Imus Fired

[S-Des]

This is a pointless argument... Capitilism by definition censors.

If Country artists XXX does not sell enough albums, he gets dropped... end of argument. Convince the market to stop buying gangsta rap and the music form will die a very quick death.

Funny, that's what Libertarians say about food and health inspectors. If a product or company pollutes or is dangerous, people can sue and the market will correct itself. Personally I'm not a fan of that logic. I had a 12 year-old female student walk into my studio and tell me her new favorite band is BuckCherry (you know, that song Crazy Bitch?). She found it on You Tube, so if her parents let her surf the net unsupervised, I guess they get what they get. But to have a song that talks about a girl being "crazy" (i.e. annoying, stupid, wild, etc...) but it to be OK because she fucks really well...that's not exactly what I think should be on public radio...especially during the day.

I understand people who disagree, but at some point we all have to agree on standards. The government sets the standard, or kids are exposed to too much, too soon and begin to accept it as a fact of life. Then you wind up with 6th graders having sex in the classrooms while everyone is watching, or people picking fistfights so their friends can videotape it and put it on YouTube. There is a line and although it shifts and isn't agreed on by everyone, I like knowing that it's there. If I disagree with where it is, I have the right to try to change it through my vote or by protesting.

 

[Kintrub]

Ya know...to be fair, there IS more to this story than I've seen discussed here. Supposedly Imus' numbers were WAY down long before this incident (not hard to believe). Backing up your 'capatalism ultimately rules' theory, I'd bet Imus wouldn't have stayed syndicated for much longer. He was progressively losing advertising dollars for his team.

So, that being said, I can completely understand his being dropped.

I just get irked by the moralistic argument that Imus can't use the same words that MC Cool Ice WHOEVA-WHATEVA can without causing a freaking ruckus.

 

[cloudy]

I had a 12 year-old female student walk into my studio and tell me her new favorite band is BuckCherry (you know, that song Crazy Bitch?). She found it on You Tube, so if her parents let her surf the net unsupervised, I guess they get what they get. But to have a song that talks about a girl being "crazy" (i.e. annoying, stupid, wild, etc...) but it to be OK because she fucks really well...that's not exactly what I think should be on public radio...especially during the day.

I understand people who disagree, but at some point we all have to agree on standards. The government sets the standard, or kids are exposed to too much, too soon and begin to accept it as a fact of life. Then you wind up with 6th graders having sex in the classrooms while everyone is watching, or people picking fistfights so their friends can videotape it and put it on YouTube. There is a line and although it shifts and isn't agreed on by everyone, I like knowing that it's there. If I disagree with where it is, I have the right to try to change it through my vote or by protesting.

No.

There is a little thing called "being a parent."

I want no government agency stepping in and telling me what I can listen to, or when I can listen to it, or even making a decision for me on what my children can see or do. The only one in a position to decide what my children can see or can hear is ME. Just because some take parenting casually does not mean that the gov't should step in.

No, we DON'T have to agree on standards. What you're advocating is Big Brother at its worst.

Do you even realize what you've said here? I don't think you do. Good lord, man, read what you've written above!

It's up to parents to teach their children. It's not up to the gov't to do it for us, policing the airwaves because we're too fucking lazy to be a parent.

 

[Belegon]

that's not exactly what I think should be on public radio...especially during the day.

What you're advocating is Big Brother at its worst.

Sorry, fellow savage...

I agree with Des on this one. There should be some limits to what goes over the very public airwaves. At least the ones that are deliberately positioned as all ages access.

I control only a portion of what my children see, no matter how diligent I am...

what I show my children in my home is my business. what is available to ALL children ALL the time need not be left to the lowest common denominator. I do feel there is some level of govt. interference that is not only acceptable but desirable.

 

[cloudy]

Sorry, fellow savage...

I agree with Des on this one. There should be some limits to what goes over the very public airwaves. At least the ones that are deliberately positioned as all ages access.

I control only a portion of what my children see, no matter how diligent I am...

what I show my children in my home is my business. what is available to ALL children ALL the time need not be left to the lowest common denominator. I do feel there is some level of govt. interference that is not only acceptable but desirable.

I understand, but what concerns me is that when we invite them to step in, who decides where the line is drawn? Shall we just go back to the standards of the 50's when Lucy and Desi had twin beds?

Showing stuff after 9:00 pm that is of questionable content, sure....I get that, and have no problem with it. But, again, how much of that has to do with voluntary limits? How much to do with attracting sponsors? I don't know the answers to those questions. I just don't think that because some parents don't bother to learn what their kids are watching or listening to that someone should step in and make those kinds of decisions for all of us.

I get people's concerns about their chidren, truly I do, but I've been able to make those kinds of decisions for all three of my kids, and they've turned out fine (or the two grown ones have, and I have high hopes for the last one ). What I let one watch at age 12, I wouldn't let the next one watch, due to his particular maturity level - it's a decision based on the individual. I don't trust the gov't to do that for me or for my kids.

 

[S-Des]

I agree with Des on this one. There should be some limits to what goes over the very public airwaves. At least the ones that are deliberately positioned as all ages access.

I control only a portion of what my children see, no matter how diligent I am...

what I show my children in my home is my business. what is available to ALL children ALL the time need not be left to the lowest common denominator. I do feel there is some level of govt. interference that is not only acceptable but desirable.

You should understand, as a musician, I'm really sensitive to censorship and would much prefer that the crap be cleaned up by the people involved. The truth is, the music, videos, and other medium are getting more outrageous. A long time ago, the corporate execs figured out that if filth sells, then use it until it's not selling as well, then make it filthier. I don't believe Imus is a racist (or at least I haven't seen any evidence that he is). Just like Stern and the others, he figured the only way he could attract a big audience was to be as offensive as possible, and has been playing that one-trick pony for years. No matter how we try to deny it, that's what sells in America these days (as evidenced by the fact that he was as popular as he was for so long, despite very little talent).

I was visiting a site that is accesible by anyone (all you have to do is say you're 18), which has videos gathered from all over the net. They had one of a girl from England (probably underage), letting herself be fucked with a pool cue by a group of boys, while they stood around talking about what a "slag" she was. She knew they were videotaping and played up to the camera. I don't like censorship, but I honestly fear the day when that actually becomes acceptable and widespread viewing. It's already far too close for my comfort level.

 

[Belegon]

for the record, I don't buy the argument that Imus was just selling a bill of goods. I believe his track record indicates malicious attitudes
.

 

[cloudy]

for the record, I don't buy the argument that Imus was just selling a bill of goods. I believe his track record indicates malicious attitudes
.

It does indeed.

 

[S-Des]

for the record, I don't buy the argument that Imus was just selling a bill of goods. I believe his track record indicates malicious attitudes
.

We have a guy in Chicago named Mancow (Eric Mueller) who is obviously just an act. He's more offensive than either Imus or Stern, and a complete phony.

As for Imus, I don't know him, so you and the others might be right. It's irrelevant to me, I think he should be gone because he was a talentless hack. I wouldn't have cared if his bosses decided to fire him because he was a scumbag. My objection was the way uninvolved parties jumped in, almost injuring each other to get in front of the camera. They use race to make themselves famous and/or rich. It's disgusting.

 

[Belegon]

It's already far too close for my comfort level.

I have seen, on the internet and without a need to do anything other than click through...

The Daniel Pearl beheading.

a video of a man being electrocuted.

public executions.

a woman being beaten to death by the Taliban for being out of her home without a male relative.

People being shot.

None of these are things I want my children to see yet. This is not just about sex, ya know?

 

[cantdog]

You should understand, as a musician, I'm really sensitive to censorship and would much prefer that the crap be cleaned up by the people involved. The truth is, the music, videos, and other medium are getting more outrageous. A long time ago, the corporate execs figured out that if filth sells, then use it until it's not selling as well, then make it filthier. I don't believe Imus is a racist (or at least I haven't seen any evidence that he is). Just like Stern and the others, he figured the only way he could attract a big audience was to be as offensive as possible, and has been playing that one-trick pony for years. No matter how we try to deny it, that's what sells in America these days (as evidenced by the fact that he was as popular as he was for so long, despite very little talent).

I was visiting a site that is accesible by anyone (all you have to do is say you're 18), which has videos gathered from all over the net. They had one of a girl from England (probably underage), letting herself be fucked with a pool cue by a group of boys, while they stood around talking about what a "slag" she was. She knew they were videotaping and played up to the camera. I don't like censorship, but I honestly fear the day when that actually becomes acceptable and widespread viewing. It's already far too close for my comfort level.

I don't know where to start, here, Des. You want Authority to do this for you?

No the fuck wonder the bill of rights is trashed, man. You're a musician! We're on a porn site!

Fuckit. It makes you wanna give up.

Freedom isn't free, but I guess giving it up to someone in power is. You ain't even getting anything for throwing the 'net to the bureaucrats. You claim it would relieve an honest fear. I was raised to believe in Authority. I got the bruises to prove it, and the scars, and the spinal injury. Authority, I'm here to tell you, can never know Justice even if it takes its pot in a poker game. When in the name of sanity did any parent, any judge, any policeman, ever get the story right more often than a guy with a Magic 8-Ball? You give them the 'net, and they'll just use it for power, man. They won't even be called corrupt unless they use it for making money!

Fear comes with the turf. That's what adulthood consists of, taking a hand in your own existence. Risk happens every second you get out of bed and go do something, but it never helps to duck it. Inalienably, as you and all of us since the end of the eighteenth century should know, you are in charge of your life. No one else will ever take as much care to do a good job for you, man. Believe me. Once you give up part of that inalienable right, once you waive it, be darn sure you know why, and for heaven's sake think it through carefully.

I don't have a big will to power, since I was raised the way I was. I hate being in charge of other people, almost as much as I detest having someone else act like they have control of me. But plenty of people do have that will, and mister, if you hand them your bridle, they'll fuckin ride ya.

 

[cloudy]

I don't know where to start, here, Des. You want Authority to do this for you?

No the fuck wonder the bill of rights is trashed, man. You're a musician! We're on a porn site!

Fuckit. It makes you wanna give up.

Freedom isn't free, but I guess giving it up to someone in power is. You ain't even getting anything for throwing the 'net to the bureaucrats. You claim it would relieve an honest fear. I was raised to believe in Authority. I got the bruises to prove it, and the scars, and the spinal injury. Authority, I'm here to tell you, can never know Justice even if it takes its pot in a poker game. When in the name of sanity did any parent, any judge, any policeman, ever get the story right more often than a guy with a Magic 8-Ball? You give them the 'net, and they'll just use it for power, man. They won't even be called corrupt unless they use it for making money!

Fear comes with the turf. That's what adulthood consists of, taking a hand in your own existence. Risk happens every second you get out of bed and go do something, but it never helps to duck it. Inalienably, as you and all of us since the end of the eighteenth century should know, you are in charge of your life. No one else will ever take as much care to do a good job for you, man. Believe me. Once you give up part of that inalienable right, once you waive it, be darn sure you know why, and for heaven's sake think it through carefully.

I don't have a big will to power, since I was raised the way I was. I hate being in charge of other people, almost as much as I detest having someone else act like they have control of me. But plenty of people do have that will, and mister, if you hand them your bridle, they'll fuckin ride ya.

Thank you, cant.

 

[S-Des]

I don't know where to start, here, Des. You want Authority to do this for you?

No the fuck wonder the bill of rights is trashed, man. You're a musician! We're on a porn site!

Fuckit. It makes you wanna give up.

Aren't you the guy who advocated hate speech laws to prosecute right-wing radio shows? I've seen threads where the vast majority of Lit members posting supported banning underage stories, because they might "encourage" pedophiles. Seems to me, people like the idea of controlling thought and speech, they just vary on whose rights should get trampled.

 

[cantdog]

Aren't you the guy who advocated hate speech laws to prosecute right-wing radio shows? I've seen threads where the vast majority of Lit members posting supported banning underage stories, because they might "encourage" pedophiles. Seems to me, people like the idea of controlling thought and speech, they just vary on whose rights should get trampled.

Fuckin right they do. Why do you want to help? Fear.

 

[cantdog]

Thank you, cant.

I can't even help it, cloudy. It's right through to the bone. Authority creeps me right the fuck out, it does the wrong motherfuckin thing every time.

 

[cloudy]

I can't even help it, cloudy. It's right through to the bone. Authority creeps me right the fuck out, it does the wrong motherfuckin thing every time.

You and me both, my friend.

 

[Alexandra1979]

Where's the ACLU when you need them?

 

[cloudy]

Where's the ACLU when you need them?

Why would they be involved in this at all? No one's civil liberties have been violated.

 

[Alexandra1979]

Why would they be involved in this at all? No one's civil liberties have been violated.

I meant that music ban idea. Really, on a porn site?

 

[cloudy]

I meant that music ban idea. Really, on a porn site?

Yeah, well...

I respect people's concerns about what their children are listening to, I just don't want anyone, in particular our fine, upstanding gov't , having even more say so in my life.

 

[Belegon]

Authority doesn't creep me out. People do. People in authority vary, just like everywhere else.

they don't do the wrong thing every time. It's just that nobody bitches about the things that get done right.

What can I say? I'm a glass half-full kinda guy.

 

[Alexandra1979]

Yeah, well...

I respect people's concerns about what their children are listening to, I just don't want anyone, in particular our fine, upstanding gov't , having even more say so in my life.

Especially under El Presidente. He doesn't exactly make my heart flutter.

 

[cantdog]

Well, Des, I wish you'd let go of the idea. Freed up information is vital in a republic, which is based on an informed citizenry. Setting policemen to catch drunken assholes driving across people's lawns, that's maybe a good use for it. For that, maybe I can give up my right to handle it, and give it to the cops. But I thought it through first.

This is a communications medium, though. The authorities want to have control of all that. They are abusing that control right now, with every other medium. Without the 'net I'd have a lot harder time tapping into other countries' news. I'd subscribe and that would get me on some list in a file drawer somewhere, or I could go to the library, but they monitor libraries now. Or I'd be stuck with the homegrown article, and they lie. The net is a big window on the world, and it's nothing I want them holding the key to.

You can try to score a debating point on me if you want. I don't mind that. But really, censorship is just blinders tied on your head by powerful people. They will do it to a sexy novel or one that says 'kike' or 'nigger' to make you feel better, but they will mostly do it for control. They love control.

When you make a decision of this kind, think first principles. If a human life has meaning to others, it's because of love. If it has meaning to oneself, it's because one figures out that we have to help each other, while we're here. So, in a slightly different sense, also love.

Love and Justice. That's what has to do it. The justice for what to do, and the love for why.

But all that is conditional on being able to act, freely, as a human being. We have one life, and we shouldn't have to be a slave in it.

 

[S-Des]

Well, Des, I wish you'd let go of the idea. Freed up information is vital in a republic, which is based on an informed citizenry. Setting policemen to catch drunken assholes driving across people's lawns, that's maybe a good use for it. For that, maybe I can give up my right to handle it, and give it to the cops. But I thought it through first.

This is a communications medium, though. The authorities want to have control of all that. They are abusing that control right now, with every other medium. Without the 'net I'd have a lot harder time tapping into other countries' news. I'd subscribe and that would get me on some list in a file drawer somewhere, or I could go to the library, but they monitor libraries now. Or I'd be stuck with the homegrown article, and they lie. The net is a big window on the world, and it's nothing I want them holding the key to.

You can try to score a debating point on me if you want. I don't mind that. But really, censorship is just blinders tied on your head by powerful people. They will do it to a sexy novel or one that says 'kike' or 'nigger' to make you feel better, but they will mostly do it for control. They love control.

When you make a decision of this kind, think first principles. If a human life has meaning to others, it's because of love. If it has meaning to oneself, it's because one figures out that we have to help each other, while we're here. So, in a slightly different sense, also love.

Love and Justice. That's what has to do it. The justice for what to do, and the love for why.

But all that is conditional on being able to act, freely, as a human being. We have one life, and we shouldn't have to be a slave in it.

All good points and difficult to argue. Perhaps the answer will lie in other solutions. Somehow I doubt we're remotely close to being better to each other, just because it's the right thing to do.

 

[cantdog]

Well, everyone starts fresh. I personally got better to people as my life went on, and the old ones are always being replaced by the young ones. Each of us has to learn from nothing what there is to learn. If there's any net progress, it'll be slow, I imagine. Some commentators see exactly that, that there is net progress. On the whole, people do better than they did a thousand years ago.