/|\

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”


Thursday, April 7, 2005

Censorship? To Say the Least

Wow. On the heals of a couple of senators arguing that the FCC should restrict what can be shown on cable, we have the following two stories:

REUTERS: The chairman of one of the entertainment industry's most important congressional committees says he wants to take the enforcement of broadcast decency standards into the realm of criminal prosecution.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, R-Wis., told cable industry executives attending the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference here on Monday that criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

Hear that? The CRIMINAL process. In other words, not just fines for broadcasters who the FCC recieves complaint against. Nope, now it's jailtime for anyone who broadcasts anything Congress has deemed indecent.

And what does the new head of the FCC have to say about all this? Well, according to the LA Times:

Martin, named FCC chairman two weeks ago, told a crowd at the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. convention here that his agency did not have the authority it exercised over conventional broadcasting to regulate the programming that streams over cable lines.

But, he warned, that could change if Congress decides to give the FCC power to police content on cable and satellite.

[snip]

Indecency "is a serious and significant issue," said Martin, a 38-year-old lawyer who repeatedly pressed for tougher punishment of broadcasters during his four years as an FCC commissioner.

Nonetheless, his relatively conciliatory comments Tuesday seemed to calm cable executives, who fear tighter regulation. They long have been exempt from indecency rules because their content flows over private cable lines rather than the public airwaves.

Industry leaders want to police themselves. The cable association, as if to demonstrate the ability to do that, showcased at the Moscone Convention Center technologies that allow parents to block certain cable content from their televisions.

Now, if the cable industry comes up with ways to block stations that parents don't want their children to see, I suppose that's a fair enough compromise. Adults can still see what they want, and it's up to parents to decide what their children are exposed to. WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE.

Cable isn't broadcast. You have to pay for it to come into your home. You don't have to have it. It's not like I can turn on UHF channel 69 and get the Spice Channel. It's not like channel 7 is Showtime. That's why the FCC currently doesn't regulate cable--it's a market-driven thing, not a public trust. I mean, what ever happened to the marketplace being a determiner of what's socially acceptable and what's not? Or does that only apply to things conservatives approve of?

"Ah," Congress says, "but they're broadcasting things we find offensive."

"So?" says the warry journalism student.

"So we want to regulate what they broadcast according to our personal ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't."

The warry student is dumbfounded. "But isn't this censorship?" She points to FCC vs. Pacifica and Miller v. California. She points to the first amendment: 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. You'd think that precedence would argue against Congress being able to regulate what is broadcast. But then, it's judges who decided this, and it's the judicial branch which is beind dismantled as we speak.

So let's say for the sake of argument that this goes through. Now Congress decides that certain shows are indecent, and can no longer be shown on television. What's next? Certain movies? Books? Magazines? Since cable is not a broadcast medium, but one a person has to buy, it was argued that a person could regulate whether they are exposed to something. But if Congress steps in and regulates it for you, why should they stop at cable? Why not restrict every medium, since every medium can be construed as able to peddle potentially offensive material?

Am I the only one who thinks of this:

|

11:57 AM

Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

This must be the dumbest damn idea I've ever heard:

Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."

Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant."

There's a reason why Florida is its own category on Fark.

Here's what's really troubling about this bill: it comes just after the Terry Schiavo fiasco; it comes just after judges have been threatened with death; it comes just after congressmen have said they see why judges get shot, that they're asking for it. It comes after a massive right-wing "pro-life" series of demonstrations in Florida, wherein Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and Gary McCullough, tied to the Army of God, had a prominent role.

It's not hard to see this bill being used as a way to assassinate "activist" judges and gynecologists.

It's hard not to think of Margaret Atwood as a prophet.

|

11:19 AM

Monday, April 4, 2005

Down Down Dollar

My family's going to Europe[1] in May, and I'll be going too as part of a church choir (second soprano, btw). So we've been watching the dollar against the euro, trying to decide when we should buy up some euros for the trip--wait too long, and you get a bad deal; buy to early, and you burn yourself. That's the argument, anyway, and my stepfather noted that the euro is going down, closer to the dollar. To him, this was a positive.

I'm not so sure about that.

The New York Times has an editorial from Saturday about the falling dollar:

The dollar's current uptick is just a breather in its overall downward trajectory. It's due largely to the United States' higher interest rates, which lure foreign investors away from euros and into dollar-based investments. But what will happen when the Federal Reserve stops raising rates? Here's a hint: When one Federal Reserve governor suggested recently that rates might peak at a lower level than analysts expected, the dollar promptly slid.

[snip]

There is gathering evidence that foreign central bankers are seeking to avoid the losses that future dollar investments seem to threaten. Recently, financial markets have been unsettled by comments from Japan, South Korea, India and Russia about diversifying away from dollars. And this week, a tough-talking China vowed not to allow its economic decisions to be dictated by any other country, a statement that was a rebuff to the United States.

If the world's central bankers accumulate fewer dollars, the result would be an unrelenting American need to borrow in the face of an ever weaker dollar - a recipe for higher interest rates and higher prices. The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis. Or the pain could fall somewhere in between. If foreign reluctance to buy Treasury bonds pushed up long-term interest rates, mortgage rates would follow. If the economy is in a housing bubble, as many analysts believe, higher mortgage rates would pop it, with dire results for homeowners' balance sheets and the overall health of the economy.

The editorial argues for fiscal responsibility, which makes sense. However, with the rise in oil prices, the consumer price index, and a host of other problems (not the least of which strikes me as the Peak Oil problem), I think we may be in for some nasty weather.

1. Yeah, I may be poor, but my parents aren't. They help me out, of course.

|

1:35 PM

So Have I Mentioned How Much I Hate the Shake-Ups at Air America?

First, Liz Winstead was kicked off of Unfiltered. Now Unfiltered has been replaced with the Jerry Springer radio show. 'Cause, you know, nothing says "credibility" like Jerry Springer.

Am I the only one who liked Unfiltered? I actually liked Rachel Maddow, even on her own. Now they're giving her a show--in the 5 AM (EST) time slot. Yeah. What a shot in the arm.

Al Franken is sometimes good, but I generally get bored. Randi Rhodes, same thing. And that's the only other shows I can get here in Philly without using a computer (which, of course, I can do at work). So I never hear Morning Sedition (but I liked when they filled in for Randi--I wish they'd be the 9-noon show).

|

12:30 PM

Popes, Prophecy, and My Silly Interests

So here's the crazy thing. Ever hear of the Prophecy of Saint Malachy? Malachy was an Irishman; his biography was written by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux--so not exactly an obscure guy in his day. At any rate, there's a prophecy attributed to him, though it's likely a forgery. Still, some people believe it to be true, forgery or not.

The story goes that Bishop Malachy was on a trip to Rome to report to the Pope on the state of the Irish church (which was notorious for getting into big arguments with Rome). Suddenly Malachy had a vision of every pope from his own to the final, numbering 112 in all. Now, Malachy's prophecy consists of a series of descriptions or mottoes for each pope, presumably until the final one. Here are a few examples:

Now here's the prophecy for John Paul II:

He was born May 18, 1920, during a solar eclipse. He traveled the entire world, like the sun. And he will be buried on April 8, 2005, a day upon which there is, yes, a solar eclipse. "Labor of the Sun" has been interpreted as meaning not only his constant work, or his travel, but the eclipses, being that it gives the appearance of giving birth to the sun.

Malachy gives only two more prophecies after De labore solis: first comes Gloria olivae: Glory of Olives. Maybe he's from a Mediterranean country, or maybe it's symbolic, the olive branch being a pretty weighty symbol. I'm sure someone will find a way to squeeze it in.

The final prophecy goes like this:

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremędus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.

In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.

I don't believe in the prophecies of Malachy, but I do find it interesting.

|

11:15 AM