Michael Powell to go fishing with father!!!
Actually, Michael Powell, son of soon-to-be-former Secretary of State Colin Powell will soon announce that he will step down as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He has two years left to his term, but, for undisclosed reasons and at an undisclosed time (just soon according to the AP), he will announce his resignation. Now who's gonna bitch about seeing Janet Jackson's breast? It sure as hell won't be me!
I hope he and his dad enjoy some quality time together out of the media spotlight and somewhere they won't be called Uncle Tom, murderer, or "[p]ompous and imperious, an ideologue". Maybe they can take the boat out, throw back a couple of cold ones and pull in some keepers.
Maybe, now some realism will creep back in to the FCC. I don't particularly want my three-year-old to watch R-rated movies, so I take steps to prevent that from happening. I would never use the phrase "exposed to R-rated movies (or whatever)" because they are not exposed to them by some dirty guy in a trench coat. They would be "exposed to" such things only if I or my wife were not doing our jobs as parents. Just because I have decided to prevent my children from watching certain things, playing certain games, hearing certain words doesn't mean that I don't enjoy watching those things, playing those games and USING those words.
To quote Robert Henlein < aside>I'm only just discovering Heinlein. I wish someone would have clued me in to what I was missing. < /aside> in "The Man Who Sold the Moon:
I can't stand it when a politico doesn't think that I can handle seeing a breast for .8 second on television or that my children will be forever spoiled to see ordinary citizens carrying guns, or frankly, a building being blown up in a video game. No I can't control the commercials that come on, but if I decide my daughter should not see a commercial, I have a perfectly working remote control. I can certainly change the channel. Or, god forbid, turn my television OFF. All I'm saying is that just because I can't afford a nanny (no matter how tall, busty, stupid and Swedish she is) I don't want one provided for me. I certainly don't need one for my children.
I suspect though that whoever is appointed to FCC Chairman will be more of a moral, if unlikely, crusader than Powell was.
I suspect that Hot Rod Blagojevich (Illinois' Governor for those of you unfamiliar with my neck of the cold, cold woods) is ready to jump on whatever "save the children from the evil filth-peddlers!" campaign that Powell's successor (almost inevitably) leads. He proposed legislation about two weeks ago to ban the sale of Mature-rated video games to minors in the state of Illinois. So stupid for so many reasons. The fact is that most minors can not afford to shell out the $50 to buy a new video game on their own anyway (at least until they are 16 and can get a job), and so their parents are usually the source of the necessary revenue to purchase the games. I would venture to say that most games minors receive are in some fashion given to them. Oftentimes, their parents either buy the game for them or are in the store while they purchase it. It is the parent's responsibility to prevent the sale in the first place, but so many parents still treat video games (and comic books I might add) as kid stuff and don't realize that certain games are meant only for adults. Nothing in this law prevents a clueless parent from purchasing a Mature-rated game and giving it to his or her child for Christmas, birthdays, etc. Even if the parents are hip to that stuff (as I am), the same does not go for obliging, but unaware, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and friends. This law basically lets Rod claim that he has done something to protect the children without doing a damn thing to "protect the children." Unless he plans to make it illegal to also GIVE a child such a game, he may as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do.
I expect myself to be a responsible parent. That comes with certain duties. They are not always easy, but they are certainly necessary. I expect the same of other parents with regard to their children and, furthermore, I expect them to expect it of me. I do not need the government telling me what forms of entertainment are off-limits to me because my children might be affected. I don't buy the violence in the media argument. If it were true, it would be provable that there has been a DRAMATIC increase in the level of violence (in empirical numbers) since the advent of mass media. We had two major World Wars in the time that mass media consisted of newspapers, film and radio. Now you want to tell me that my TV and my Nintendo breed violence? I don't think so.
*pant pant* Enough soapboxing. I think my point is made. I will be watching with interest to see who the new FCC Chair will be and how he or she will conduct him or herself.
I hope he and his dad enjoy some quality time together out of the media spotlight and somewhere they won't be called Uncle Tom, murderer, or "[p]ompous and imperious, an ideologue". Maybe they can take the boat out, throw back a couple of cold ones and pull in some keepers.
Maybe, now some realism will creep back in to the FCC. I don't particularly want my three-year-old to watch R-rated movies, so I take steps to prevent that from happening. I would never use the phrase "exposed to R-rated movies (or whatever)" because they are not exposed to them by some dirty guy in a trench coat. They would be "exposed to" such things only if I or my wife were not doing our jobs as parents. Just because I have decided to prevent my children from watching certain things, playing certain games, hearing certain words doesn't mean that I don't enjoy watching those things, playing those games and USING those words.
To quote Robert Henlein < aside>I'm only just discovering Heinlein. I wish someone would have clued me in to what I was missing. < /aside> in "The Man Who Sold the Moon:
"The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live
on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak."
I can't stand it when a politico doesn't think that I can handle seeing a breast for .8 second on television or that my children will be forever spoiled to see ordinary citizens carrying guns, or frankly, a building being blown up in a video game. No I can't control the commercials that come on, but if I decide my daughter should not see a commercial, I have a perfectly working remote control. I can certainly change the channel. Or, god forbid, turn my television OFF. All I'm saying is that just because I can't afford a nanny (no matter how tall, busty, stupid and Swedish she is) I don't want one provided for me. I certainly don't need one for my children.
I suspect though that whoever is appointed to FCC Chairman will be more of a moral, if unlikely, crusader than Powell was.
I suspect that Hot Rod Blagojevich (Illinois' Governor for those of you unfamiliar with my neck of the cold, cold woods) is ready to jump on whatever "save the children from the evil filth-peddlers!" campaign that Powell's successor (almost inevitably) leads. He proposed legislation about two weeks ago to ban the sale of Mature-rated video games to minors in the state of Illinois. So stupid for so many reasons. The fact is that most minors can not afford to shell out the $50 to buy a new video game on their own anyway (at least until they are 16 and can get a job), and so their parents are usually the source of the necessary revenue to purchase the games. I would venture to say that most games minors receive are in some fashion given to them. Oftentimes, their parents either buy the game for them or are in the store while they purchase it. It is the parent's responsibility to prevent the sale in the first place, but so many parents still treat video games (and comic books I might add) as kid stuff and don't realize that certain games are meant only for adults. Nothing in this law prevents a clueless parent from purchasing a Mature-rated game and giving it to his or her child for Christmas, birthdays, etc. Even if the parents are hip to that stuff (as I am), the same does not go for obliging, but unaware, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and friends. This law basically lets Rod claim that he has done something to protect the children without doing a damn thing to "protect the children." Unless he plans to make it illegal to also GIVE a child such a game, he may as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do.
I expect myself to be a responsible parent. That comes with certain duties. They are not always easy, but they are certainly necessary. I expect the same of other parents with regard to their children and, furthermore, I expect them to expect it of me. I do not need the government telling me what forms of entertainment are off-limits to me because my children might be affected. I don't buy the violence in the media argument. If it were true, it would be provable that there has been a DRAMATIC increase in the level of violence (in empirical numbers) since the advent of mass media. We had two major World Wars in the time that mass media consisted of newspapers, film and radio. Now you want to tell me that my TV and my Nintendo breed violence? I don't think so.
*pant pant* Enough soapboxing. I think my point is made. I will be watching with interest to see who the new FCC Chair will be and how he or she will conduct him or herself.
posted by Mister Bixby | 1/21/2005 02:32:00 PM
<< Home