This is pulled directly from the DLC website.

[Writer]

And I see nothing "non-Democratic" about it. Writer.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253272

Idea of the Week: Progressive Cultural Populism



An important new report by Progressive Policy Institute senior fellow Barbara Dafoe Whitehead explores the "parent gap," and lays out a strategy for closing it in a way that is consistent with progressive values. She calls for a "progressive cultural populism" that takes seriously a simple truth: "Parents have a beef with popular culture" as it is marketed to children, and worry they "are losing their ability to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages" that promote violence, materialism, and misogyny, often through technologies designed to bypass parental control.



Yet Democrats often give such struggles a wide berth on grounds that talking about them somehow suggests a desire to censor entertainment products or "move to the right." Whitehead argues that this makes no sense: progressives have always been willing to show solidarity with middle-class families in all their concerns, and to hold corporations accountable for responsible behavior in profit-seeking activities that affect children or family life. Why should the imperatives of corporate responsibility include some industries but not others?

[Richard Steele]

1. okay....

:popcorn:

[Writer]

5. Big smile...

;) Enjoy!

[saracat]

2. I do. It smacks of "censorship"

People need to "police" their own children and not rely on the government to do it for them. Censorship is a primary evil! Typiical DLC, aligning themselves with a liberty stripping ideal!

[Wilms]

3. Some marketers are child predators, though. n/t

[Writer]

4. Only the government can censor.

Private organizations have total control over the speech they provide to the public. Their decision not to air something is self-regulation speech content.

Further, permitting parents to control speech on their own is a far-cry from a government conducting prior restraint on speech - which is the textbook definition of censorship and is strictly against the constitution (except under specific circumstances.)

Writer.

edited to clarify

[leyton]

34. The poor also need to make their own living, not rely on government help

Oh wait, that's an instance when relying on government isn't bad.

Isn't it one of the first principles of the Democratic party that we help the powerless against the powerful? I bet there are a number of parents who feel powerless to regulate what their children watch because they cannot spend the entire day looking over their child's shoulder.

[Nikki Stone 1]

47. Barbara DaFoe Whitehead and FCC chair Kevin Martin are on the same page

Hmmm....

[kerrygoddess]

73. Corporations need to act responsibly

In all facets and manners.

Not all parents have the time to "police" their children and these days protecting them from crap on the internet and else where is a handful. Hillary Clinton was right when she said "it takes a village to raise a child" (hope I got that quote right).

[markus]

109. Do you have children, saracat?

What do you suggest we do? Disconnect the cable and homeschool them?

This would be a very resonant issue if handled well (and I'm very anti-DLC and anti-censorship).

If we were, for example, to go after "ratings creep" (i.e., what would have qualified as R 10 years ago may make it out as PG-13 today), a lot of parents would applaud.

I don't have a problem with labeling. That's not censorship. It just says, "not for minors". Whether its movies, games or music, labeling is a good thing. In this I have finally moved away from my hero Frank Zappa and much closer to Mrs. Gore (whom I used to abore for this issue).

Censorship is when you forbid the circulation of something. I would also be against putting M games or R movies in another room or otherwise limiting their avaiability and circulation.

I just want to make sure that kids can't just walk in and rent an R movied or an M game.

[Kagemusha]

6. You just need to separate the real adult stuff from teens and kids.

My industry (manga publishing, actually) has had a lot of controversy over self-censorship. (It is much easier in practice and legal theory to censor media other than print, mind you.) The self-censorship has a lot to do simply with sales. If there's the max rating and shrink-wrap on a graphic novel, it sells less. This creates an incentive to game the rating system and put inappropriate material on shelves and market it to teens... hence the controversy, since the censorship pisses adults off (heavily) while it's still not (fully) appropriate to teens after censorship. Which is the point - sex sells, unless it's marketed as Adult. Politics aside - artistically, censorship is wrong in principle, but not everything's fit for kids - it's the mislabeling that's bad for everyone. It's like beggar thy neighbor international trade: helps you short term, hurts everyone long term.

You don't have to be pro censorship per se in order to be pro family. You just will get a hell of a lot more credibility with teens and 20's people (I'm the latter) if you show that you understand you don't have to be Holy Joe Lieberman on this. Show you care about the damn Constitution while also caring about kids getting appropriate entertainment and not what isn't.

And more bluntly, corporate responsibility is the proper front for this. Government responsibility would make a mockery of the process. I just wish some companies were not so irresponsible as to invite the bad scrutiny through funny business.

[punpirate]

7. Herein lies the hook that makes it sound reasonable....

"... progressives have always been willing to show solidarity with middle-class families in all their concerns,..." {emphasis mine}

Not true, so if the argument is based upon a central falsehood, some of the rest of it may be suspect, as well.

I went to the full report, and there is not one single instance of the words, "advertising," "advertisement," or "advertise" in it, and yet, in more progressive countries in Europe, advertising in kids' programming is banned throughout most of the broadcast day.

There is mention of "commercial sleaze," but no mention of the underlying principle--getting people to buy for reasons they don't understand.

What this report tries to suggest is that ordinary families are overwhelmed by the commercial culture, and that government censorship--rather than individual family ethics--ought to prevail.

This is little more than pandering to the right--and for specious purpose--garnering votes. And, in fact, the premise is wrong. Those ordinary so-called soccer moms, family-oriented people, gave Bush a greater nod in this election because of concerns about "security." Poll after poll indicated that Bush impressed them more in that regard (although the reasons for that are still quite debatable).

Take this proposal one step further. It's your patriotic duty--government says so--to give your children to a greater good of the country--war. Is the government right? Or is it wrong? How do you know, except by judging the message yourself? No difference between that and the message being promoted by the media today. How do you know, except by judging yourself?

Cheers.

[Writer]

8. I don't think that this article...

promotes government censorship in any form.

[punpirate]

9. Then you aren't...

... paying attention.

Cheers.

[Writer]

10. No. I have read the article and it is very clear.

There is no support of government censorship here. You are mistaken.

[punpirate]

15. It's not up to me to...

... instruct you on how to read between the lines.

Exactly what does this position paper (for, indeed, that is all that it is) say about correcting the problem? "Solve" and "solution" do not appear in it. That means, quite simply, that the author leaves it up to your imagination to conjure the solution--that government has a place in the solution. So, reductively, what is that solution, if government is to provide one?

A restraint on advertising to children? That's judiciously not mentioned. Censorship is far easier to implement.

I suggest you read between the lines.

A last few questions. Do you have children? Have you raised any to adulthood?

If so, how did you manage to get them through difficult times, help them understand difficult concepts?

Repeatedly, throughout this article, there is mention of the harried life that parents lead today. Work, stress, lack of time. Is the solution to simply attack the media, strongly imply the need for censorship, or to provide an economic basis which guarantees time for family, to talk about issues such as this one and others of importance?

As is often the case today, people confuse causes and effects, symptoms and underlying reasons. To truly understand what this is about, one has to understand the differences between those things. In this case, it's about maneuvering for political advantage, rather than providing real solutions.

Every time in our modern culture has had to deal with the identical same problem. Why is now different? Because voices on the right are calling for, as they have in the past, cultural restrictions to protect their world-view. The DLC is embracing that, for the sake of political power, while providing no more sensible answers than the right.

Cheers.

[MollyStark]

23. Because you say so?

It is irrational to pretend they are addressing anything other than the idea that our polititians get involved, correct? So what role would they play if not "government censorship"?

[MollyStark]

22. Then why address the problem with democratic lawmakers?

This isn't an article suggesting that democratic voters write letters to the editor. This is about getting the party to move right and agree to censoring the media. If that were not so, it wouldn't be in this particular venue.

Same old DLC anti progressive crap , different day.

[sendero]

61. just exactly..

... do you think it is promoting pray tell? Voluntary measures? Let me LOL.

[FLPolitico]

11. What ever happened to.......

personal responsibility?
Of course this was the Rethugs' theme for the '80's when they were railing against welfare queens and minorities in the inner city.

It's funny how personal responsibility turned into some one else's fault when we had the gay marriage debate. Oh if you have gay marriage traditional marriages are threatened. LOL
Does anyone think that maybe the persons within the marriage are the problem since 60% of all married men and 40% of married women ADMIT to cheating. Maybe each person is the responsible for the condition of his own relationships?

This is the same theme with the tv deal. If your kids are having problems it's not the parents fault (unless you're black) because white parents are inherently good and anything that is wrong with your kids is caused by outside influences. LOL

[Celeborn Skywalker]

12. I don't know...

Of course, companies are free to do what they will, but parents are the ones that need to monitor their children's activities.

[rooboy]

13. The problem isn' t in the theory, it's in the practice.

The DLC have the same problem with hypocrisy that the Republicans have. Whilst talking at length about the moral decline of society, they sign up with major corporations who sell drugs, greed and bad habits to their kids.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Hitler In Wrap-Around Shades

A whole lot of parents are greatly upset about the possibility that their kids may see some bare titty; a few get upset over the possibility of the kids absorbing the violent programming and becoming violent themselves.

But NOBODY seems concerned that TV is selling our kids on a lifestyle based on consumerism, social one-upsmanship, abstract sadomasochism, and "coolness".

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead has long carried the torch for those who Fear The Titty, and has spent some time courting the violence-shocked, too. But her demands that children get more good old-fashioned discipline lead right back to where the trouble started -- the master-slave relationship.

Whitehead's only real argument is that the kids lose the cool shades and the rude 'tude. Time will come soon enough for titty to keep them out of political discussions, and the military to get them out of crime.

--p!

[EFerrari]

16. What a big steaming pile

"progressives have always been willing to show solidarity with middle-class families in all their concerns, and to hold corporations accountable for responsible behavior in profit-seeking activities that affect children or family life"

By their own nondefinition, the DLC is not progressive -- unless you're a Feinstein, Centcom-building progressive?

[hiley]

44. how true

By their own nondefinition, the DLC is not progressive -- unless you're a Feinstein, Centcom-building progressive?


Dems do not have the (luxury of time )to spend on being
Republican Lite. The Clinton years have passed and while I love Bill Clinton he is to centrist for the times we live in now.
We have to be the complete opposite of these RightWingNuts.
Keep religion at home and at your local church.
Mixing up with this line of thinking leads to Government Censorship.
If Politician's are left to decide all this shit we will end up with nothing all the way around.






http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[XemaSab]

49. the whole phrasing of this is ugly

It implies that progressives are paying lip service to middle class families, and that progressives are not themselves middle class families.

[hiley]

53. true

thanks for pointing that out.







http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[EFerrari]

54. Neo Dems? There's one in every crowd :( n/t

[hiley]

55. ain't that the truth !

and yes I said ain't, I live in Arkansas what do you expect ?








http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[EFerrari]

58. LOL! hiley, you're hilarious! I speak Spanglish, CA girl :) nt

[regnaD kciN]

17. Might "popular culture" = "hip hop"...?

You know, all that nasty stuff made by...colored people?

:eyes:

Democrats "have always been willing to show solidarity with middle-class families in all their concerns"...yep, I remember how the Democrats built a coalition between the north and the south in the mid-20th century, based on making sure that middle-class families were protected from having their pristine suburban developments, the ideal place for kids to grow up, being overrun by...gasp...Negroes. (Except for their maids and gardeners, of course.) After all, if Those People were allowed to live alongside us, how long would it be before their "subculture" and its "values" rubbed off on our little angels?

:grr:

[leyton]

35. When I hear "pop culture"

I think of sexually suggestive music videos. I think of television sitcoms, white and black alike, that make a farce out of serious things like sex. I think of needlessly violent movies. What is racist about that?

[rman]

18. If you're correct, it would be a change of heart for the DLC

It's not to long ago the DLC was rallying against "progressives taking over the Dem party", and now they supposedly embrace progressive values? Not very likely.

[madfloridian]

28. Self deleted.

Wrong post

[NightOwwl]

19. "Progressive Cultural Populism"

Gee, wonder how long the meeting lasted before Al From approved of the liberal-yet-non-threatening-buzzwords. And such a daring concept to combine all three into one "Idea". They really go out on a limb, don't they? :sarcasm:

[punpirate]

21. Seems that Mr. or Ms. Writer is only capable...

... of restating the opinion, rather than actually responding, in definitive fashion, to questions and complaints about the premise....

DLCers don't want debate--they want compliance. Sound familiar?

Cheers.

[MollyStark]

24. It kind of reminds you of the "Clear Skies Initiative" doesn't it?

No surprise that the DLC is openly using Orwellian tactics, since it has worked so well for their parent organization, the republican party.

[wyldwolf]

25. not in the least...

Cheswi... I mean Molly.

[MollyStark]

45. Not at all what?

No opinion on why that isn't the case?

Tom Dick.. Harry :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

59. huh? Be clearer, Cheswick

[applegrove]

20. It is normal for Liberals to want problems solved with regulation.

To say: "it is up to the parents" is a common republican position (small government).

Facts are that some websites and some porn is very, very damaging to little boys (their first solo sexual experiences should be 'solo' since if you get them with a porno star or S&M then they imprint on that). That is a fact. As liberals we don't want shit messing with our kid's minds and fucking them up and rewiring their sexual routines and preferences. If it is bad for people (kids in this case) it is bad for them.

So you keep the young teen boys the hell away for porn on the internet, games and elsewhere (even cartoons). Unless it is soft, soft, soft.. it could ruin a life. This is what Liberals do. They take good information and they make sure that the markets deliver that public good by making it highly illegal for little guys to get access to the wrong stuff.

We do the same with dangerous stuff in food.

How about Nazi chat sites where a group of sociopaths will take your 14 year old daughter and convince her the earth is shaped like a swastika? They know very well how to keep her interested in their site.. they coddle her and make her feel like she belongs. They know her psychology right away.

There should be certain controls on things (& the ability of parents to control content) until the kids are 18. That is healthy. That is safe. That is Liberal & Progressive.


To not regulate and say "oh that is one of those things only a family should decide" is like with all of Bush's stuff. It promotes the idea that no public goods (like environmental emissions standards) should be delivered by regulating industry. And that is what they want. For all values & morals to be delivered at a local tribal level. And for nothing to interfere with markets or corporations or industries. That is why Bush has not promoted the same type of program as these progressive people have. It goes against his master plan. To make people power only a local, religious, tribal thing. So the corporate elites can rule from above.

Who cares if the parents only want the kids to go to the religious site. If they are like that..the kid is not allowed to go on the internet or watch TV either. But these types of laws do help parents deal with a changing world and they are very efficient to be delivered at a national level. And it kicks Bush in the teeth. And it takes back the parents who are interested in scientific knowledge about their kids and how best to send them on the way to healthy & strong independence. This is our issue to take the parents back. Because we Liberals are the Enlightenment ones. We like the science and the delivery of good information. Why shouldn't we reconnect with parents using this law. That is what it means, after all, to govern. You have to come up with the ideas that resonate and help the lives of voters. Or they will vote for someone who seems to promise that (as we know.. Bush & co create fear so they can assuage it with their policy positions like any player).

By falling for their words "I think it is up the the families be responsible for that" implies that parents have complete control over all the environments there kids are in. They do not. But with the delivery of standards through the public good delivery system.. you can save a lot of kids a lot of grief and be true to Liberal Ideals at the same time.

Children under 18 should not be wandering anywhere on the streets. The same goes for the internet. They should be on the internet.. but not anywhere. Not on adult sites. Not at Nazi sites.

I would whole-heartedly support these initiatives.

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. One of the few

sensible people on this thread. But you're wasting your breath arguing with these people. "Anything goes" is their watch-word, and most of it has already gone, thanks to their complicity with the material and moral despoilers of our respective nations by the corporatists. In their own eyes, they are veritable paragons of personal responsibility. Nuff said.

[mongo]

32. Anything goes....

"Anything goes" is their watch-word, and most of it has already gone

As opposed to what? Whatever YOU think is appropriate? Who exactly are we going to set up as the Czar of moral purity?

[Joe Chi Minh]

107. *We* don't have to set up anything.

Our countries have legislative bodies for drafting laws.

As you are, perhaps, aware, the word "religion" is derived from the latin, "ligere" to bind. Now, without the "binding" of laws, there can be no accountability, can there? Almost all of the politically-oriented threads on this forum relate to failures of accountability, chiefly, admittedly, among the leaders of the country: governmental, industrial, commercial, even regulatory. And, we the citizenry always pay the price, whatever body of miscreants it condones in the pursuit of what rings their chimes.

Of course, there never has been anything like a just society, but in the UK and the US, we have certainly known better days. I know the satanic treatment of African Americans (and though more subtle, it's been no picnic for Afro-Saxons in the UK) particularly before the achievements of the civil rights movement - distorts the picture out of any possible perspective. But the improvements can and must be built upon - and the role MLK played in those achievements strongly suggests to me that, above all, it will take the commitment of Christians to do so).

In the matter of censorship of hard-core pornography and prohibition on certain sexual practises, I presume there are areas at least of the latter, which you would baulk at, nay proscribe... Would you be kind enough to enlighten us as to which hard-core and which sexual practises these might be? And, *most importantly*, on what basis you presume to so high-handedly condone the imposition of such censorship and proscriptions! I'm sure you will be able to further enlighten us as what laws you need for your own protection, and the basis for your high-handed, if not fascistic interference with the personal activities of others.

And it's no good your claiming that freedom of the individual to engage in shall we say, "eccentric" and/or promiscuous sexual behaviour cannot have the most dangerous, harmful, indeed lethal effects. If the words of a serial killer (forget his name, but I doubt that he's the only one to have expressed the view) concerning the effects on him simply of hard-core pornography, cannot be believed, whose can? Of course, that doesn't mean that every male who has looked at or looks or will look at hard-core pornography will tunr out to be a killer or serial killer, but it does suggest unmbiguously that it is dangerous material.

And as for no proof of its harmfulness ever having been adduced, you are simply showing a lack of the most elementary common sense. With each passing post-Christian decade and the simultaneous relaxation of what is viewed as sexual morality, nay the existence of any meaning such a term might convey, our societies have become ever more violent. And the violence and depravity is now starting with children who are barely more than infants. The Bolger case in the UK sprngs to mind. They had been allowed to watch hardcore pornograpic videos.
The other week, it was reported here in the UK, that a stocky young 10 year-old raped a female teacher, quite small of stature. Such things were unheard of in the UK in the fifties and, I think, later decades. But a primary school child being raped by a class-mate is not really news here any more. What would *you* attribute it all to?

Sure, you're right about children being very gender aware from a very early age, but it is also the case that in their pristine innocence, even children who grow up to become homosexual, are probably more perfectly heterosexually orientated than at any other time in their life. I don't doubt, of course, that it might be much more complicated with males who have irregular chromosomes, although I knew an Austrian lad, who was physically a hermaphrodite, who had a completely heterosexual orientation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

108. Of course,

to attribute the cause of violence in our societies to pornography alone would be very foolish. Most of it is due to economic oppression.
However, acts of sexual violence are more prevalent than ever before and will continue to increase, destroying many people's lives - unfortunately, commensurately with the victims' innocence, both sexual and in the broader sense.

[applegrove]

72. Some of the opposition is Kool-Aid. n/t

[mongo]

30. What a steaming load of BS.

Facts are that some websites and some porn is very, very damaging to little boys (their first solo sexual experiences should be 'solo' since if you get them with a porno star or S&M then they imprint on that). That is a fact. As liberals we don't want shit messing with our kid's minds and fucking them up and rewiring their sexual routines and preferences. If it is bad for people (kids in this case) it is bad for them.

So you keep the young teen boys the hell away for porn on the Internet, games and elsewhere (even cartoons). Unless it is soft, soft, soft.. it could ruin a life. This is what Liberals do. They take good information and they make sure that the markets deliver that public good by making it highly illegal for little guys to get access to the wrong stuff.


Thanks for that total load of pseudo-scientific Crap. There have been no serious, real scientific studies showing this. In fact, most research shows that sexual imprints start much younger than puberty.
No 12yo's life is ruined because he jacked off to a porno mag. And no one becomes involved in S&M (not that that's a bad thing either) because they saw a magazine or a website during puberty. These things start much earlier and go much deeper than that.

Perhaps you want to tell me that porn produces "erototoxins" that work directly on the brain too, making porn highly addictive - http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65772,00.html And this BS was presented before a Senate committee!

The truth is there has never been a real scientific study showing that porn is harmful, addictive, etc.

I can understand keeping porn away from children - there are already laws against that. It is why I card any customer who looks under 30. But your calls to censor on the "it's for the children" argument just don't hold water.

Because we Liberals are the Enlightenment ones.

So...it's OK to be a fascist if your views are being promoted. This is no different from the theocrats who want to take over the country - because they know the "truth" of the matter. Focus on your own damn family!

[applegrove]

56. So it is obvious you have a business perspective on this one issue.

Do you feel any different when it comes to a 16 year old online with neo Nazi's? How about Ecstasy. Do you think a child should be able to smoke dope or do Ecstasy? Unregulated? Because both will destroy the kids brain (Ecstasy can lead to permanent mental health illnesses - while dope will just make the kids miss most of high-school).

[sendero]

62. I don't have a business perspective..

... and I think you are basically full of it.

And I deleted the rest of my message because I realized there would be no way for me to say what I think that you would understand and would be remotely civil.

[applegrove]

64. So you know equate the delivery of regulations with fascism?

Interesting. Since it is really all about what types of regulations we want (there are always regulations..what do you think the police are or the army is - regulated order).

I am only saying that if a case can clearly be made for the health of children.. it should be acted upon if the result is serious enough. Like I say to the gun owners.. okay...my pillow has been regulated and so has my mattress. But please..don't touch the guns or the internet!!

[sendero]

68. I didn't say a word about fascism..

... but I know what government can accomplish and what it cannot.

And I prefer not to have my freedoms abridged because some feel that having an Uncle Sugar Nanny is the solution to societies' problems.

And, whenever a politician starts up with the "for the children" argument, I hold them in high suspicion from that point on.

And lastly, the right wing would love nothing better than to enforce their social standards on broadcasting, and all other media. And trust me, it would go well beyond "indecency" controls all the way to "you can't speak out against the government or the church". Fuck that.

As I said somewhere else, if the fundies ever did get their way, they'd see a backlash beyond their wildest fears. Americans love their porn, love the tittillating Tv, love their violent movies. Nothing tells you more about people than how they spend their money, and this stuff is out there because PEOPLE LIKE IT.

I manage to keep my kids away from internet porn, I've told them that I will review their usage periodically and if I catch them at it they will lose computer access for a month. No IM, no download, no games.

It seems to be working.

[applegrove]

70. Here is where you talked about fascism. An earlier post.

"Because we Liberals are the Enlightenment ones.

So...it's OK to be a fascist if your views are being promoted. This is no different from the theocrats who want to take over the country - because they know the "truth" of the matter. Focus on your own damn family!"

[sendero]

74. You are pretty confused...

... that was not my post.

[applegrove]

75. Look up the list bud. I responded to someone else and you jumped in!

Sorry if that threw me for a loop. I wasn't expecting somebody else to hop on the discussion. Next time introduce yourself.

[sendero]

76. I responded..

... but that is not my quote. There is a difference you know.

[applegrove]

78. I see from your original post that you said i was full of BS, that you

could not tell me why because when you did you had to erase it all and that was pretty much it. With such a vague responce..mistakes happen. Sorry if I confused you ... because you responded to me without responding. Your separate existence did not make itself obvious to me. Next time do not delete the meat of your responce..and it may be easier to pick up a change.

[sendero]

79. Believe me...

.... you did not want to see the meat of my response.

Here's a simplified synopsis. tho I've already said it:

1) government will never substitute for parenting.

2) politicians use "for the children" when they know their ideas would never stand the light of inquiry, or when trying to appear "concerned".

3) why should my freedoms be abridged because you suck as a parent?

4) there is a fine line between these sorts of regulations and the regulation of political speech. why even start down that path?

If you want an example look no farther than Howard Stern. This time last year, he went from being very pro Bush to being a Kerry supporter. WITHIN DAYS, he was dropped from several large (and important battleground) Clear Channel markets for being "indecent". Never mind that they had to go back 2 years to find something to pin on him.

The FCC joined in and fined the stations for stuff that was old, that wasn't indecent then but was deemed to be now. The whole thing was a sham and a direct slam on POLITICAL SPEECH. Why on earth would a progressive give these morons bullets?

[applegrove]

99. thank you for parroting all the Repuke positions. By the way, all

4 points could have been collapsed into one point because you are essentially saying the same thing over and over again.

You do not think that the government should deliver public goods into the market - because parents should be responsible for everything to do with a child's health.

You obviously feel that the only things that should be delivered using the efficiencies of the market are what the corporations want to sell.

The markets are the most efficient tools we have ever invented. We, meaning mankind, invented the market 10,000 years ago.

Corporations were another tool the people invented to get things efficient. They invented corporation 500 years ago.

If you want mankind to be out of the market completely...except when it is convenient to a corporation (like say when they are consumers) be my guest.

So it is okay for corporations to bombard us with information on their product all day long and well into the night. But the moment the experts want the parents to get a message or a need met.. through the same chain...it is a horrible thing. If I was a coporation I would want exactly the same thing. I would want all my competators (government regulators are considered competators to corporations these days) to not have the tools I have so that nothing would interfere with the important job of fluffing, buffing & vaselining (or sell food with addictive additives to make kids obese). Poison is poison.

Me - I don't let the tools make the rules because I can think for myself thank you.

[sendero]

104. I'm pretty sure...

.. I know who the fool here is, and it isn't me.

Yes, I don't want the lowest common denominator, children, to drive all markets. Perhaps you would be fine eating strained peas the rest of your life, I wouldn't.

You are beyond clueless.

[applegrove]

105. Children are the lowest common denominator? Are they not the

focus of our lives? The most vulnerable of humans? Our greatest joy? The biggest meaning in our lives?

Simply by saying that kids should not have access to some bad stuff - until they have the emotional equipment of an adult... does not mean we will all end up eating mashed peas.

It means the poisons that can affect us should be regulated by the most efficient means possible (which means the market).

I take it that your ideal police force are walking around with sling - shots and showing up for calls by donkey! Or wait a second.. wouldn't policing itself be a series of regulations geared towards the lowest common denominator in society. Let us get rid of the police (I'm sure the NRA has already made plans).


Let's get rid of the private property laws because most people don't steal. I'm sure the corporations will not mind if people walk out of their warehouses all day long with 'free product'.

You don't make much sense.

[mongo]

63. Nice strawman argument you have here.

Because I don't believe in censorship - I think all kids should be able to smoke dope or do ecstasy? Geesh. If you don't want your kid to see porn or Nazi sites on the internet - install filtering software, or better yet, HAVE THE COMPUTER IN THE FAMILY ROOM WITH THE FAMILY SO YOU CAN MONITOR YOUR KIDS USAGE. Is that so freakin' hard?

Yes, I do have a business perspective - in fact I sit on the bleeding edge of the First Amendment and censorship. I can be arrested for selling ANY movie in my inventory (to an adult BTW), because of arcane FELONY obscenity laws. I could face 1 year in prison if convicted, 5 years if the feds are involved. The reason that stores like mine exist is because it is not worth the trouble for prosecutors when the outcome of a jury trial is a crap shoot in these cases. So, yes, I have a vested interest.

But the stuff you posted about "sexual imprints" and "ruining a child's life" is just crap. No juveniles life has been "ruined" by seeing porn. And sexual imprints and preferences are much more complicated and arguably formed earlier in life than puberty.

I am not advocating giving porn to minors, in fact I card people all day long. Which BTW, if I sell to a minor it is also a FELONY, where selling cigarettes to a minor is $100 fine. Which of these is more dangerous?

The problem is that we have this large out of control movement in this country to control what Americans want to view in the privacy of their own homes. Using the "it's for the children" rhetoric is just an excuse to monitor the entertainment choices of your neighbors.

[applegrove]

66. I love the slippery slope argument. I love that. That is why America

has kids running around with assault rifles and shooting at schools. Ignoring this last child (who was on the internet making friends with Nazis) .. what is wrong with an assault rifle ban? Oh no the slippery slope..first they will take our assault rifles away, and then it will be the 50 caliber rifle with the tracer bullets that can take down a helicopter..then it will be the gun you use for hunting.

Happy sliding by collapsing all your arguments into one big huge anarchist nightmare any time someone wants to protect someone from being a victim.

[mongo]

69. You keep changing the subject.

We were talking about the First Ammedndment, Not the 2nd.

If you would like to address that one, why not go play in the gungeon? I'm sure you'll be cut to shreds down there....

But back to the discussion at hand - why should my choices for enterainment on TV or the internet be censored by you or anyone else? Have you seen the TV rating system? Does your TV have a V-chip? Is there blocking software you buy or even get free with some internet services? Are you incapable of protecting your kids from these perceived dangers? Was Janet Jackson's nipple enough to "ruin" your child?

Or maybe it is other people's kids you want to protect. In that case, lets go with the slippery slope. Are you also going to outlaw beer because some other parent might give your teen some? How about cigarettes?

You have singled out porn here because of your own personal bias - when there are far, far worse things kids get into every day.

(and BTW, I'm outta here until mon at noon - I've worked 32 hours in the last 3 days - I'll be looking forward to your response)

[applegrove]

71. Choices for TV & videos are already regulated. I still love how you

collapse all your arguments down into a censorship anarchy.

[leyton]

36. Hurrah applegrove!

You have eloquently made the case for progressives taking up this cause. I'm glad someone here knows what progressivism is about...

[mongo]

39. an eloquent case?

You have eloquently made the case for progressives taking up this cause. I'm glad someone here knows what progressivism is about...

Gee... so progressivism IS about instituting a socialist nanny state - NOT!

[applegrove]

57. You do not think that information on dangerous things should be

delivered by the market? So kids should do Ecstasy. Polluters should go ahead and pollute to their hearts content. I should grind up some dust in a bowl and sell it as an anti-anxiety medication.

Public goods are delivered by market regulation all the time. The reason why? Because the markets belong to human beings. Markets have been around for 10,000 years. Corporations for 500. So if I want to deliver a birthday telegram I can use the market. But if I want to deliver information on how to keep kids safe and out of the world of adult exploitation until they are 18.. (which seems to me a little bit more important) I have to stay out of the markets.

Nanny State is a Karl Rove/GOP propaganda word. I see you are drinking the Kool-Aid. Or mixing it up!

If kids are not horribly affected by things.. do not regulate. But with something like the internet & porn.. when we find out about dangers.. you fix the problem and leave it to non vulnerable minds to be exposed to danger .. that is what the person wants.

[mongo]

65. Drinking the Kool-Aid - Ha!

When you start to compare porn to Ecstacy, then it is you that have drank the Kook-Aid.

[applegrove]

67. For a child's mind.. the changes can be permanent by using both! n/t

[XemaSab]

50. "It is normal for Liberals to want problems solved with regulation."

I disagree... seems to me like it's the conservatives pushing for most of the regulation on the first amendment.

I think parents need to decide what their kids are allowed to see, because all parents are going to have different standards.

The government has already regulated porn to the extent that it's possible, by restricting sales of porn to adults only. But no government can restrict what's on the net. Only parents can do that.

[applegrove]

77. That is true. But when it is poison.. it is poison. That should not be

any parents choice. We obviously disagree on what poison is. I say we listen to science.

[XemaSab]

100. It's like alcohol

Alcohol is poison, but I believe adults should be allowed to drink if they want. We tried banning alcohol, and it wound up being a fiasco.

I think porn is disgusting and I don't get it, just like I think whiskey is disgusting and I don't get it.

We have laws in place to keep kids away from porn and whiskey alike, but if kids really want porn or whiskey, they will find a way to get it.

[applegrove]

102. Yeah porn is like alcohol. Alcohol to a fetus. Porn that kids get

ahold of is what I am talking about. Even younger teens need to be kept away from porn. Very bad for developing brains.

The porn for the adults? Who cares. None of my or your business. Try not to be addicted. Try not to gross out your 'actual' sexual partner with your pastime. Or ignore it. No big deal. This discussion has nothing to do with adults (unless kids are part of the porn) in which case everyone involved goes to jail.

[mongo]

101. poison? For who? Want some "science"

Here's some information for you - if you care to read them.

Censoring the Internet Won't Protect Kids http://www.sexed.org/archive/article16.html

Censorship and the Fear of Sexuality http://www.sexed.org/archive/article10.html

Why There's No Such Thing as Sexual Addiction -- And Why It Really Matters http://www.sexed.org/archive/article08.html


or perhaps the article about the congressional testimony about porn and "erototoxins" (which I linked to earlier in the thread) is more your speed- or should I say already supports your views. Your "science" is nothing more than propaganda presented to support censorship.

[applegrove]

103. Bud - you can get the internet to say just about anything.

No such thing as a sex addiction? Tell that to the sex addicts who destroy their lives and the lives of their family.

[mongo]

106. There has NEVER EVER been a reputable scientific study

proving a "sexual addiction" or a "porn addiction".

People can have obsessive/compulsive personalities, but we don't go around with calls for banning shoes because some people have 100 pairs in their closet.

The calls to ban porn have more to do with individuals self esteem and insecurity issues, or their desire to control other people's behavior.

[Writer]

26. All of you progressives are wrong about this article.

Here are the DLC's stances on the role of government:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=139&subid=283&contentid=3623

New Democrats believe that government's proper role in national life is not to solve problems for Americans, or to leave them to fend for themselves, but to equip them with the tools they need to solve their own problems.

Government and its programs should never become ends in themselves. Even the most useful programs should be constantly reviewed to ensure that they perform the functions for which they were created, as effectively and efficiently as possible.

But if traditional liberals sometimes forget the original purpose of government programs, conservatives increasingly deny they can have any purpose at all. Being "against government" is hypocritical unless you are willing to abolish government entirely.

New Democrats want to reform government programs, not defend or attack them.

Government's relationship to the "invisible hand" of the market is to define public goals, and then use market forces to reach them as fairly and efficiently as possible.

Government should be designed to do no more or less than is necessary to achieve public goals. It should be strategic, not bureaucratic. It should use the minimum regulation and expense to achieve clearly defined outcomes.

Whenever possible, government should seek to empower citizens directly rather than operating through intermediaries or programs. If designed properly, vouchers and tax credits can replace traditional programs in areas where government does not need to actually provide services.


I encourage all of you to take a moment and read through a few issues on the site. I think you will find it educational and enlightening.

[madfloridian]

27. They lost me on Iraq.

They lost me when they called me a fringe activist. They lost me when they asked me to go away in no uncertain terms.

They lose me everytime their spokesmen like Joe Lieberman go on TV and talk like Republicans.

[Pithy Cherub]

31. "All of you progressives are wrong" is perjorative in extremis.

Tis the reason the DLC is an institution that is not on the expansion during these political times. Being inclusive and embracing ideals that include more people and solutions is something the DLC on balance is failing to learn to its own detriment - again.

Progressively yours,

[mongo]

33. Empowering citizens

Whenever possible, government should seek to empower citizens directly

Isn't this what laws mandating TV ratings and the V-chip were all about?
I think the citizens are already "empowered".

[saracat]

38. This isn't just Repuke lite to you? Are you loopy????

"Whenever possible, government should seek to empower citizens directly rather than operating through intermediaries or programs. If designed properly, vouchers and tax credits can replace traditional programs in areas where government does not need to actually provide services."

This is recycled Repuke philosophy!!!!!!I am more disgusted with them than EVER. Thank you for posting. This is a confirmation of how BAD they are!

[XemaSab]

51. Yikes!

They're saying the government doesn't actually need to provide scooling????

[Richard Steele]

60. Repuke-lite only here in 2005, saracat!

In 1980 it would have been considered STRAIGHT repuke!

Just shows how extreme the extremists in the GOP have become!

[NightOwwl]

41. I work with a guy who always uses the latest industry buzzwords...

and spouts off phrases that sound very impressive. He repeats what others say verbatim so he can sound knowledgeable. He steals co-workers ideas to prove he's indispensable. He criticizes and talks poorly of others to prop himself up in the boss's eyes.

He's going nowhere though, and will soon be gone. See, he doesn't realize we all see right through him. Just another unimaginative, talentless hack who would stab his own mother in the back if he thought it would get him the accolades and recognition he thinks he deserves.

Reminds me of something, but I can't quite put a finger on it... :eyes:

[MollyStark]

46. No, they were easy to figure out years ago

Why bother reading the same old Republican garbage you can read on the RNC site?

[ulysses]

80. "but to equip them with the tools they need to solve their own problems"

By ripping holes in the social safety net? Hey, necessity is the mother of invention!

But we'll save them from gangsta rap! We'll do that!

[Gyre]

37. That is a drum Hillary's been beating recently.

As one of "those" parents, I'm consistantly appalled at the sexualized dialoge of network TV.

Won't get me to vote for Clinton, cause I think that for dems it's nothing but a showcase issue. Tbey have ZERO chance of getting anything passed which censures or imposes new guidelines for the FCC in terms regulation of sexualized commercial propaganda, and they know it. Therefore it's a cheap, transparent ploy to appeal to people like me.

Won't get me to vote for her because there is no DLC candidate which I will ever vote for again. The DLC let us get to the point where the repubes could steal elections with impugnity. They let any serious review of irregularities in the 2000 election slide as they have with the 2004 election.

My problem with the DLC stems from the simple fact that they're losers. And they've three major elections to the point that my point of view hasn't been represented for a long time. They've known about the problem with active electoral theft since Georgia in 2002 and done absolutely nothing to ensure that our votes count. The 2004 result, and modus operandi was just too predictable and nothing was done to preempt it. No organization with a track record like that deserves any support whatsoever.

Gyre

[Cocoa]

40. this is massive deception by the DLC, imo

whenever the DLC talks about "family values" type issues, and even when they talk about foreign policy, I am very skeptical.

I believe the DLC's true reason for being lies in their ties to their corporate masters, and that moral values posturing and "strong on defense" posturing are just distractions.

There's truth in the broad ideas in this article of theirs, and similar ones, but I wouldn't take it too seriously, because I don't think they do. I feel their game is exactly the same as the GOP hypocrites' game.

And I don't think Joe Lieberman really gives a fuck about video games.

[derby378]

42. Which is the greater threat to children?

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas or the killing of Social Security?

I'm with you on this one.



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=82502&item=3969238247&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

[hiley]

43. This is not democratic it is

censorship and it is more than a move to the right.
Popular culture is progressing and the parts you do not care for you can just simply not participate in.

Watch your own children

guide your own children

censor your own children and own self

I raised all my children in public schools all are alive

none in prison

all happy

working

educated

This is a Republican game
not for me a Progressive
Free Thinking
Free Will
Democratic Party Member

There are v-chips in televisions, don't buy the magazines if you don't like the advertising, don't pay for MTV but leave mine the hell alone !
This is DLC which is not part of real DNC think about it

http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[Gyre]

48. I believe that both parties are responsible for the depravity

on OUR frequencies. There's a long history of both party's corporate sponsors pushing for enforcement of laws consistant with their monopolies (ie, American preferences for alcohol dependant upon the criminalization of marijuana), and outright using OUR own resource (American radio and TV frequencies) to poison us (fox government propaganda) and train us to buy worthless shit with virtually ZERO OVERSIGHT by the FCC.

The republicans now, of course, are much more "over the top" than the dems in terms of overtly making federal watchdog agencies the enablers of corporate interests in direct conflict with their stated purpose to protect the public (to wit; FCC, EPA, FDA). The dems lag only because they've been losers for the last two national election cycles.

Janet Jackson was a placebo issue intended to imply to the public that the FCC cared about their mental health (in contrast to their record of neglect). No coincidence that the incident was a statistical zero (in unwholesome messages) relative to the mass exploitation/brainwashing the public is now undergoing via republican-owned media, and any legal action against the network resulted in a monetary finger-flick in comparison to what they get away with on a daily basis in the name of providing "news" and expanding markets for worthless products.

What I think is ironic is that the serfs being exploited are among the loudest complainers about censorship when their sex-saturated TV content is threatened. I believe it speaks loudly to the national IQ.

Gyre

[hiley]

52. Both parties are responsible

I do think we can censor our selves and I don't just mean MTV.
MSM sucks so I watch freespeechtv, linktv, cspan, sundance which happens to be commerical crap ridden free.
my kids were raised with books, documentaries and actual family time talking to each other about likes , dislikes and what is going on all over the world. Not in the pretext of how it affects Americans but how world is affecting other cultures and people. I am adding links someone might find interesting or might not have seen yet.

I posted earlier in thread referring to Clinton years but I will elaborate.
Clinton years also went over the line with Tipper & co. all butting into music and so on.
Art is not to be censored in my opinion, to each is own.
You either like the art piece or song or you don't.
Free Will to chose is the way for me. We have to work with groups like FreePress http://www.freepress.net/index.php for Media Reform and keep fighting the Governmental bullshit and the FCC.
Government or Political Parties either one Republican and Democrats have no business involved.
http://www.democraticmedia.org/index.html
Center for Digital Democracy
http://www.prwatch.org/
Center for Media and Democracy
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://sinclairaction.com/

Dems do not have the (luxury of time )to spend on being
Republican Lite. The Clinton years have passed and while I love Bill Clinton he is to centrist for the times we live in now.
We have to be the complete opposite of these RightWingNuts.
Keep religion at home and at your local church.
Mixing up with this line of thinking leads to Government Censorship.
If Politician's are left to decide all this shit we will end up with nothing all the way around.

ePluribus Media. Would you like to help?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/30/115327/562
http://innworldreport.net/index.htm
http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[ulysses]

81. a kick

for contrast. :kick:

[Writer]

82. Ahhh...

Thank you, my dear Ulysses. I'm finding this to be an interesting sociological study, indeed!

Writer.

[ulysses]

83. I'm sure you are.

I'll look forward to the usual "DU is a bunch of out-of-touch liberal freaks" posts coming soon. You won't be the first.

I would love to have your comments on my thread, though. I want to know how an apologist spins those comments from Al and Will. If memory serves, I've never gotten much response on that front.

[Writer]

84. I don't have time now, honey

I've got me some graduate work to do. I'm edumacatin' myself! ;)

Toodles!

Writer.

[ulysses]

85. of course you do.

Chickenshit.

And the "honey" thing? Don't flatter yourself. :D

[Writer]

87. LOL

Hey, man, I have control over my life. If I say I don't have time, HONEY, I don't have time!

;)

Writer.

[ulysses]

89. and yet,

you've posted at least twice since you said you had to go. :D

[Writer]

90. Yar har, baby!

I'm on a break. That break is now over. And the entire time we've exchanged messages, this thread has stayed kicked.

Many thanks!

Writer.

[ulysses]

91. and you forget,

I kicked it for my own purposes to begin with. :D

So come give your thoughts in my thread. C'mon.

[Writer]

86. By the way...

I didn't agree with what Mr. Al said. But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, now, should we?

Writer.

[ulysses]

88. "Mr. Al" founded, and speaks for, your organization.

What's the baby, and what's the bathwater? You tell me.

[welshTerrier2]

92. what about these babies ???

"clearly rejecting our anti-war wing"

"Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

these two babies were found floating in the rancid waters on the DLC's website ...

[ulysses]

93. shhh! Writer is to busy to respond to such silliness. Begone!

;-)

[Writer]

95. I'm not TOO busy to correct your grammar...

Sir!

[ulysses]

96. a fair point. Care to give your thoughts on my thread,

as long as you're still here? It's not as if it'd take all night.

[ulysses]

98. helloooooo.

You and I both know you're still lurking on the thread. :D

[tkmorris]

94. There is no baby, nor bathwater

Only Al From, and he's gotta go.

[welshTerrier2]

97. DLC idea of the week: " PCP for everyone !!!"

great acronym ... brilliant ... truly visionary leadership ...

is this the same crowd that's caused the Party to grow weaker and weaker???

with "ideas of the week" like that one, it's not surprising ...