America; What Happened to Personal Responsibility?

In case you've been paying attention to other things, please let me inform you that your rights as a cable television customer, and more importantly, a free American, are about to be threatened. Once again, those self-righteous idiots who want to tell you what is good and proper for you, are on the warpath. Led by Dubya's torch and pitchfork carrying, broadcast nazi, Kevin J. Martin (current commissioner of the FCC), they are on a crusade to force cable televison stations to get the "filth" off of pay TV.

Uhh...what part of "pay TV" don't you morons get? What happened to the freedom to make your own choices? Doesn't anyone get that they are disgusing fascism as morality and censorship as conscience. Nobody begrudged the concept that there had to be more stringent standards for broadcast television. Thus the beauty of subscriber-based television came to light. It was up to you, the consumer, to decide what you wanted to watch.

Martin and his tele-nazis want to change that. They want to exercise their desire to limit, restrict, and censor anything that any American chooses to view. Whether you want to view it or not. Martin is rallying support among far-right christian activist groups and other censorship-supportive watchdog groups to force the subscriber-based media outlets to crack down on questionable (in their eyes) content.

Just for the record and to establish what kind of fascist we are dealing with here, when Martin spoke in front the senate committee on Commerce, Science and Transporation, last month on this subject, he was quoted as saying in response to a question about his statement:

"I think the industry needs to do more to address parents' concerns," Martin said. "You can always turn the television off and … block the channels you don't want. But why should you have to?"

He says that subscriber media outlets do not offer a more defined divsion in their packaging and they should break up the available packages to offer more "family friendly" grouping for concerned parents.

Okay, Commissioner Martin; why should they have to? Nearly all cable and satellite programming providers give the consumer access to block access any channels that they find offensive or not in their children's best interests. Furthermore, any individual can tailor their personal choices as to tune only the channels they wish to view. In addition, the "V-Chip" has been available in American TVs for years. However, all of these methods for regulating what appears on your TV have one thing in common; they all require an initiative by the consumer to get up off of their lazy asses and set up the system for themselves.

But again, Commissioner Martin asks, "But why should you have to?"

Thus the title of this particular post; Personal Responsibility.

Say it with me.

But then again, these are the same breed of mentally stunted and closed-minded people who would rather ban video games with violent content, rather than follow the ESRB's already established guidelines for content and just tell their overly-spoiled children, "No, you can't have that video game because you're too young to play it."

This reminds me of an incident some years ago. I was at my local video store, looking for something that my wife and I could watch for a long holiday weekend. While scanning the shelves, I saw a kid pick up a copy of "Cool World" and hand it to his mom, saying that he wanted to see that. The mother just casually added it to the pile of movies that she was picking up for her family, and moved on.

I walked up to the woman and said; "You don't want to let your son see that movie."
She looked at me as if I had three heads and asked me what I was talking about. I continued, "That movie is not for children. While there is animation in it, it is not a kids film. In fact, it is a rather adult movie."
She still gave me that "deer in the headlights" look.
"It's just a cartoon. He'll be fine."
Surburban ignorance knows no bounds. As she seemed at least a bit older than I was, I tried again.
Ma'am, do you remember "Fritz the Cat?"
"Oh. Ohhhh...Tommy, you can't watch this one. I'll get you another one."
Tommy began to throw the biggest temper tantrum in the world. She quickly went to the anime isle and picked up another choice film; "Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend."

It was a long day, but she finally got the picture.

American parents are slowly being weaned from the task of controlling their own reality. More and more people are becoming too willing to allow the government to dictate what they see, read, watch, eat, and more. We are becoming cattle...easily led, guided, fed, watered, and eventually, slaughtered.

Our personal freedoms are being eroded and the FCC's move to force their decency standards on cable and satellite televison is the first step.

But then again, I could be crazy. This could be a product of Dementia or Dynamism. Unlike the FCC, I am willing to let the choice be yours.

Greetings and salutations.


Just for the record, I'm here because everyone else is. Blogging seems to be the in-thing, so I've decided to get into the game. I figure that my personal musings and thoughts are as important as anyone elses, so I might as well get my two cents in before the Internet implodes with the vast number of people airing their dirty laundry on it.

On the odd chance that somebody reading this might find that my words have merit (or a lack thereof), I decided that I'll take a chance on gaining some measure of fame, imfamy, or limited immortality by posting my thoughts on the world at large.

On that subject, let's start off with a discussion about a person who has won this week's "Virtual Foot Up The Ass" Award: New York Daily News Columnist, Stanley Crouch.
Comedian Richard Pryor passed away this Saturday. The man made me laugh and gave me years of entertainment. As a kid, one of our biggest thrills was sneaking into the basement or my friend Mike's dad's van and listening to his albums. Mike could do one hell of a Mudbone imitation. I guess that Mike will get to do his imitation for Pryor in "person" now. I hope he likes it.
Anyway, Pryor died on Saturday, and Monday, Crouch did not let the body even get cold in the earth before he began to verbally piss all over his legacy. Below is a quote from his column dated Monday, December 12, 2005:

"When we look at the remarkable descent this culture has made into smut, contempt, vulgarity and the pornagraphic, those of us who are not willing to drink the Kool-Aid marked "all's well," will have to address the fact that it was the combination of confusion and comic genius that made Pryor a much more negative influence than a positive one."

Wait, it gets better:

"The vulgarity of his material, and the idea a "real" black person was a foul-mouthed type was his greatest influence."

Now allow me to spell out what my problem is with his commentary. Note, that I normally do not have a problem with social commentary. As Americans, it is not just a right, but a duty for us to speak our minds on the events that occur in our country. I respect that people are entitled to their own opinions and they are free to express them as they see fit. However, there is a such thing as good taste and common decency. But then again, I'm talking about Stanley Crouch.
According to facts that are on public record, including his bio on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Crouch), the man is an intellectual thug who has demonstrated that he has no problem with using violence to "defend" his opinion and right to say what he wants. That is crossing the line. If you have the balls to write screwed up stuff and put your name on it, then have the balls to calmly take the responses that you get from your writing.
Well Stan, I'm standing by what I have written and I've got my fists balled up just in case you want to start something. You are a thug, a bully, and a tastless troll, with no common decency, whose grandmother should have given you a swift backhand to the chops, but will instead, have to settle for a "virtual foot up the ass." And to paraphrase Uma Thurman from "Kill Bill:"
"Stan, if you still feel raw about all of this, you can come find me and we'll settle up, okay?"

Next in the news- The Governator has let Tookie be terminated.
California governor, Arnold Schwarznegger denied clemency for convicted killer Stanley "Tookie" Williams, citing Williams' lack of contrition for the murders that he was convicted of comitting. Williams maintained his innocence to his death. Despite the good that Williams has done while incarcerated, it was not enough to gain him a stay of execution.
My problem with this whole thing is very simple. I'm damn sick and tired of a convict's refusal to admit guilt being equated with a lack of contrition in this country. When Mike Tyson was incarcerated in Terre Haute, IN for the alleged rape of Desiree Washington, he was denied parole because he maintained his innocence of the rape charge. (I use the word 'alleged' because a relative of the victim has come forward and admitted that Washington had falsely accused Tyson.) The judge denied his parole based on his "lack of contrition" regarding the rape.
Talk about double standards and double jeopardy!
If you have been accused of a crime and sentenced, then that should be the end of it. If I am not mistaken, commuting a sentence and parole are based upon the convict's conduct while incarcerated. Williams was a model prisoner and demonstrated a desire for positive community service while he was imprisoned.
Tookie was no John Wayne Gacy, who painted pictures of clowns (one of his molestation/rape angles) and laughed about his criminal pursuits to guards and other prison workers (because of the nature of his crime, Gacy could not be placed in the general prison population). While he maintained his innocence, he did express regret for his gang-related activity and the harm caused by it.
My point here is not to judge whether he was responsible for the murders he was convicted of committing. My problem is that judges and governors need to quit with this contrition bullshit.

In case there are any governors or judges reading this post, allow me to demonstrate the difference between a genuine lack of contrition and standing up for your conviction.
A lack of contrition is when a convicted criminal is noted in using phrases like:
"Yeah, I ______'ed the bitch and I'd do it again, if I had the chance."
or
"So what. They had it coming. Be glad you weren't there."
To me, that sounds a lot different that saying:
"I didn't do it. No matter what you decide, I am not going to admit to doing something that I didn't do."
or
"I am sorry that this crime happened, but I am not guilty of it and I refuse to admit guilt to that action."

Let's face it. The justice and legal systems of this country is not designed to determine guilt or innocence. It's designed to put poor, politically, or socially problematic people in jail. It's a tool to maintain control of the masses.
But like everything I will write here from now on, it's either a result of Dementia or Dynamism...you decide.