He approved the sale because you were the only one
There was a campaign put on by other fans to save the team. Had the stupid name of ""Shoot the Owner"". Grizzlies didn''t have much fans but they were getting to be a better team and had a core group of players. Now they are in Memphis. I don''t even watch basketball anymore.
McChuck wrote:
rabbit wrote:
Spaz wrote:
It's weird who you meat during ConSeason, aint it?
Paging douchebag community copyeditors on aisle 3. McChuck? Wordsmythe?
Oh, c'mon. You suck one c*ck and you're forever known as a c*cksucker.
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004 - 1:04pm
That article if you ask me makes Stern look bad.
I mean basically what I get from this is Stern calls in and accuses the guy on the radio of having a personal agenda against him and of getting his job via nepitisum.
The FCC guy though comes back with reasonable responses and the article points out how he got on the FCC board from Clinton.
Not saying family connections did not help him but still.........
All I want is for Stern to drive up my Sirius stock so I may be a bit bias.
All I want is for Stern to drive up my Sirius stock so I may be a bit bias.
Same here.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
I was a big Grizzlies fan before he approved of the sale.
We certainly are enjoying them now ! Heh
As far as Stern goes I am so tired of his ranting and whining about how he is so persecuted. I love the show but I have to turn the station when he starts talking about the FCC or politics.
His show is the most vulgar radio show in history and its on during the day. While personally I don''t care about the vulgarity, he is going to have alot of attention brought on him just because of this fact. If he wants to blame someone he should blame Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake.
As far as Stern goes I am so tired of his ranting and whining about how he is so persecuted. I love the show but I have to turn the station when he starts talking about the FCC or politics.
His show is the most vulgar radio show in history and its on during the day. While personally I don''t care about the vulgarity, he is going to have alot of attention brought on him just because of this fact.
I agree and disagree. Sometimes I get bored with his poltical rantings. The problem is his beliefs are dead on and its nice that he keeps pushing his agenda...somebody has to fight the so called ""moral majority"".
Quote:
If he wants to blame someone he should blame Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake
Umm ...no he shouldn''t as JJ and JT''s stunt should never have been a big issue never.
I fricken boob on TV(yes oun intended)...who cares..grab your local newspaper and look at the pictures of headless soldiers....or better yet turn on the news and find out who was shot today.
Its a joke...and I tned to agree woth those who say if it was a ""white breast"" and say Madonna this would have never been an issue.
Umm ...no he shouldn''t as JJ and JT''s stunt should never have been a big issue never.
Sure, nothing wrong with two celebrities enacting a sexual assault on national TV in the middle of one of the biggest sporting events of the year. I can''t see why anyone would be so unreasonable as to object to having their children accidentally subjected to that.
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004 - 3:18pm
What does the color of the breast have to do with this?
She has nice ones and I do not think the color changes that fact.
As for seeing headless soldiers in the news I yet to see that printed in any main stream paper and yes you are right you can hear about people being murdered or raped on local news but guess what?
People know that and can make an intelligent decision on if they want their children to watch the local news or not.
The problem with the Super Bowl is that what happened is not what a reasonable person would be expecting to happen.
The problem with Stern is that he is on in the day with a rather raunchy show that parents can in no way stop a child from hearing.
An adult can change the channel if they do not like them but an adult can not stop a child from hearing them unless all children are banned from owning radios.
I think if he wants to have a raunchy show that is fine but radio should at least follow the same rules for TV on when different types of shows are on.
I think moving to Sirius is a great thing then he can do what ever he wants and the people that want to hear him can listen while hopefully my stock climbs higher from some of his 10 million nutty psycho fan base.
The problem with the Super Bowl is that what happened is not what a reasonable person would be expecting to happen.
This is the most consistent and possibly only viable argument. Except that we are talking about a sport and an event in general that promotes violence and sexuality left and right.
How many shots from the waste up do we get of cheerleaders?
How about every commercial break filled to the brim with either blatant sexual innuendo...or not so blatant.
Sadly, only the US and few Middle East Countries...one of which we ""freed"" would find a split second showing of a decorated breast as a ""Sexual Assault""
A sad a hypocritical thought process. Now lets all go back to drinking our beer, watching the cheerleaders jiggle, clapped for the back breaking hit and hope for mud wrestling hottie commercials.
For the record....
Beer is fine....football and cheerleaders are great...commercials with innuendo fine....hypocritical thought process and over reacting...not so great.
Back on topic....moving to Sattellite Radio is a great move..though I think he chose the wrong company.
His show is the most vulgar radio show in history and its on during the day.
Opie&Anthony were/are far more vulgar (and more funny). Stern also stopped being funny in the last 10 years. He''s increasingly sounding like a cranky, bitter old geezer.
Quote:
An adult can change the channel if they do not like them but an adult can not stop a child from hearing them unless all children are banned from owning radios.
I think most parents can control their children''s access to radios as well as they can control their access to TV.
How much you think parents can control either of these factors probably varies by the parents in question, the kids in question, and your view of human nature.
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with the Super Bowl is that what happened is not what a reasonable person would be expecting to happen.
This is the most consistent and possibly only viable argument. Except that we are talking about a sport and an event in general that promotes violence and sexuality left and right.
Not possibly the only viable argument, but rather the core of the whole issue. Also, I strongly disagree with the premise that the fact that televised football contains elements of violence and sexuality makes it hypocritical to condemn the unexpected introduction of sexualized violence.
Edit: Wow, somehow I finally became a Consultant. I thought I was going to be stuck in Internhood forever.
Also, I strongly disagree with the premise that the fact that televised football contains elements of violence and sexuality makes it hypocritical to condemn the unexpected introduction of sexualized violence.
JJ''s split-second breast reveal in no different then any of the sexual elements you admit to being present in FB. If fact by default it is now part of it. Heck half of those slow Cheerleader shots and bad commercials are twice as intrusive and sexual. Especially the blatantly sexual commercials.
What this incedent proves is how easy it is to manipulate the masses and direct attention away from the real issues.
Other then more money...does anybody know why Stern went with Sirius over XM? Does Sirius have a larger NY install base?? I know who''s stock is worth more.
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004 - 6:32pm
Not debating O&A or any other shows out there being more or less raunchy than Stern. Notice O&A are off the pubic air ways though.
No it is harder to controll access to a radio. Radios are small, portable, inexpensive and children at young ages have them. My 4 year old for example has a walkman type thing to listen to tapes. I set the station to classical in case she turns on the radio by accident but that only goes so far.
TV gets arround this by not airing certain content when children are most likely to present. Notice you do not see Law & Order Special Victims Unit on at 5pm. Radio though does not do this. They want to have the biggest shows on during morning drive which happens to be a time when children would be walking to school for example.
Football is a violent sport and yes cheerleaders are sexy. There is a difference though between sexy outfit and nude flesh. Just like there is a difference between hardcore and softcore porn. I suppose you are going to tell me that since football is violent sport you think people should just get into fist fights since after all it is just violence.
Or hey everybody has to go to the bathroom so scat films on TV are ok too after all it is only natural and there are children books about going to the bathroom.
Yes I am going over the top a bit but the fact remains these are lines that we as a society have drawn and all societies do this.
You want to watch hardcore porn in privacy of your own home? Great. You want to see JJ''s breast on the Super Bowl half-time show? Me too but give me a dang warning so I can know it is coming. Sort of like taking your children to see a movie that you think is PG and finding out it is R but only when it is too late.
Also I was not upset by the JJ action. I did not have my children even present when it happened. Yet that does not make it right or OK.
Back on topic though Sirius was a smart move for him. They gave him a lot of control and I bet a ton of stock to boot. Sirius needed him more than XM did so he could get more out of them. I look as XM and Sirius as a Coke/Pepsi relationship there is room for both and both do well.
I use to hold XM but after doubling my money I thought I should get out and looking at Sirius I thought they had more room to move so went there.
You want to watch hardcore porn in privacy of your own home? Great. You want to see JJ''s breast on the Super Bowl half-time show? Me too but give me a dang warning so I can know it is coming.
See this is the issue to me....this sad society needs a warning before a ""breast"" is shown on TV. Give me a break. My eight year old son was watching and didn''t even know what he saw....granted mostly because it happened so fast. but so what if he see''s a nude flesh...what is so darn sacred about a breast anyhow? Beside that breats had what amounted to a pastie on it anyhow. F''ing and nude flesh are completely different issues. We have lines agreed. Generally the group bothered by JJ''s breasty are the same who freak about mothers breast feeding in public.
Your take on Coke/Pepsi and XM/Siruis are right on...except that in Sterns case he may be ultimately useless to Sirius unless there userbase is signifigantly bigger or he truly is the King of Media and makes NY Sirius state. Still he will get his money....but it will be easier to fail moving on to Sirius but truly easy to measure if he succeeds.
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004 - 8:38pm
I think the difference in our society is that nude flesh is just not kosher on TV. What is so sacred about a penis or vigina that they can not be shown either? It is a slippery slope so as a society we draw a line and the line is moving all the time.
I am not offended by breast or full frontal nudity. I am all for women breast feeding public or not. Yet I still think they broke the rules and like I said you might be a bit bothered to go to a PG movie with your kid then to find nudity in it.
Stern is suppoe to have 10 million+ listeners. Sirius at this time has like 700k subs and XM has like 2.5 mil currently I think. So if he brings 1 mil subs with him the deal pays for itself. If he brings more than 1 mil they start making money.
Sirius btw is based in NY while XM is based in DC.
About a year ago XM was trading at $3. Today it is at $30ish which is nice. Sirius is trading at arround $4 but there is a lot more stock in circulation than XM has. Still I think Sirius has a lot of room to move and Stern will be a good move in the long run since he has a very loyal fan base. Add in Sirius getting Emmien to produce a show the NFL and a cheaper price for the complete package I think the move by Stern is not too risky.
Stern claims he is moving because the FCC is hounding him and he will be able to do the show he wants. Wonder if E will still carry his show then.
The problem with Stern is that he is on in the day with a rather raunchy show that parents can in no way stop a child from hearing.
It''s on at 6 in the freaking morning. Cmon now, are there only 30 minutes between 3 and 4 am that we can broadcast anything objectionable?
Quote:
His freedom of speech was never threatened, but we have rules for how you can express yourself.
This is the hypocritical part. Freedom of speech means the ability to say tasteless and offensive things. Was what he was saying threatening human life? Then he should be allowed to say it. It''s not a matter of rules about how to express yourself, it''s a matter of the FCC leasing radio stations the public airwaves, and in return giving themselves the right to edit for content. However, the whole Oprah incident shows how hippocritical the whole thing is. They wouldn''t let Howard play back the exact same clip, audio only! It was a serious discussion too, as he was talking about the selective nature of the FCC. Then they go back retroactively and fine him for even saying ""tossing salad"" 3 years ago, and he didn''t go into nearly as much detail. Oprah is on at 3pm, right when kids come home from school. Howard is on at 6am. When asked, the FCC said it was because Oprah was a ""beloved figure"". Funny how free speech is now limited to people the FCC likes.
Quote:
No it is harder to controll access to a radio. Radios are small, portable, inexpensive and children at young ages have them. My 4 year old for example has a walkman type thing to listen to tapes. I set the station to classical in case she turns on the radio by accident but that only goes so far.
It''s not the government''s job to raise your kids for you, either keep better tabs on them or get used to the fact that they might hear the f-word or see a naked woman or two in their time.
Quote:
I think the difference in our society is that nude flesh is just not kosher on TV. What is so sacred about a penis or vigina that they can not be shown either? It is a slippery slope so as a society we draw a line and the line is moving all the time.
I am not offended by breast or full frontal nudity. I am all for women breast feeding public or not. Yet I still think they broke the rules and like I said you might be a bit bothered to go to a PG movie with your kid then to find nudity in it.
Here''s the rub though, if that was cable she could be completely nude and you couldn''t do a thing about it. There are no hard set rules about ""this shouldn''t be allowed"" because this is a free country with guaranteed free speech rights. You may be offended by nudity, fine. But it''s not your place to say ""get this off TV government!"" The only reason the FCC can fine people for this is because of the whole airwaves deal, and they''re pretty selective. The only reason we hear about Howard Stern is because they fine him all the time, there''s way worse going on all over.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
100% agree with you Pyro, and I want to pile on with something. The fact that all of cable TV isn''t a smut-fest is totally attributable to a free market regulating itself. That is, there are no rules imposed on cable TV, yet they keep their content relatively ""child safe"" during ""necessary"" hours because the market demands it. Not because of some arbitrary ""ruling"" by a government official. I guess Howard just needs to give away a couple hundred cars in a publicity stunt he doesn''t pay for in order to become a ""beloved figure."" Wow, that''s a lot of ""quotes.""
I kind of like it when Howard talks like a crotchedy old coot, because it''s kind of how I''ve become as of late. I couldn''t care less about girls getting naked in his studio, the show''s at its best when he''s goofing on dumb people.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Thursday, October 28th, 2004 - 9:45am
Here is the thing striping out all the stuff you toss in there that have little to do with the real issue.
I like Howard, breast and am not offend by much of anything but that does not make me unable to recognise the need for rules.
Cable and what goes on there is also not an issue here. I can turn cable off to my house if I want but I can not stop TV and Radio broadcasts.
Oprah, Bono, and any other person who has or has not been fined by the FCC is really not the issue here. You want to argue they should have been fined too then you can do that.
Nobody especially me wants the government to raise my children.
You though are basically saying that I should be able to walk down the street nude and hang out near a buss stop maybe talking to myself about the virtues a BJs, butt love, and few other topics. Maybe I should hang out with a stripper in a thong in downtown DC talking about her porn career.
If the police come by and ask me to stop I should cry foul, first admendment rights, and that the government is raising your children and that parents should be down on the bus stop and beat the living snot out of me for saying the F''word over and over and over.
I would think most people with a bit of common sense would know that is just a ludicrous stance but you are basically saying as long as I pick up a Mr. Microphone or play it on a TV or radio that it is ok to do just this. Not only that but then act indignet and offended that your rights have been trampled on when people want to have rules to deal with this sort of issue.
Yes Howard is at his best when he is goofing on dumb people but to be honest I started liking Ron and Fez more. I know I have something wrong with me.
Jason yea was a good one too is what I get for trying to bang out post in between programs compiling and what not at work.
You though are basically saying that I should be able to walk down the street nude and hang out near a buss stop maybe talking to myself about the virtues a BJs, butt love, and few other topics. Maybe I should hang out with a stripper in a thong in downtown DC talking about her porn career.
If the police come by and ask me to stop I should cry foul, first admendment rights, and that the government is raising your children and that parents should be down on the bus stop and beat the living snot out of me for saying the F''word over and over and over.
I would think most people with a bit of common sense would know that is just a ludicrous stance but you are basically saying as long as I pick up a Mr. Microphone or play it on a TV or radio that it is ok to do just this. Not only that but then act indignet and offended that your rights have been trampled on when people want to have rules to deal with this sort of issue.
I never said anything of the sort. First, TVs and Radios waves are unimportant, you have to have the reciever on and tuned to the proper frequency/channel before you see the offending material. So no, it''s no different than cable in that respect. If you are saying that it''s different because you can control whether or not your children have access to cable as opposed to radio or broadcast TV, again I say it''s not the government''s place to control access of offensive material to your children. Second, yes you can hang around downtown talking about whatever ridiculously obscene thing you want, as long as it''s public property. Barring nudity laws, you can hang out with strippers, crack dealers and circus midgets while discussing the virtues of anal sex. Each building owner can make his own determination about what can and cannot be said on his property, too, and most people don''t let things like that happen on their property. Just like you can control what is and isn''t said in your house, digital, analog or good old fashioned real world talking.
This is my main problem with your argument and I think the main misconception.
Quote:
I like Howard, breast and am not offend by much of anything but that does not make me unable to recognise the need for rules.
I never said we don''t need rules. I said we don''t need government enforced rules about what we can and cannot say, it''s not their place. If you don''t like what someone says, don''t give them money or patronage and encourage others to do the same. It''s just as effective as cable TV proves and you don''t have the government trying to regulate speech, which the various infractions of the FCC prove nobody wants.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Thursday, October 28th, 2004 - 1:00pm
We really gone into the P&C category I think but.......
TV and Radio waves though are important because they are considered public air waves that are regulated on the behalf of the people by the FCC. Now you can argue that it should not be set up that way but it currently is and because of that the government does make and enforce the rules.
I think that link pretty much shows that they are allowed by law to do what they are doing and not infringing on Stern''s first admendment rights.
Now you may say that this is a bad set up but that was not the point of this discussion.
Oh and here is some information showing that obscenity is not protected by 1st Admendment Rights
Quote:
Obscenity Convictions Constitutional
In 1957, in Roth vs. United States, the Court determined that prosecution for possession or distribution of obscene material is lawful, and that obscene speech is not protected under the Constitution. Sam Roth, a publisher and distributor of magazines and books, had been indicted in 1954 for using the mail to advertise and distribute material with sexual content, notably Aubrey Beardsley''s Venus and Tannhäuser. His conviction was upheld.
The ""Three-Pronged Test"" for Obscenity Established
In 1973, in the most important case on freedom of expression, Miller vs. California, the Court established the ""three-pronged test"" for obscenity, which still applies today. The case concerned bookseller Marvin Miller''s conviction under California obscenity laws for distributing illustrated books of a sexual nature.
In Miller, the Court''s decision stated that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment (a reaffirmation of Roth) and that such speech may be regulated by the state under certain circumstances. In order to meet the definition of obscene material articulated in this case, three conditions must be met:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
The Court also determined that a jury may measure ""the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a ''national standard.''"" This establishes a role for the community in making decisions about obscene material.
Obscenity is a narrow category describing materials that meet all three prongs of the definition above. Such material, even if some describe it as art, may be deemed obscene and banned by the state.
""Indecency"" is a broader term encompassing material which does enjoy some measure of Constitutional protection, but may still be restricted. For instance, some might find violent images objectionable, even though they do not appeal to prurient interest and thus are not obscene under Miller.
No ""three-pronged test"" for indecency exists, and although the Court has considered cases involving the arts and proposed standards of decency, the issues of what such standards mean and how they are to be applied have not been resolved.
I also don''t like the arguement of ""Who cares if kids are exposed to [insert whatever here]?"" So you want to infringe on my rights as a parent? You want to enforce YOUR standards on MY children (not picking on anyone specifically here). I hate this arguement, because it basically boils down to ""I don''t care what your values are because you should believe in my values"". Hello! Isn''t this the most popular argument against fundamentalist Christians? Why is it ok for one side but not the other? If I don''t want my kids exposed to a naked breast, foul language, or Ronald McDonald, that is my right as a parent. So the question of ""What''s the big deal?"" is simply answered by it''s a big deal because I have the right to teach my children the values that I want them to hold dear.
Amen to this. You have summarized my whole problem with the Superbowl thing, etc.
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
I also don''t like the arguement of ""Who cares if kids are exposed to [insert whatever here]?"" So you want to infringe on my rights as a parent? You want to enforce YOUR standards on MY children (not picking on anyone specifically here). I hate this arguement, because it basically boils down to ""I don''t care what your values are because you should believe in my values"". Hello! Isn''t this the most popular argument against fundamentalist Christians? Why is it ok for one side but not the other? If I don''t want my kids exposed to a naked breast, foul language, or Ronald McDonald, that is my right as a parent. So the question of ""What''s the big deal?"" is simply answered by it''s a big deal because I have the right to teach my children the values that I want them to hold dear.
Whoa now, I never said that. In fact I stated explicitly it was your right as a parent to control what you kids see. That was my entire point, you should be doing it, not the government. We shouldn''t whine to the government every time our kids see something we don''t want them to, we should take responsibility and change the channel or take some other sort of action. Now the Super Bowl thing sorta sucked, because basically they event planners gave these people the spotlight and they did something tasteless and stupid. So you had no way of knowing beforehand what was going on. However again, it''s the fault of the Super Bowl organizers and the stars themselves, and it''s between you and them. I don''t think we need the government as babysitter in this scenario, there''s no way anyone''s going to let those two on anything like that again. Social norms should be enforced through social means, not regulation. That''s my only point, not that society shouldn''t have rules, just that the FCC fines are a really dangerous and arbitrary way of enforcing those rules.
Quote:
Now you may say that this is a bad set up but that was not the point of this discussion.
Oh and here is some information showing that obscenity is not protected by 1st Admendment Rights
Actually that was Stern''s discussion and contention with Micheal Powell, the entire point of the argument. So yes, it was the point of the discussion.
I''m not a big fan of the obscenity ruling either, simply because it tries to make a value judgement about art to determine whether or not it''s legal to express. It''s like my argument about the FCC, enforcing social norms is a laudable goal, but the obscenity ruling is just a really piss-poor way of doing it.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Location: Coming to you from an undisclosed location.
Thursday, October 28th, 2004 - 4:24pm
I only read the link posted so maybe I am missing something but the only mention to this was by Powell
Quote:
""If you don''t believe the commission should have any rights to draw limits, I think that''s a respectable position but it doesn''t happen to be the law,"" he said.
Which is what I am saying basically in our discussion too.
The thing I stated earlier though is that this article does not make that the focus of Stern''s argument. maybe the full transcript does but instead the article made it look like to me that Stern was just saying Powell got his job from dad and that the FCC is on a crusade against his show.
So guess we been arguing two different points. Sory for the confusion there
I also don''t like the arguement of ""Who cares if kids are exposed to [insert whatever here]?"" So you want to infringe on my rights as a parent? You want to enforce YOUR standards on MY children (not picking on anyone specifically here). I hate this arguement, because it basically boils down to ""I don''t care what your values are because you should believe in my values"". Hello! Isn''t this the most popular argument against fundamentalist Christians? Why is it ok for one side but not the other? If I don''t want my kids exposed to a naked breast, foul language, or Ronald McDonald, that is my right as a parent. So the question of ""What''s the big deal?"" is simply answered by it''s a big deal because I have the right to teach my children the values that I want them to hold dear.
Umm yes ..but by agreeing with or pushing for laws or actions that keep my ""hyothetical"" child from seeing that breast makes you no diffferent as well. Your rules of the rules you support are imposing on my freedoms..etc etc
Aww crap. I thought we were gonna talk about David Stern.
WII FRIEND CODE: 6936 4764 8384 6058
Gaming / PC Tech Blog: www.blastprocessing.net
Xbox Live: Legion SB / PSN: Legion_SB / Steam: legion028 / Twitter: legion
I hate that guy. I was a big Grizzlies fan before he approved of the sale.
McChuck wrote:
More like Clown Stern am i rite
He approved the sale because you were the only one
SteamId = RevenantKel
There was a campaign put on by other fans to save the team. Had the stupid name of ""Shoot the Owner"". Grizzlies didn''t have much fans but they were getting to be a better team and had a core group of players. Now they are in Memphis. I don''t even watch basketball anymore.
McChuck wrote:
I like Howard, he does have some guts.
Xbox Live: Kooter06
That article if you ask me makes Stern look bad.
I mean basically what I get from this is Stern calls in and accuses the guy on the radio of having a personal agenda against him and of getting his job via nepitisum.
The FCC guy though comes back with reasonable responses and the article points out how he got on the FCC board from Clinton.
Not saying family connections did not help him but still.........
All I want is for Stern to drive up my Sirius stock so I may be a bit bias.
Same here.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
We certainly are enjoying them now ! Heh
As far as Stern goes I am so tired of his ranting and whining about how he is so persecuted. I love the show but I have to turn the station when he starts talking about the FCC or politics.
His show is the most vulgar radio show in history and its on during the day. While personally I don''t care about the vulgarity, he is going to have alot of attention brought on him just because of this fact. If he wants to blame someone he should blame Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake.
I agree and disagree. Sometimes I get bored with his poltical rantings. The problem is his beliefs are dead on and its nice that he keeps pushing his agenda...somebody has to fight the so called ""moral majority"".
Umm ...no he shouldn''t as JJ and JT''s stunt should never have been a big issue never.
I fricken boob on TV(yes oun intended)...who cares..grab your local newspaper and look at the pictures of headless soldiers....or better yet turn on the news and find out who was shot today.
Its a joke...and I tned to agree woth those who say if it was a ""white breast"" and say Madonna this would have never been an issue.
Find me at... http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/
Gamertag: NeoStyx & NeoCell
Sure, nothing wrong with two celebrities enacting a sexual assault on national TV in the middle of one of the biggest sporting events of the year. I can''t see why anyone would be so unreasonable as to object to having their children accidentally subjected to that.
Xbox Live: CrankyBaby
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
What does the color of the breast have to do with this?
She has nice ones and I do not think the color changes that fact.
As for seeing headless soldiers in the news I yet to see that printed in any main stream paper and yes you are right you can hear about people being murdered or raped on local news but guess what?
People know that and can make an intelligent decision on if they want their children to watch the local news or not.
The problem with the Super Bowl is that what happened is not what a reasonable person would be expecting to happen.
The problem with Stern is that he is on in the day with a rather raunchy show that parents can in no way stop a child from hearing.
An adult can change the channel if they do not like them but an adult can not stop a child from hearing them unless all children are banned from owning radios.
I think if he wants to have a raunchy show that is fine but radio should at least follow the same rules for TV on when different types of shows are on.
I think moving to Sirius is a great thing then he can do what ever he wants and the people that want to hear him can listen while hopefully my stock climbs higher from some of his 10 million nutty psycho fan base.
This is the most consistent and possibly only viable argument. Except that we are talking about a sport and an event in general that promotes violence and sexuality left and right.
How many shots from the waste up do we get of cheerleaders?
How about every commercial break filled to the brim with either blatant sexual innuendo...or not so blatant.
Sadly, only the US and few Middle East Countries...one of which we ""freed"" would find a split second showing of a decorated breast as a ""Sexual Assault""
A sad a hypocritical thought process. Now lets all go back to drinking our beer, watching the cheerleaders jiggle, clapped for the back breaking hit and hope for mud wrestling hottie commercials.
For the record....
Beer is fine....football and cheerleaders are great...commercials with innuendo fine....hypocritical thought process and over reacting...not so great.
Back on topic....moving to Sattellite Radio is a great move..though I think he chose the wrong company.
Find me at... http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/
Gamertag: NeoStyx & NeoCell
This thread belongs in P&C.
Opie&Anthony were/are far more vulgar (and more funny). Stern also stopped being funny in the last 10 years. He''s increasingly sounding like a cranky, bitter old geezer.
I think most parents can control their children''s access to radios as well as they can control their access to TV.
How much you think parents can control either of these factors probably varies by the parents in question, the kids in question, and your view of human nature.
Not possibly the only viable argument, but rather the core of the whole issue. Also, I strongly disagree with the premise that the fact that televised football contains elements of violence and sexuality makes it hypocritical to condemn the unexpected introduction of sexualized violence.
Edit: Wow, somehow I finally became a Consultant. I thought I was going to be stuck in Internhood forever.
JJ''s split-second breast reveal in no different then any of the sexual elements you admit to being present in FB. If fact by default it is now part of it. Heck half of those slow Cheerleader shots and bad commercials are twice as intrusive and sexual. Especially the blatantly sexual commercials.
What this incedent proves is how easy it is to manipulate the masses and direct attention away from the real issues.
Other then more money...does anybody know why Stern went with Sirius over XM? Does Sirius have a larger NY install base?? I know who''s stock is worth more.
Find me at... http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/
Gamertag: NeoStyx & NeoCell
Not debating O&A or any other shows out there being more or less raunchy than Stern. Notice O&A are off the pubic air ways though.
No it is harder to controll access to a radio. Radios are small, portable, inexpensive and children at young ages have them. My 4 year old for example has a walkman type thing to listen to tapes. I set the station to classical in case she turns on the radio by accident but that only goes so far.
TV gets arround this by not airing certain content when children are most likely to present. Notice you do not see Law & Order Special Victims Unit on at 5pm. Radio though does not do this. They want to have the biggest shows on during morning drive which happens to be a time when children would be walking to school for example.
Football is a violent sport and yes cheerleaders are sexy. There is a difference though between sexy outfit and nude flesh. Just like there is a difference between hardcore and softcore porn. I suppose you are going to tell me that since football is violent sport you think people should just get into fist fights since after all it is just violence.
Or hey everybody has to go to the bathroom so scat films on TV are ok too after all it is only natural and there are children books about going to the bathroom.
Yes I am going over the top a bit but the fact remains these are lines that we as a society have drawn and all societies do this.
You want to watch hardcore porn in privacy of your own home? Great. You want to see JJ''s breast on the Super Bowl half-time show? Me too but give me a dang warning so I can know it is coming. Sort of like taking your children to see a movie that you think is PG and finding out it is R but only when it is too late.
Also I was not upset by the JJ action. I did not have my children even present when it happened. Yet that does not make it right or OK.
Back on topic though Sirius was a smart move for him. They gave him a lot of control and I bet a ton of stock to boot. Sirius needed him more than XM did so he could get more out of them. I look as XM and Sirius as a Coke/Pepsi relationship there is room for both and both do well.
I use to hold XM but after doubling my money I thought I should get out and looking at Sirius I thought they had more room to move so went there.
See this is the issue to me....this sad society needs a warning before a ""breast"" is shown on TV. Give me a break. My eight year old son was watching and didn''t even know what he saw....granted mostly because it happened so fast. but so what if he see''s a nude flesh...what is so darn sacred about a breast anyhow? Beside that breats had what amounted to a pastie on it anyhow. F''ing and nude flesh are completely different issues. We have lines agreed. Generally the group bothered by JJ''s breasty are the same who freak about mothers breast feeding in public.
Your take on Coke/Pepsi and XM/Siruis are right on...except that in Sterns case he may be ultimately useless to Sirius unless there userbase is signifigantly bigger or he truly is the King of Media and makes NY Sirius state. Still he will get his money....but it will be easier to fail moving on to Sirius but truly easy to measure if he succeeds.
Find me at... http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/
Gamertag: NeoStyx & NeoCell
I think the difference in our society is that nude flesh is just not kosher on TV. What is so sacred about a penis or vigina that they can not be shown either? It is a slippery slope so as a society we draw a line and the line is moving all the time.
I am not offended by breast or full frontal nudity. I am all for women breast feeding public or not. Yet I still think they broke the rules and like I said you might be a bit bothered to go to a PG movie with your kid then to find nudity in it.
Stern is suppoe to have 10 million+ listeners. Sirius at this time has like 700k subs and XM has like 2.5 mil currently I think. So if he brings 1 mil subs with him the deal pays for itself. If he brings more than 1 mil they start making money.
Sirius btw is based in NY while XM is based in DC.
About a year ago XM was trading at $3. Today it is at $30ish which is nice. Sirius is trading at arround $4 but there is a lot more stock in circulation than XM has. Still I think Sirius has a lot of room to move and Stern will be a good move in the long run since he has a very loyal fan base. Add in Sirius getting Emmien to produce a show the NFL and a cheaper price for the complete package I think the move by Stern is not too risky.
Stern claims he is moving because the FCC is hounding him and he will be able to do the show he wants. Wonder if E will still carry his show then.
It''s on at 6 in the freaking morning. Cmon now, are there only 30 minutes between 3 and 4 am that we can broadcast anything objectionable?
This is the hypocritical part. Freedom of speech means the ability to say tasteless and offensive things. Was what he was saying threatening human life? Then he should be allowed to say it. It''s not a matter of rules about how to express yourself, it''s a matter of the FCC leasing radio stations the public airwaves, and in return giving themselves the right to edit for content. However, the whole Oprah incident shows how hippocritical the whole thing is. They wouldn''t let Howard play back the exact same clip, audio only! It was a serious discussion too, as he was talking about the selective nature of the FCC. Then they go back retroactively and fine him for even saying ""tossing salad"" 3 years ago, and he didn''t go into nearly as much detail. Oprah is on at 3pm, right when kids come home from school. Howard is on at 6am. When asked, the FCC said it was because Oprah was a ""beloved figure"". Funny how free speech is now limited to people the FCC likes.
It''s not the government''s job to raise your kids for you, either keep better tabs on them or get used to the fact that they might hear the f-word or see a naked woman or two in their time.
Here''s the rub though, if that was cable she could be completely nude and you couldn''t do a thing about it. There are no hard set rules about ""this shouldn''t be allowed"" because this is a free country with guaranteed free speech rights. You may be offended by nudity, fine. But it''s not your place to say ""get this off TV government!"" The only reason the FCC can fine people for this is because of the whole airwaves deal, and they''re pretty selective. The only reason we hear about Howard Stern is because they fine him all the time, there''s way worse going on all over.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
100% agree with you Pyro, and I want to pile on with something. The fact that all of cable TV isn''t a smut-fest is totally attributable to a free market regulating itself. That is, there are no rules imposed on cable TV, yet they keep their content relatively ""child safe"" during ""necessary"" hours because the market demands it. Not because of some arbitrary ""ruling"" by a government official. I guess Howard just needs to give away a couple hundred cars in a publicity stunt he doesn''t pay for in order to become a ""beloved figure."" Wow, that''s a lot of ""quotes.""
I kind of like it when Howard talks like a crotchedy old coot, because it''s kind of how I''ve become as of late. I couldn''t care less about girls getting naked in his studio, the show''s at its best when he''s goofing on dumb people.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
Here is the thing striping out all the stuff you toss in there that have little to do with the real issue.
I like Howard, breast and am not offend by much of anything but that does not make me unable to recognise the need for rules.
Cable and what goes on there is also not an issue here. I can turn cable off to my house if I want but I can not stop TV and Radio broadcasts.
Oprah, Bono, and any other person who has or has not been fined by the FCC is really not the issue here. You want to argue they should have been fined too then you can do that.
Nobody especially me wants the government to raise my children.
You though are basically saying that I should be able to walk down the street nude and hang out near a buss stop maybe talking to myself about the virtues a BJs, butt love, and few other topics. Maybe I should hang out with a stripper in a thong in downtown DC talking about her porn career.
If the police come by and ask me to stop I should cry foul, first admendment rights, and that the government is raising your children and that parents should be down on the bus stop and beat the living snot out of me for saying the F''word over and over and over.
I would think most people with a bit of common sense would know that is just a ludicrous stance but you are basically saying as long as I pick up a Mr. Microphone or play it on a TV or radio that it is ok to do just this. Not only that but then act indignet and offended that your rights have been trampled on when people want to have rules to deal with this sort of issue.
Yes Howard is at his best when he is goofing on dumb people but to be honest I started liking Ron and Fez more. I know I have something wrong with me.
Jason yea was a good one too is what I get for trying to bang out post in between programs compiling and what not at work.
I never said anything of the sort. First, TVs and Radios waves are unimportant, you have to have the reciever on and tuned to the proper frequency/channel before you see the offending material. So no, it''s no different than cable in that respect. If you are saying that it''s different because you can control whether or not your children have access to cable as opposed to radio or broadcast TV, again I say it''s not the government''s place to control access of offensive material to your children. Second, yes you can hang around downtown talking about whatever ridiculously obscene thing you want, as long as it''s public property. Barring nudity laws, you can hang out with strippers, crack dealers and circus midgets while discussing the virtues of anal sex. Each building owner can make his own determination about what can and cannot be said on his property, too, and most people don''t let things like that happen on their property. Just like you can control what is and isn''t said in your house, digital, analog or good old fashioned real world talking.
This is my main problem with your argument and I think the main misconception.
I never said we don''t need rules. I said we don''t need government enforced rules about what we can and cannot say, it''s not their place. If you don''t like what someone says, don''t give them money or patronage and encourage others to do the same. It''s just as effective as cable TV proves and you don''t have the government trying to regulate speech, which the various infractions of the FCC prove nobody wants.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
We really gone into the P&C category I think but.......
TV and Radio waves though are important because they are considered public air waves that are regulated on the behalf of the people by the FCC. Now you can argue that it should not be set up that way but it currently is and because of that the government does make and enforce the rules.
http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
I think that link pretty much shows that they are allowed by law to do what they are doing and not infringing on Stern''s first admendment rights.
Now you may say that this is a bad set up but that was not the point of this discussion.
Oh and here is some information showing that obscenity is not protected by 1st Admendment Rights
Amen to this. You have summarized my whole problem with the Superbowl thing, etc.
Nice sig ,btw.
Xbox Live: CrankyBaby
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
Whoa now, I never said that. In fact I stated explicitly it was your right as a parent to control what you kids see. That was my entire point, you should be doing it, not the government. We shouldn''t whine to the government every time our kids see something we don''t want them to, we should take responsibility and change the channel or take some other sort of action. Now the Super Bowl thing sorta sucked, because basically they event planners gave these people the spotlight and they did something tasteless and stupid. So you had no way of knowing beforehand what was going on. However again, it''s the fault of the Super Bowl organizers and the stars themselves, and it''s between you and them. I don''t think we need the government as babysitter in this scenario, there''s no way anyone''s going to let those two on anything like that again. Social norms should be enforced through social means, not regulation. That''s my only point, not that society shouldn''t have rules, just that the FCC fines are a really dangerous and arbitrary way of enforcing those rules.
Actually that was Stern''s discussion and contention with Micheal Powell, the entire point of the argument. So yes, it was the point of the discussion.
I''m not a big fan of the obscenity ruling either, simply because it tries to make a value judgement about art to determine whether or not it''s legal to express. It''s like my argument about the FCC, enforcing social norms is a laudable goal, but the obscenity ruling is just a really piss-poor way of doing it.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
I only read the link posted so maybe I am missing something but the only mention to this was by Powell
Which is what I am saying basically in our discussion too.
The thing I stated earlier though is that this article does not make that the focus of Stern''s argument. maybe the full transcript does but instead the article made it look like to me that Stern was just saying Powell got his job from dad and that the FCC is on a crusade against his show.
So guess we been arguing two different points. Sory for the confusion there
Umm yes ..but by agreeing with or pushing for laws or actions that keep my ""hyothetical"" child from seeing that breast makes you no diffferent as well. Your rules of the rules you support are imposing on my freedoms..etc etc
So now we have a nice big circle.
Find me at... http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/
Gamertag: NeoStyx & NeoCell