Wednesday, June 14, 2006

CBS Stations: Sex Fines Without Merit

CBS Stations: Sex Fines Without Merit
CBS affiliates filed a motion on Tuesday to have the $3.3 million worth of fines levied against a Dec. 31, 2004, Without a Trace rebroadcast — which, the FCC says, depicted "numerous sexual activities" and "sexual conduct" amongst teens — tossed out because not one of the 4,211 complaints about the episode came from anyone outside of the websites operated by two conservative advocacy groups, the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association. "Permitting enforcement reliant on a national mass e-mail campaign is akin to permitting the [FCC] to single out programming it dislikes, in the absence of any viewer complaint," argue the affiliates. ( – entertainment news)

My comment: no duh.

My other comment: Obviously, the members of the above referenced organizations have nothing better to do with their time than create unnecessary work for lawyers. Because a small percentage (and perhaps, allegedly small-minded) group of people find a show ‘objectionable’ to their tastes, not necessarily the tastes of the millions of people who viewed the show that night, CBS affiliates are fined $3.3 million. Let me put that number into percentage perspective: .004% people found the show objectionable, if figuring that only 1 million people watched the show that night. So, CBS affiliates get fined $3.3 million because .004% of people find the show objectionable. Give me a break, people, and get a life. If you don’t want to watch the show, don’t watch it. If you don’t want your kids watching the show, then don’t let them watch it. The majority of cable boxes allow responsible parents to block a channel. My advice: block it and get a life.

I cannot even believe I am doing a blog entry based on the above news item. Technically, it is a waste of time. Importantly, it is not. The public at large needs to stand up against organizations that feel they have the right to censor, in any way, shape or form. One voice can make a difference. I understand the need to stand up for convictions – I’m doing it here and now. I understand the passion of convictions. The only passion about censorship should be a passion against censorship.

Both the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association are allegedly attempting to reshape society in their – allegedly – narrow-minded vision. I applaud their efforts. They have every right to stand up for their beliefs. They do not have the right, at least in my opinion, to infringe upon my beliefs, or deny me the right to choose what I want to watch or do not want to watch on television. If I don’t want to watch something, I change the channel or turn the television off. It’s a simple enough process that requires almost no effort on my part. If I find a book objectionable, I don’t buy it. Again, simple enough. I do not send out mass emailings – though, I guess this blog could be considered a mass email – so that the CBS affiliates are fined an inordinate amount of money for a show that was only objectionable to members of the aforementioned groups, and a .004% at that. Technically, based on the actual viewership numbers for that episode, the percentage is probably far less than .004%.
The true question here, is how many people in that .004% actually watched the show? Or, is the simple fact, that only one person watched the show that night, and then sent out a mass email to all the members of that group and requested that they send the emails to the FCC? I think my scenario is the actuality of the situation. Perhaps, the FCC should subpoena all 4,211 people who sent the emails, put them under oath, and ask the simple question: Did you watch Without a Trace on the night of December 31, 2004? Hmmm . . .

As an addendum to the above: please note that - as was pointed out to me earlier - not all the members of the above-mentioned groups are narrow-minded indivduals . . . only some of them, and, again, that is only my personal opinion. I was wrong in not adding the word 'some' to the earlier portions of the post. People are not easily definied into a simple stereotype. I have ranted against that idea before; unfortunately, I fell into the same stereotyping calamaity. Sorry.


Thursday, June 08, 2006

Gay Marriage - Part Two

I just want to add that the proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage failed . . . as the parties proposing the amendment knew it would. So why propose it, if you knew it would fail? The obvious (and, unfortunately, most likely) response is: to appease the constituents who provide the most money for their political campaigns. It is an election year folks, and certain members of a certain political party are currently running scared because of a certain approval rating for a certain high placed government official that is - luckily so - rubbing off on the rest of the party. The proposed amendment was nothing more than political b.s. to show the allegedly moneyed constituents that the people in power are doing their jobs. HA! Isn't that a joke.

What needs to be remembered, is that while the proposed amendment did not succeed this time, it might succeed at a later date. We the people have the power to stand up and fight such an amendment. We the people have the power to hold the people in power to a higher standard. Perhaps it is time that we the people became more actively involved in the political arena and began to demand answers from the people we put in power. Perhaps we need to review their voting records and match them up to the political promises (i.e., meaningless words told to get elected) they made during their campaigns. Perhaps we need to take a more careful look at all those currently up for election and running for office and see if a change needs to be made.

Lastly, why the heck do people vote along party lines? Why don't people vote for the best person suited for the job, rather than someone who is either a Democrat or Republican? When people vote along party lines, it becomes the blind leading the blind. Just because someone is a Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) and running for office, it does not necessarily make that person the best candidate for the job. A Republican (or Democrat) might be the better candidate, but people fail to realize that fact, vote along party lines, and then wonder why things are going to hell in a proverbial handbasket? Grow up, people. Get a life. To vote along party lines is to vote in favor of oppression and ignorance. Information is but a few keystrokes away. Take a few minutes, google a name, and find out about both candidates running for a particular office. Be bold, be daring, and vote for the best qualified candidate, and not the party candidate you feel obligated to vote for. In the end, we might have a better country. I'm just saying . . .


Friday, June 02, 2006


Okay, I seem to have a theme, but after giving the 'Batwoman is a Lesbian' post some more thought . . . and I still stand by my comments about Wonder Woman . . . I would say that the majority of Superheroes have . . . shall we say . . . gay tendencies? I mean, really, how many hetero men do you know would be comfortable wearing tights and a cape? What about Batman's leather outfit? Robin's short shorts, tights and a cape? Not to mention the name. It is clearly obvious that the majority of Superheroes have gay tendencies. I'm just saying . . .


: )

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Batwoman is a Lesbian

In a bold move, DC Comics is bringing back the character of Batwoman . . . with a twist: she's a lesbian. The Internet community is in a frenzy over this announcement. The New York Times has reported on this story. Why? I just don't get it. So Batwoman is a lesbian. That's great, but is it deserving of so much Internet usage and media print? Not really, but who am I to question the fervor over this announcement. I really think it's great that Batwoman is a lesbian. I always thought Wonder Women made a good lesbian - technically a lipstick dyke since she's so beautiful - but whoever conceived of Wonder Woman decided that she needed a male love interest. Please, a good woman would have been a better love interest for her. : ) In the end, does it really matter that Batwoman is a lesbian? Is it worth all the time spent on Internet message boards denouncing or supporting the decision. In a word . . . yes. It creates discussion, it creates thought and it creates dissent. It shows that humanity is not a totally careless - though ignorant might be an apt word - society that no longer pays attention to what is happening. Then again, it also shows that the narrow-minded nature of some portions of society are still in existence. Just because Batwoman is a lesbian does not make her any less human. In my personal opinion, perhaps it makes her more human because she can relate to both her feminine and masculine aspects. Just a thought.