of religion. I'm not in favor of that. That, too, would be an establishment of Church, one of non-belief, but an establishment nonetheless.

A secular government need not be atheist, but it should be agnostic and refrain from actions and policies that create a de facto State Church. This failure to refrain is the situation the US government finds itself in now. It should be corrected.

posted by a-[e] on November 25, 2004 10:06 AM

---

Fair enough.
And another point surely is:
I don't have to persuade you, really, I just have to oppose you (you being: a general "you", mainly the ACLU and judges sympathetic to their cause) and express my opinion. That's what Democracy is all about. You don't need to come to a 100% consensus, you just need a plurality.

posted by Nathan on November 25, 2004 10:29 AM

---

*****You don't need to come to a 100% consensus, you just need a plurality.*****

You are correct that *you* don't have to persuade anyone, but the government, on the other hand, IS beholden to every single last individual citizen. On matters where reasonable people differ and a consensus cannot be reached, the government has a duty to remain silent. Whether the ACLU or Pat Robertson understand this or not is irrelevant to its truthfulness.

posted by susie on November 25, 2004 03:30 PM

---

On matters where reasonable people differ and a consensus
cannot be reached, the government has a duty to remain silent.
Either you didn't type that right, or I'm missing a subtlety, because nothing in the history of this nation has ever gotten 100% agreement on anything. Ever.

You are obviously too intelligent to have meant that, so could explain again or go a little more in depth? I mean, surely you aren't saying that since there wasn't a consensus on Judge Moore's display of the 10 Commandments, the courts had a duty to remain silent, right?
We have courts for precisely the purpose of not only making decisions in the absence of 100% consensus but to go against majority consensus
if Congress goes against the Constitution. And we have Congress so that we can get laws passed on isses that aren't 100% supported.
So I think I misunderstood what you said.

And as far as the govt being beholden to every single last citizen, I think that also only goes so far. Not every citizen can or will be happy with the decisions of govt. Criminals, specifically, will often be downright dissatisfied at times [understatement]. Taxes are yet another example where the govt doesn't listen to the people directly.

I've always thought that taken as a whole, citizens are like adolescent kids. You can't always do whatever people want, you have to make decisions based on what is actually good for the people whether they like it or not.
So you work to get a plurality, and then you enact your agenda. And if it works, people see that and are happy, even if they weren't happy to begin with. And if it doesn't work, people reject it, even if they were happy to get it in the first place. Which explains the reason why Democrats are losing support despite promising the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars to its special interest groups.

posted by brainfertilizer on November 25, 2004 06:11 PM

---

*****I mean, surely you aren't saying that since there wasn't a consensus on Judge Moore's display of the 10 Commandments, the courts had a duty to remain silent, right?*****

Actually neither Moore nor the courts should have been supporting or not supporting religious expression. No monument, no order to have it removed, no court case.

*****We have courts for precisely the purpose of not only making decisions in the absence of 100% consensus but to go against majority consensus
if Congress goes against the Constitution. And we have Congress so that we can get laws passed on isses that aren't 100% supported. So I think I misunderstood what you said.*****

Well, maybe so, but only because you didn't know that I think the government shouldn't be doing half of what it currently does. There is, I believe, a broad consensus for things like maintaining the armed services and law enforcement offices for security.

*****You can't always do whatever people want, you have to make decisions based on what is actually good for the people whether they like it or not.*****

On a local level, I sort of agree, but the further away geographically you get from the governed, the worse this kind of government becomes. That's why I think local government is superior for regulating commerce, or for setting educational standards (or whatever the people in the area want) but I will never agree that the job of govt. (at any level) is to decide what is "good for the people," where religion is concerned. And, quite frankly, I'm surprised that you do. Such an argument could just as easily be used to oppress Christianity as to support it.

posted by susie on November 25, 2004 09:39 PM

---

Nathan,

ou may be interested in reading this blog http://thewanderingmind.blogspot.com/
which deals with some of the same issues you have been talking about. I wanted to post it to you privately, but couldn't find your e-mail.

posted by Rachel Ann on November 27, 2004 11:28 AM

---

« Hide Comments

---

Wasn't it religious folks who suggested that the anti-gay group was to blame? Maybe I read the article wrong.

posted by susie on November 25, 2004 05:03 PM

---

Everyone but the police are "religious folks", including the members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance.

The leader of the anti-gay religious group Ushers of the Eucharist said "I don't know who did it...Nobody wants to see church property damaged in the name of an exorcism."

But the rector of the church, who had to be at least in agreement with letting avowed homosexuals take communion, said, "Regardless of why they did it, it was a very disruptive act." The context implied he was accusing a specific group.

And one paragraph specifically accused the anti-gay groups with this: "Schnell said police have no leads, but several religious people familiar with the case said it is probably the work of fringe Catholics who advocate using sacramentals, or holy objects, to cleanse places where gays take communion."
Which religious people? The rector? The leader of the Rainbow Sash Alliance? On the basis of NO factual evidence, these unnamed religious people have smeared private citizens, and the reporter was more than happy to help them do it.
Facts:
1) Someone vandalized a cathedral
2) this cathedral allows homosexuals to take communion freely
3) the vandalization shares some characteristics with an exorcism

There is nothing that points to any of the assumptions made by the reporter, but I guess you don't need facts if you need to advance gay rights. You have to make sure that disapproving of Catholic priests rewriting the Bible is clearly identified as homophobia and hate, you know.

posted by Nathan on November 25, 2004 07:06 PM

---

Why isn't it possible that the religious folks stand in support of neither gay rights nor vandalism, but suspect it was the anti-gay group for other reasons? Maybe they don't think gays should be able to take communion, but also think that the particular people in the anti-gay group are exactly the sort of obnoxious people who would engage in such a disruptive act, instead of pursuing their agenda by lawful means.

All I'm saying is that we don't know enough about these "religious folks" to really say one way or the other, and that I think you're being a bit paranoid, even though I think I understand why. I can see why it may appear like bias superficially, and that there is reflexive bias against religious folks, but it's not clear to me that that's what's operating in this situation.

posted by susie on November 25, 2004 09:50 PM

---

« Hide Comments

---

Is it just me, or has the ACLU been taking "uppers" or eating their Wheaties.

They seem to be sueing everyone since Bush won the election earlier this month.

posted by Jeremy on November 24, 2004 06:12 PM

---

Well, I'm assuming it's because the progressive/atheist/secular agenda is being rejected by greater and greater numbers of citizens and voters. They've been able to use activist judges to impose some items, but even those (like Roe v Wade) are imperiled by Supreme Court retirements while a Republican is in the White House. And President Bush made an extremely important move by sending a clear message that democracy will be served; he threatened to throw his support behind a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between opposite genders. [please note: the pro-SSM activists distort what he actually said and did, don't they?] The 11 states that amended their state constitutions indicate that President Bush might have the political capital to pull it off over the objections of a distinct but vocal minority...so they've backed off and decided that if they can't win the debate, make sure the debate is never allowed to happen.

Eradicating freedom of religious expression is an appropriate pre-emptive strike, considering their ultimate goals.

posted by Nathan on November 24, 2004 06:49 PM

---

I'm just thinking about the backlash in public opinion. The ACLU is getting some bad press (even when its "good press" in the NYTimes - because I believe the Average American can read between the spinlines of the press.) (At least I hope that is true.)

So what would happen if the majority of the public rejects the ACLU (a non-government entity)?

That could be the ultimate end to this path were on.

posted by Jeremy on November 24, 2004 07:13 PM

---

Personally, I just like to see the sheer ignorance behind statements such as "atheists/secularists were trying to sanitize society for their own sensibilities" - gosh, I never knew I was doing that, particularly given that I think handing out historical American documents, in the context of an American history class (assuming this was the case), is perfectly acceptable and what anyone with a functioning brain might expect.

posted by andy on November 24, 2004 10:09 PM

---

Now, Andy, don't jump at generalizations. That doesn't advance the discussion at all.

But for the sake of argument, who should I name as the ones trying to suppress free expression of religious values? It's more than just the ACLU. I didn't think George Soros was behind this, too, but there is a disorganized but increasingly coherent attempt to establish an atheist default. Should I blame the van Pattons?
Naming a group is just verbal shorthand for ease of discussion, and should not ever be taken to mean "100% of all people who consider using this term to describe themselves 100% of the time".

posted by Nathan on November 24, 2004 10:32 PM

---

For example, remember the flap over Judge Moore's statue/monument of the 10 Commandments? While I disapproved of his refusal to comply with a court order, the complaint was brought by a supposedly-adult lawyer who said she couldn't even bear to see the statue, it upset her so much.

That is exactly the sanitization of a public display for the sensibility of an atheist and/or secularist.

As is someone complaining to remove a nativity scene from City Hall grounds.

As is calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree".

As is saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

As is removing the words "Under God" from the Pledge.

So it's not all atheists, but pretending to not comprehend an easily-understood speech generalization doesn't do anyone any good.

One last reminder: You may be convinced those attempts are all good and proper and in line with the intent of the forefathers in the 1st Amendment. Some legal scholars think so. Enough don't, however, that the standard ACLU opinion of Separation of Church and State is never a slam-dunk, the ACLU's victory against the Boy Scouts notwithstanding.

I think the tide may be turning, however, and future rulings that nativity scenes must be removed and you can't sing Christmas songs in school programs may be considered as ridiculous as some of the "Zero Tolerance" rules that get kids suspended for bring 1" plastic guns to school or for saving someone's life by sharing an asthma inhaler.
It's going to be an interesting and probably messy couple of years, I think...maybe the whole rest of the decade.

posted by Nathan on November 24, 2004 10:45 PM

---

« Hide Comments

Conservatives have the Global War On Terror, I guess liberals gotta have their own war on an ideology they can't accept, too.

**although the article also describes a loss in Spain.

« Hide "News From the Global War On Morality*"

---

« Hide Comments

---

« Hide Comments

---

If it was my daughter, that man would be tasting his teeth.

posted by Sharp as a Marble on July 23, 2004 10:58 AM

---

I just think he should never be allowed to teach below the college level again.

posted by nathan on July 23, 2004 11:00 AM

---

These "teachers" are the critters that our colleges are turning out, and there ain't a thing we can really do about it 'til the aging '60's hippies that populate acedemia today have finally died out as a species.

Hopefully at that point, sanity will prevail yet again, and an education will consist of more than just indoctrination in a specific ideology.

Too bad it's too late for my kids, and my sister. I just have to remember to keep the family discussions limited to pets and parties and boyfriends and stuff.

I thought these prof's were supposed to be smart. How'd they miss the fact that communism failed, the interests of the Nation outweigh the sensibilities of the corrupt UN, the safety of the population is (er, should be) the main reason government exists, and trivial stuff like that?

posted by rick on July 23, 2004 02:03 PM

---

Well, they seem to think TRUE communism has never been tried...that's the thing about elitists, they not only think they are better than the common folk, they think they are better than other elitists...

posted by Nathan on July 23, 2004 05:18 PM

---

« Hide Comments