Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

View Poll Results: National Lampoon's Vacation
10 7 4.43%
9 20 12.66%
8 35 22.15%
7 31 19.62%
6 27 17.09%
5 10 6.33%
4 10 6.33%
3 5 3.16%
2 4 2.53%
1 9 5.70%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-02-2005, 01:25 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]
I used to listen to the radio
And I don’t guess they’re listenin’ to me no more
They talk too much but that’s okay
I don’t understand a single word they say
Piss and moan about the immigrants
But don’t say nothin’ about the president
A democracy don’t work that way
I can say anything I wanna say

So [censored] the FCC
[censored] the FBI
[censored] the CIA
Livin’ in the motherfuckin’ USA

People tell me that I’m paranoid
And I admit I’m gettin’ pretty nervous, boy
It just gets tougher everyday
To sit around and watch it while it slips away
Been called a traitor and a patriot
Call me anything you want to but
Just don’t forget your history
Dirty Lenny died so we could all be free

[/ QUOTE ]
Steve Earle. Excellent.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-02-2005, 12:46 PM
coffeecrazy1 coffeecrazy1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 59
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]
Well now you monkey-wrenched it. I am a huge Stern fan, however I am fairly conservative and think the FCC plays an important role in America. They may be stretching their limits, but Stern is doing his job by pushing his. I just hope they leave satellite alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what important role does the FCC play? They were never elected, nor are they subject to any amount of public scrutiny. They enforce regulations that are not laws, and are instrumental in the modern erosion of the First Amendment.

If the public airwaves are really public, why do private companies run them? CBS, NBC, and ABC are not owned by the government(in some countries, this is very much not the case). If people are so offended by what is on television, they would stop watching, pure and simple. Any private company must appeal to its client base, or it goes bankrupt.

Yet, many people would rather not think for themselves, and such a vacuum in thought is what allows the FCC exists. This nebulous, quasi-governmental agency manages to reek not only of Religious right fundamental zealotism, but also radical left politically correct histrionics. It is an offensive entity designed to conform American viewing standards to an undefinable standard of decency, constant only in its inconsistency.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:27 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

There is a very good opinion piece by Jeff Jarvis on the Stern/FCC thing (it was in today's Newark Star Ledger, I'm sure it was in other papers as well).

One of the most striking things about this stuff is that of 23 complaints about a particular TV show referenced in the article, 21 of them came from the Parents Television Council. There were grand total of 2 from the rest of America. Yet the FCC fined the station that carried that show (FOX) $1.2 million (FOX is fighting the fine). Isn't it ridiculous that this one group, which one could reasonably argue is far from the mainstream of America, is allowed to have so much power? Shouldn't there be some requirement that, before a TV or radio station is fined for indecency, there be complaints from a broad cross-section of American society?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:40 PM
BCPVP BCPVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitewater, WI
Posts: 830
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]
If the public airwaves are really public, why do private companies run them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny you should mention it. About an hour ago I was reading my econ textbook in class on just this subject. The book talks about the airwaves being a common resource and that to solve the "problem of the commons" (which means "the absence of incentive to prevent the overuse and depletion of a commonly owned resource"), government can auction off particular frequencies to the highest bidders (ABC, CBS, etc).

So I guess to answer your question of what role does the FCC play one could argue that they are the oversight on the companies the gov't has given permission to use the public airwaves.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-02-2005, 06:17 PM
coffeecrazy1 coffeecrazy1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 59
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the public airwaves are really public, why do private companies run them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny you should mention it. About an hour ago I was reading my econ textbook in class on just this subject. The book talks about the airwaves being a common resource and that to solve the "problem of the commons" (which means "the absence of incentive to prevent the overuse and depletion of a commonly owned resource"), government can auction off particular frequencies to the highest bidders (ABC, CBS, etc).

So I guess to answer your question of what role does the FCC play one could argue that they are the oversight on the companies the gov't has given permission to use the public airwaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound like PVN, but why are airwaves considered a common resource, or, for that matter, owned by the government? Since civilians discovered television and the use of the airwaves, should it not follow that the airwaves are private? Otherwise, I'd say the government should compensate me and everybody else for their television sets...because the airwaves don't become available until you have one.

It makes me wonder what is a "commonly-shared" resource. Isn't everything owned by somebody, even if it's the government? Don't we all get by through the grace of others, in a sense? I'm not condemning it, but the assertion that we all share something is somewhat of a fallacy in the sense of ownership.

And no, I didn't like sharing with the other children. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:13 PM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 236
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]

It makes me wonder what is a "commonly-shared" resource. Isn't everything owned by somebody

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns all that oxygen you're breathing? I claim it. Please stop breathing until you've paid me for it, I think $10 per breath sounds fair PM me for payment details.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:36 PM
coffeecrazy1 coffeecrazy1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 59
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It makes me wonder what is a "commonly-shared" resource. Isn't everything owned by somebody

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns all that oxygen you're breathing? I claim it. Please stop breathing until you've paid me for it, I think $10 per breath sounds fair PM me for payment details.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)Actually, airspace disputes are not all that unheard of. Just because no one charges you to breathe doesn't mean they couldn't try. I grant you that it would be a ridiculous assertion, but not because of the ownership issues. However:
2)Why not look at everything I said, instead of grabbing one thing out of context and running with it? Didn't I mention the fact that many of the things that are "free" to us are available to us because of the grace of the owners? It is intrinsic to us that we breathe free air, so it is difficult to conceptualize, and I'm not saying that I think we should be charged for air consumption...I have no problem conceding the personal rights to my airspace for the privilege of breathing and flying through others'...but, we are getting WAAAAAYYYYY off the point about the FCC. I don't think anyone is confusing breathing air with airwaves.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-02-2005, 11:34 PM
BCPVP BCPVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitewater, WI
Posts: 830
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

Bear in mind, I'm getting this info from my econ book.

[ QUOTE ]
It makes me wonder what is a "commonly-shared" resource.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll start with this one because it'll help answer your first question. The book says examples of a commonly-shared resource could be something like the ocean or the fish in the sea. No one "owns" the fish in the sea, and because of that there is little incentive to prevent overfishing by any one person. That's what I described as the "problem of the commons" earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like PVN, but why are airwaves considered a common resource, or, for that matter, owned by the government? Since civilians discovered television and the use of the airwaves, should it not follow that the airwaves are private?

[/ QUOTE ]
My econ book's author would probably say because there is a finite number of airwaves (I think that's true but I could be wrong) and there's not much to keep some person from buying up a large chunk of them, the government has declared them a common resource and assigns property rights by auctioning off particular frequencies.

Does that help at all?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-03-2005, 04:38 AM
coffeecrazy1 coffeecrazy1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 59
Default Re: HOWARD STERN, The FCC, and INDECENCY ???

[ QUOTE ]
Bear in mind, I'm getting this info from my econ book.

[ QUOTE ]
It makes me wonder what is a "commonly-shared" resource.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll start with this one because it'll help answer your first question. The book says examples of a commonly-shared resource could be something like the ocean or the fish in the sea. No one "owns" the fish in the sea, and because of that there is little incentive to prevent overfishing by any one person. That's what I described as the "problem of the commons" earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like PVN, but why are airwaves considered a common resource, or, for that matter, owned by the government? Since civilians discovered television and the use of the airwaves, should it not follow that the airwaves are private?

[/ QUOTE ]
My econ book's author would probably say because there is a finite number of airwaves (I think that's true but I could be wrong) and there's not much to keep some person from buying up a large chunk of them, the government has declared them a common resource and assigns property rights by auctioning off particular frequencies.

Does that help at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at least a reasonable response, rather than the snide one I got earlier. Thanks for that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.