George W. Bush is my Favorite
SereneBabe
Last night on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer (I miss McNeil) and GWBush
was speaking about illiteracy.
Here is an actual quote:
"...reading is the basics of all education," said Mr. Bush.
http://www.gwbush.com/ for the fake and funny story.
********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
March 29: "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful"
Thad Thompson
>
>"...reading is the basics of all education," said Mr. Bush.
My party wants this man?
Gawd, I'm ashamed. Close your eyes, and he sounds and acts like friggin'
QUALE.
I think I'll be voting Libertarian this year...
McCain 2004,
-TLT
---
Thad Thompson
TL...@aol.com
-- Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom: No matter how great your
triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion
Chinese couldn't care less.
Joey Joe Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo
tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
> >Here is an actual quote:
> >
> >"...reading is the basics of all education," said Mr. Bush.
>
> My party wants this man?
>
> Gawd, I'm ashamed. Close your eyes, and he sounds and acts like friggin'
> QUALE.
>
> I think I'll be voting Libertarian this year...
>
> McCain 2004,
> -TLT
> ---
> Thad Thompson
> TL...@aol.com
I'm still bitter about Bradley getting whupped, but I don't want to start
arguing politics right here. Unless any of you are LaRouche supporters.
Lyndon LaRouche's campaign is bullying our radio station into playing an
announcement from him. Fucking Dixiecratic segregationist bastards.
--
March Hare
J_Was...@admin.fandm.edumacation (Joey Joe Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo)
wrote:
> In article <20000330161120...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
> tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
>
> > >Here is an actual quote:
> > >
> > >"...reading is the basics of all education," said Mr. Bush.
> >
> > My party wants this man?
> >
> > Gawd, I'm ashamed. Close your eyes, and he sounds and acts like
friggin'
> > QUALE.
> >
> > I think I'll be voting Libertarian this year...
> >
> > McCain 2004,
> I'm still bitter about Bradley getting whupped, but I don't want to
start
> arguing politics right here. Unless any of you are LaRouche
supporters.
>
> Lyndon LaRouche's campaign is bullying our radio station into playing
an
> announcement from him. Fucking Dixiecratic segregationist bastards.
>
Hey I don't want to argue politics either. Suffice to say I wouldn't
vote for a Democrat even if it wasn't someone as easy to disrespect as
Al Gore (self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet). But no stupid
quote discussion would be complete without including old hickory
(leaving aside for the moment the idea that we'd have a fascist music
censor for a first lady.
I submit:
As reported on Fox News Sunday on December 3, 1996, as well as quoted
in the National Review and reported in the 12/6/96 Washington
Times "Inside the Beltway" by John McCaslin:
In a letter, an elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo explained to Al
Gore how much they rely on the government-owned Amtrak trains to visit
their children and grandchildren in Chicago and on each coast. The
couple reminded the vice president that President Clinton relied on
train travel to reach the Democratic National Convention in
Chicago. "The train has been our main-stay," the couple states. "Yet
your administration is killing our Texas Eagle. This makes us sick."
The Texas Eagle is the Amtrak train that for years has operated between
Chicago, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio.
But facing a $243 million shortfall in 1997, Amtrak President Thomas
Downs recently targeted four Amtrak routes for elimination, including
the Texas Eagle service between St. Louis and San Antonio. "What can
you do to save our Eagle?" the couple pleaded to the vice president.
Gore responded with:
"Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo, Thank you for your letter regarding the
protection of the Texas eagle. I appreciate hearing from you. "I share
your view that the urgent problem of species extinction and the
conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first
step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware
of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our
environment ... "Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I
look forward to working with you for the future of our planet."
also:
Al Gore, when asked about his illegal fundraising activities that took
place in a Buddhist temple: "I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist
temple." Yeah, I know a lot of places where bald men run around in
orange robes with incense burning.
and:
On his December 5, 1999 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl:
Leslie Stahl: "I know something you that most people don't probably
know. I can't believe it but, you hypnotize chickens."
Gore: "I learned how to do that as a kid. I really did."
and uhh:
The inspiration for "Love Story"?
"Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, the Vice
President came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force
Two. Sliding in behind a table with the two reporters covering him that
day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours
swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like
Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the
uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story; and
Gore's Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones, who played the roommate of the
Gore-like character in the movie version of Segal's book." (Time,
12/15/97)
"Vice President Al Gore acknowledged Sunday a 'miscommunication' on his
part in leading reporters to believe he and his wife were the model for
the 1970s romance novel 'Love Story'."
"The author, Erich Segal, told The New York Times he was 'befuddled' by
the comments in the first place. He said he called Gore, and the vice
president said it was a misunderstanding."
(Sources: The Des Moines Register, 12/15/97; Gore
concedes 'miscommunication' about 'Love Story' role)
I could go on. It irks me when the idea is put forth that the right has
some sort of monopoly on idiocy.
To heck with McCain in 2004
Let's hear it for McCain VENTURA in 2004 (heh)
Laissez faire baybee,
>Bo7-~
"Oh my freakin' head I'm so wasted..." -one drunk fly
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
March Hare <marc...@wack.com> wrote in message
news:8c1kks$v48$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip hilarity]
> I could go on. It irks me when the idea is put forth that the right has
> some sort of monopoly on idiocy.
>
> To heck with McCain in 2004
> Let's hear it for McCain VENTURA in 2004 (heh)
>
oh, my. that was a laugh-a-minnit.
the opening comedian for Carlin said that the Gore campaign should try to
address the issue of the sex scandal that went on during the Clinton
administration. He thought Gore's slogan of success should be:
"Al Gore in 2000... No one will blow me."
are politics good for much more than humor?? I mean, they had Dennis Miller
on CNBC awhile back and asked the question: "which one of these four
candidates gives you the best material? who do you want in the White House,
so that you will have the best jokes?"
ngruk
SereneBabe
[snip]
> Hey I don't want to argue politics either. Suffice to say I wouldn't
> vote for a Democrat even if it wasn't someone as easy to disrespect as
> Al Gore (self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet).
First, why does no one want to argue politics? WHY!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? It's
a grand and important discussion to have -- ultimately we can all agree
to disagree, can't we?
Second, from the Washington Post:
"The vice president's recent comment that he "took the initiative in
creating the Internet" opened Gore up for wide derision, because the
global computer network had its beginnings more than 25 years ago.
...Despite the partisan mirth, many of the researchers and venerated
propeller-heads who did have a hand in the Internet's creation said Gore
deserves substantial credit for passing a number of bills that boosted
supercomputing and high-speed communications networks, which in turn
helped create the Internet as it exists today."
MarchHare, you know as well as I that Gore never claimed he "invented
the Internet."
I suppose that was an example of using one quote to make a whole mess of things.
But, I guess it's fair to say that that "is the basics."
:-)
Joey Joe Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo
<snip>
>
> On his December 5, 1999 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl:
> Leslie Stahl: "I know something you that most people don't probably
> know. I can't believe it but, you hypnotize chickens."
> Gore: "I learned how to do that as a kid. I really did."
>
<snip>
> To heck with McCain in 2004
> Let's hear it for McCain VENTURA in 2004 (heh)
>
No, no, no...Iggy Pop in 2004.
Lust for life, homeboy.
Jeff
--
the Doug
I'm for Wavy Gravy's plan.
Have you heard of it?
It's called "Nobody for president" or something like that.
It's all about adding an option for people to vote "No choice."
That way the numbers will reflect how many voters actually go through the
voting process, but don't believe in the candidates.
It's better than voting for someone because you hate the other guy.
the Doug
Thad Thompson
>First, why does no one want to argue politics? WHY!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? It's
>a grand and important discussion to have -- ultimately we can all agree
>to disagree, can't we?
Sorry to say, but a lot of the time we can't. I've seen lots of political
discussions get bitter and vitriolic very fast, and people staying mad at each
other for a long time.
Something about differing political views tends to be more offensive than a
nasty word. "How can you possibly *think* that?" And the inevitable going to
extremes: Nazi vs. Communist, and the like.
Music discussions, and over art in general seem to be more civil. Most of the
time.
avoiding the minefield for now,
-TLT
---
Thad Thompson
TL...@aol.com
-- Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom: No matter how great your
SereneBabe
>
> Heather said:
>
> >First, why does no one want to argue politics? WHY!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? It's
> >a grand and important discussion to have -- ultimately we can all agree
> >to disagree, can't we?
>
> Sorry to say, but a lot of the time we can't. I've seen lots of political
> discussions get bitter and vitriolic very fast, and people staying mad at each
> other for a long time.
>
> Something about differing political views tends to be more offensive than a
> nasty word. "How can you possibly *think* that?" And the inevitable going to
> extremes: Nazi vs. Communist, and the like.
Hmmm... I suppose people who want to talk about the stuff will, and
those who don't, won't, huh.
I am SOOOO deep.
Ish.
Edddddddd
such crappy candidates to choose from. Even the four that it was down to
before weren't much better. They all have almost the exact same views, so
the only thing they can do to differentiate themselves from the other
candidates is mudslinging. Bradley would probably have been okay, but he
never had a chance. And I'm sure everyone knows that the people who voted
for McCain didn't really like him, they just thought it would be funny.
Alan Keyes is crazy. He jumped into a mosh pit thinking it would get him
some "cred." Bush and Gore have the same views on every issue: for
campaign reform, Pro-Life, against gun control, for the death penalty,
against universal health care, and will cut taxes. Some choice, eh? I
think I'm going to vote for Jello Biafra. If I vote at all.
--
Ed Parker kh...@tmbg.org ICQ# 4693418
"I'm not wearing any pants...film at 11."-Kentucky Fried Movie
"You will never know what it feels like to be truly adequate."-Phil
Hartman, Newsradio
Hew
> I don't know about anybody else but it really dissappoints me
> that we have such crappy candidates to choose from.
right on. i was watching part of the Feminist Expo on c-span last night
and a speaker said "women are gaining political power. we're the ones
who picked these presidential candidates!" i had trouble picking up the
thread of the speech after that because i thought she was going to talk
about how women need to choose wisely or whatever, but no, she was
bragging. i can't believe there's someone who wants to take credit for
bush AND gore.
a
Gem
> Heather said:
>
> >First, why does no one want to argue politics? WHY!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? It's
> >a grand and important discussion to have -- ultimately we can all agree
> >to disagree, can't we?
>
> Sorry to say, but a lot of the time we can't. I've seen lots of political
> discussions get bitter and vitriolic very fast, and people staying mad at
each
> other for a long time.
bah! that's because people can't agree to disagree. i don't very much like
zealots of any kind. religious, political, musical. those "i am right and
you are wrong" type drive me crazy.
> Something about differing political views tends to be more offensive than
a
> nasty word. "How can you possibly *think* that?" And the inevitable
going to
> extremes: Nazi vs. Communist, and the like.
>
> Music discussions, and over art in general seem to be more civil. Most of
the
> time.
you wanna nasty argument?
get a roomful of wisconsinites and minnesotans and just say, "duck, duck. .
."
watch the fireworks fly.
--gem
"And I followed him through corridors of make believe and love," Jeanette
Winterson.
Thad Thompson
>you wanna nasty argument?
>
>get a roomful of wisconsinites and minnesotans and just say, "duck, duck.
>.
>."
>
>watch the fireworks fly.
There is one grey goose in the park where I go walking. Whenever I walk by, it
honks at me.
It never said whether it was a duck in disguise or not.
whoooooonk,
the Doug
----------
In article <tYSF4.7345$is2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Gem"
<Gemi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> you wanna nasty argument?
>
> get a roomful of wisconsinites and minnesotans and just say, "duck, duck. .
> ."
>
> watch the fireworks fly.
>
I think you could get the same results from a roomful of Minnesotans and, I
don't know- anybody else?
Grey duck my ass.
the Doug
Joey Joe Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo
--
SereneBabe
>
> I don't know about anybody else but it really dissappoints me that we have
> before weren't much better. They all have almost the exact same views, so
> the only thing they can do to differentiate themselves from the other
> candidates is mudslinging. Bradley would probably have been okay, but he
> never had a chance. And I'm sure everyone knows that the people who voted
> for McCain didn't really like him, they just thought it would be funny.
> Alan Keyes is crazy. He jumped into a mosh pit thinking it would get him
> some "cred." Bush and Gore have the same views on every issue: for
> campaign reform, Pro-Life, against gun control, for the death penalty,
> against universal health care, and will cut taxes. Some choice, eh? I
> think I'm going to vote for Jello Biafra. If I vote at all.
That was a GORGEOUS summary!
I don't get why people hate Al so much. I really don't. I'm pro-choice
'til the ends of the earth, but I don't mind that he's done some pretty
anti-choicey things in his day. As long as he knows being pro-choice
will get and keep my vote, I trust he'll be pro-choice (since he's so on
the line already).
What's wrong with Al (not al)? Can you tell me what you think?
--Heather
the Doug
----------
In article <38E89247...@serenebabe.com>, SereneBabe
<newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
>
> What's wrong with Al (not al)? Can you tell me what you think?
>
> --Heather
>
He's married to Tipper, who needs to stay far far away from the White House.
the Doug
March Hare
seren...@serenebabe.com wrote:
> Edddddddd wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > Bush and Gore have the same views on every issue: for
> > campaign reform,
requires rewriting the First Amendment, BAD.
> >Pro-Life,
I'm personally pro-choice, I just choose life, if it were up to me. But
it's not, nor should be.
> > against gun control,
Wot? we don't have gun control laws?
> > for the death penalty,
DNA testing will soon resolve almost all if not all doubtful cases.
May not help some folks in time, but it ought to insure no not-guilty
defendants are executed in the future.
> > against universal health care, and will cut taxes. Some choice, eh?
Those are both GOOD positions to have, or some think so.
> > think I'm going to vote for Jello Biafra. If I vote at all.
>
I'm voting for Bill the Cat.
Or maybe Pat Paulsen. So what if he's Canadian.
> That was a GORGEOUS summary!
>
> I don't get why people hate Al so much. I really don't. I'm pro-choice
> 'til the ends of the earth, but I don't mind that he's done some
pretty
> anti-choicey things in his day. As long as he knows being pro-choice
> will get and keep my vote, I trust he'll be pro-choice (since he's so
on
> the line already).
>
> What's wrong with Al (not al)? Can you tell me what you think?
>
> --Heather
>
> March 29: "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful"
I don't!
>;o)
In article <38E89247...@serenebabe.com>,
seren...@serenebabe.com wrote:
> Edddddddd wrote:
[snip]
>
> I don't get why people hate Al so much. I really don't. I'm pro-choice
> 'til the ends of the earth, but I don't mind that he's done some
pretty
> anti-choicey things in his day. As long as he knows being pro-choice
> will get and keep my vote, I trust he'll be pro-choice (since he's so
on
> the line already).
>
> What's wrong with Al (not al)? Can you tell me what you think?
>
> --Heather
What's wrong with Al? In the interests of equal time, the following,
for starters.
Here's the actual Internet quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet," Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments
that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former
Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer
on CNN on March 9, 1999.
I don't much care for some of his views on environmentalism either.
(I'd say they're a bit alarmist and extremist). Here are some quotes
taken from Gore's book Earth in the Balance:
"It seems an easy choice - sacrifice the tree for a human life - until
one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated.
...Suddenly we must confront some tough questions. How important are
the medical needs of future generations?" -page 119
"Within the context of the SEI (Strategic Environment Initiative), it
ought be able to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish
the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustible
engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period." -page 325
Does that mean we are saying goodbye to the family car?
"… It is not merely in the service of analogy that I have referred so
often to the struggles against Nazi and communist totalitarianism,
because I believe that the emerging effort to save the environment is a
continuation of these struggles." -page 275
There's WAY too much to include it all here.
I'll post the following link, and hope it works. As M.Doughty once said
(on Moonlight Meditations): "Let the PEOPLE decide"
(I hope this works - I highly recommend Metacrawler, btw:)
http://search.metacrawler.com/crawler?xmap=09501871281237539995&general=
Al+Gore+quotes&method=0&rpp=20&hpe=10®ion=0&timeout=0&sort=0&refer=mc
-search&format=beta99
or try:
http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm
I readily admit I am a bit dubious of those who willingly take democrat
hype at face value or unquestionably accept the soundness of the left
position on all issues, and maybe my own unwilligness to buy into the
rhetoric of the left (however flowery-altruistic, noble and well-
intentioned - call me a skeptic) makes me a hypocrite. *Shrug* I
really don't care HOW people vote, I just wish people were less
misinformed in general (Soul Coughing reference!). Wm.F.Buckley of all
people once spoke at the University of Minnesota some years back and
said the misinformed shouldn't go vote. He took heat for suggesting the
uneducated not be allowed to vote, but that's not what he said, or
meant, and what's more he wasn't mistaken. Idiots stay home ! Oh wait,
that'd mean a 10% turnout, we can't have that! Why is it heavy turnouts
favor democrats anyway? Could it be they have a corner on the ignorant
vote?
In fairness, I do constantly find my civil liberties under the threat
of assault from both parties, the most extremist elements of which,
with the loudest voices, seem to be shaping their respective parties'
policies it seems. I say let's let the moral relativist marginalized
fringe dwellers have the democratic party, and the theocrat absolutist
social arch conservatives have the republican party, while we in the
disaffected taxpayer middle flex our heretofore dormant political clout
to their collective dismay. "In the best of all possible worlds,"
Voltaire would write.
I agree it's primarily about issues or at least, it ought to be, it's
just that in this case, if one opposes Gore's policies, it's so much
simpler to point to all the asinine things he's said - hey it's HIS
fault for providing so much fuel. It's no different with Bush, the
people who attack him probably also do it because at heart they don't
like republicans. These motives may be present, but to say a person has
an "anti" bias says nothing about the substance or merits of the
criticisms leveled. If anything it skirts the issue.
End public-service, civic-duty rant #2.
Laissez Faire Hare out.
>#^P
"A zebra does not change it's spots." - Al Gore
March Hare
"the Doug" <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <38E89247...@serenebabe.com>, SereneBabe
> <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --Heather
> >
>
House.
>
> the Doug
>
Unless, The, instead of Whitehouse.gov, we're talking about
Whitehouse.com.
Yeah baby! Can y'all say "very giving" ?
And hey if Al can get votes based on the "arousal gap" (I'm sure he
will), then why not Tipper too?
think I'll buy me a football team.
Hare
Edddddddd
>
> That was a GORGEOUS summary!
>
> I don't get why people hate Al so much. I really don't. I'm pro-choice
> 'til the ends of the earth, but I don't mind that he's done some pretty
> anti-choicey things in his day. As long as he knows being pro-choice
> will get and keep my vote, I trust he'll be pro-choice (since he's so on
> the line already).
>
>
> --Heather
Well, I like Al Gore better than Bush2 but he's pretty conservative for a
democrat (not that I love the Democrats, I think it's because I'd like to
have a better choice). And Tipper's a looney. She's the reason CDs have
those Parental Advisory Stickers. Plus Al was involved in a number of shady
business deals involving campaign financing and some other things,
including some that can make one think he's been bought by the Japanese and
replaced by a not-so-realistic-looking clone.
shawn
Edddddddd <ste...@osprey.net> wrote in message
news:01bf9dce$4d4bcba0$ae5086d1@hinrichs...
> And Tipper's a looney. She's the reason CDs have
> those Parental Advisory Stickers.
And why is this necessarily a bad thing?
the Doug
----------
In article <s5kG4.60518$17.13...@news4.giganews.com>, "shawn"
<shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
When you put a rating or an advisory on a movie, you are rating a
simulation.
There were writers, producers, directors and actors that worked together to
create one work.
That work is an illusion. It is also packaged as "MOVIE TITLE" produced by
whoever, written by whoever, presented by whoever.
When you slap a warning on a book or a recording, you make judgment upon an
artist's (or collaborative group of artist's) output.
If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting judgment upon
the art created, and ergo- the artist.
the Doug
Monkey Jim
but it is a different way to look at the issue...
--
Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures.
Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42
muscles in your face to frown BUT,
it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and slap
the motherfucker upside the head...
"the Doug" <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote in message
news:8cdbs8$lp1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Thad Thompson
>If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting judgment upon
>the art created, and ergo- the artist.
There's also a business angle to it. There are some stores (aka, WAL MART)
that usually refuse to sell albums/movies/books with warnings posted on them.
Less sales, less money, artist goes broke, les art.
Of course, in some cases this can backfire, and the kids will buy something
BECAUSE it has a warning sticker on it.
And finally, I think that it's really too subjective of a matter. What gives
anyone the right to pass judgement on a recording? Certainly not the PMRC.
Here's objective judement for you: after Frank Zappa's jousting with the
Commission, they stuck a warning label on every single one of his recordings,
even "Jazz from Hell"... which is entirely instrumental.
nazi punks fuck off,
March Hare
tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
> The Doug said:
>
> >If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting
judgment upon
> >the art created, and ergo- the artist.
>
> There's also a business angle to it. There are some stores (aka, WAL
MART)
> that usually refuse to sell albums/movies/books with warnings posted
on them.
> Less sales, less money, artist goes broke, les art.
>
> Of course, in some cases this can backfire, and the kids will buy
something
> BECAUSE it has a warning sticker on it.
>
> And finally, I think that it's really too subjective of a matter.
What gives
> anyone the right to pass judgement on a recording? Certainly not the
PMRC.
> Here's objective judement for you: after Frank Zappa's jousting with
the
> Commission, they stuck a warning label on every single one of his
recordings,
> even "Jazz from Hell"... which is entirely instrumental.
>
> nazi punks fuck off,
> -TLT
>
Couple quick points.
1.I have no moral problem "judging" art. There IS such a thing as
"crap" art, IMNSHO. Why do we have no problem saying as a society, oh,
that person is a better athlete than that other person, yet when it
comes to art we're supposed to suddenly pretend it's all of equal
merit? Bullshit, that's nothing more than the emperor's new clothes.
Rather, my offense to affixing rating labels is the fundamental notion
that we need government censors imposing filtering mechanisms in order
to save us (and our children) from ourselves, and rather badly I might
add. At most that's supposed to be the parents' job.
2.Thad's not wrong either. Part of my job is submitting ALL new
computer games we publish, to the Entertainment Software Rating Board
for an ESRB rating (that's that big stenciled letter in the corner of
all computer games and ads for games). Before Columbine it was no big
deal, but after it surfaced that Klebold and Harris were avowed
"Doomers", Wal-Mart, K-Mart and their mass merchant cousins refused to
carry any unrated titles. It's supposed to be "voluntary" but like the
movies it isn't really. When was the last time you saw an Unrated film
at your local suburban multiplex, hmm?
suspect has hit another vehicle,
Hare out
SereneBabe
[snip]
> I don't much care for some of his views on environmentalism either.
> (I'd say they're a bit alarmist and extremist). Here are some quotes
> taken from Gore's book Earth in the Balance:
>
> "It seems an easy choice - sacrifice the tree for a human life - until
> one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated.
> ...Suddenly we must confront some tough questions. How important are
> the medical needs of future generations?" -page 119
>
> "Within the context of the SEI (Strategic Environment Initiative), it
> ought be able to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish
> the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustible
> engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period." -page 325
> Does that mean we are saying goodbye to the family car?
>
> "… It is not merely in the service of analogy that I have referred so
> often to the struggles against Nazi and communist totalitarianism,
> because I believe that the emerging effort to save the environment is a
> continuation of these struggles." -page 275
Um.
And what were you saying was wrong with Al?
Sounds good to me, all that stuff.
Though I'm always hesitant to compare anything to the Nazis -- I don't
thing the comment is far off.
Enviromentalism bores me to tears, but I'm glad some people are working
their asses off like he does.
--Heather
********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
March 29: "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful"
SereneBabe
>[I wrote:]
> > What's wrong with Al (not al)? Can you tell me what you think?
>
> democrat (not that I love the Democrats, I think it's because I'd like to
> have a better choice). And Tipper's a looney. She's the reason CDs have
> those Parental Advisory Stickers. Plus Al was involved in a number of shady
> business deals involving campaign financing and some other things,
> including some that can make one think he's been bought by the Japanese and
> replaced by a not-so-realistic-looking clone.
Here's a question for all of you -- who would you like to see as
president? Really and truly, who would you like to see running our country?
Of course, being the Candybar, I suspect this could get silly. But, I
thought I'd see what folks have got to say.
Here's my list:
President Tom Harkin
Vice President Hillary Clinton
President ____ Biden (I forget his balding headed name, Tom also?)
Vice President Diane Feinstein (sp?)
President Paul Wellstone
Vice President Barbara Boxer
President Homer Simpson
Vice President Lisa Simpson
shawn
> <shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > Edddddddd <ste...@osprey.net> wrote in message
> > news:01bf9dce$4d4bcba0$ae5086d1@hinrichs...
> >> those Parental Advisory Stickers.
> >
> >
> When you put a rating or an advisory on a movie, you are rating a
> simulation.
>
> There were writers, producers, directors and actors that worked together
to
> create one work.
>
> That work is an illusion. It is also packaged as "MOVIE TITLE" produced by
> whoever, written by whoever, presented by whoever.
>
> When you slap a warning on a book or a recording, you make judgment upon
an
> artist's (or collaborative group of artist's) output.
>
upon
> the art created, and ergo- the artist.
Short answer: So what?
Longer answer: Most popular music is not "art". Most of it is "product".
Ninety-nine percent of what constitutes the "objectionable material" does
not fall into the "artistic statement" category. Defend it as free speech
as you want, but I don't even think that's the issue. If a parent wants
some way to judge the suitability of this music for their children, and they
don't have the time or money to personally screen every album on the
Billboard 100, and they believe that the PMRC (or whatever the governing
body concerning this is) more or less reflects their values as parents, then
why shouldn't they be afforded the favor of this warning? It's not
censorship. It's a fucking 1" by 1/2" sticker. And if they don't sell it
at the Wal-Mart? Well, fuck Wal-Mart. What is anybody doing buying music
there anyway?
shawn
> Rather, my offense to affixing rating labels is the fundamental notion
> that we need government censors imposing filtering mechanisms in order
> to save us (and our children) from ourselves, and rather badly I might
> add.
Let me put this in mathematical terms:
Rating != Censorship
For all you English Majors out there: That means "Rating does not equal
Censorship". Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped you
from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what: it ain't
censorship.
> At most that's supposed to be the parents' job.
And the idea behind this is to help the parent do that job. What is the big
problem with this? If you don't agree with their judgment, then buy what
you want. And buy your kids whatever you think is suitable for them as
well.
the Doug
----------
In article <uluG4.11031$9g4.4...@news5.giganews.com>, "shawn"
<shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
Agreed. But the key word here is "most." The explanation I gave for why the
PMRC is a bad thing is a paraphrasing of Zappa's, who was an artist. But
when you impose a ratings system on art, you have to throw the baby out with
the bath water. Everyone gets the stamp. If it truly wasn't mandatory, and
recording artists really had a choice about the labels, we wouldn't be
having this discussion.
> Ninety-nine percent of what constitutes the "objectionable material" does
> not fall into the "artistic statement" category. Defend it as free speech
> as you want, but I don't even think that's the issue. If a parent wants
> some way to judge the suitability of this music for their children, and they
> don't have the time or money to personally screen every album on the
> Billboard 100, and they believe that the PMRC (or whatever the governing
> body concerning this is) more or less reflects their values as parents, then
> why shouldn't they be afforded the favor of this warning? It's not
> censorship. It's a fucking 1" by 1/2" sticker. And if they don't sell it
> at the Wal-Mart? Well, fuck Wal-Mart. What is anybody doing buying music
> there anyway?
>
>
I agree that it is a good thing for parents to be aware of what their kids
are listening to. And I know I live in a fantasy world but I think a better
way than labelling is for parents to talk to their children. Sans that, if
your children are under the age of 18 (and let's face it, they are the only
ones affected by this) then it is your duty to pay attention to what your
kids do. Forget the notion of screening the Billboard 100 and just listen to
what your kids buy. There are other ways to learn about the objectionable
material. For example- ask the store clerk.
At heart, I don't have much of a problem with the ratings system itself. I
have a problem with the precedent. Say only 1% of the stickered albums are
art. That is art that has been judged and labelled by a value system
unrelated to the artist. That is an artist that has been judged. It is a
door that has been opened. The question is where does it stop?
the Doug
the Doug
----------
In article <8cdos4$u9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, March Hare <marc...@wack.com>
wrote:
> In article <20000404152535...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
>> The Doug said:
>>
>> >If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting
> judgment upon
>> >the art created, and ergo- the artist.
>>
[snip]
>>
>
> Couple quick points.
> 1.I have no moral problem "judging" art. There IS such a thing as
> "crap" art, IMNSHO.
And that is fine. It is your opinion. I don't think anyone would say that
there is no crap art. The key here is not in judging art, but whether or not
judging it for other people is a good idea.
>Why do we have no problem saying as a society, oh,
> that person is a better athlete than that other person, yet when it
> comes to art we're supposed to suddenly pretend it's all of equal
> merit? Bullshit, that's nothing more than the emperor's new clothes.
No, art by its very nature starts out on equal footing, then is left to the
beholder to decide for themself if it is of merit. It is all about taste and
opinion. In contrast, an athlete's quality can be judged by very specific
criteria, be it points scored, yards run or whatever. But in both cases the
judgment needs to be made AFTER the performance.
That's my $.02
the Doug
Gem
...
> The Doug said:
>
> >If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting judgment
upon
> >the art created, and ergo- the artist.
>
MART)
> that usually refuse to sell albums/movies/books with warnings posted on
them.
> Less sales, less money, artist goes broke, les art.
bah!
or in the case of the evil, evil wal-mart they just sell a censored version
of the cd-- but don't really tell you unless your read the teeny, tiny,
itty, bitty writing on the price tag.
it sucks and some of us like the smut.
Gem
> Couple quick points.
> 1.I have no moral problem "judging" art. There IS such a thing as
> "crap" art, IMNSHO. Why do we have no problem saying as a society, oh,
> that person is a better athlete than that other person, yet when it
> comes to art we're supposed to suddenly pretend it's all of equal
> merit? Bullshit, that's nothing more than the emperor's new clothes.
> Rather, my offense to affixing rating labels is the fundamental notion
> that we need government censors imposing filtering mechanisms in order
> to save us (and our children) from ourselves, and rather badly I might
> add. At most that's supposed to be the parents' job.
EXACTLY!
parental warning labels just make it easier for people to be lazy parents.
if i remember correctly, tipper got all bunged up because of the lyrics on
"purple rain." if she had paid any attention to anything, she'd have
realized what prince was all about.
but she blamed the record labels and such. . . when she really didn't have a
clue what she was letting her kids buy.
> 2.Thad's not wrong either. Part of my job is submitting ALL new
> computer games we publish, to the Entertainment Software Rating Board
> for an ESRB rating (that's that big stenciled letter in the corner of
> all computer games and ads for games). Before Columbine it was no big
> deal, but after it surfaced that Klebold and Harris were avowed
> "Doomers", Wal-Mart, K-Mart and their mass merchant cousins refused to
> carry any unrated titles. It's supposed to be "voluntary" but like the
> movies it isn't really. When was the last time you saw an Unrated film
> at your local suburban multiplex, hmm?
ironic.
doesn't both wal-mart and k-mart still sell guns?
Gem
> > that we need government censors imposing filtering mechanisms in order
> > to save us (and our children) from ourselves, and rather badly I might
> > add.
>
>
> Rating != Censorship
>
> For all you English Majors out there: That means "Rating does not equal
> Censorship". Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped you
> from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what: it
ain't
> censorship.
but i beg, beg, beg to differ.
perhaps not in the musical sense. maybe the parental warning stickers don't
really matter.
but in the motion picture sense, ratings do equal censorship. at least in
some form.
how many times have you heard about movies having to be re-edited to gain
the R rating?
eyes wide shut, i believe was re-edited. i know american psycho has to edit
out a sodomy scene (yet all the nasty violence gets to say).
granted perhaps it's not censorship per se. but everyone knows an NC-17 or
X movie isn't gonna do jack at the box office, if it even gets a wide
release.
while it shouldn't have to be about money and box office grosses, that's how
things work.
> > At most that's supposed to be the parents' job.
>
> And the idea behind this is to help the parent do that job. What is the
big
> problem with this? If you don't agree with their judgment, then buy what
> you want. And buy your kids whatever you think is suitable for them as
> well.
ick.
why should a parent need help in doing this sort of job? as a parent i
think you should not only be interested in but aware of what your kids are
listening to. do a bit of research. don't let the government do the
parenting for you.
Gem
> > > Edddddddd <ste...@osprey.net> wrote in message
> > > news:01bf9dce$4d4bcba0$ae5086d1@hinrichs...
> > >> And Tipper's a looney. She's the reason CDs have
> > >> those Parental Advisory Stickers.
> > >
> > > And why is this necessarily a bad thing?
> > >
> > When you put a rating or an advisory on a movie, you are rating a
> > simulation.
> >
> > There were writers, producers, directors and actors that worked together
> to
> > create one work.
> >
> > That work is an illusion. It is also packaged as "MOVIE TITLE" produced
by
> > whoever, written by whoever, presented by whoever.
> >
> > When you slap a warning on a book or a recording, you make judgment upon
> an
> > artist's (or collaborative group of artist's) output.
> >
> upon
> > the art created, and ergo- the artist.
>
>
> Longer answer: Most popular music is not "art". Most of it is "product".
> not fall into the "artistic statement" category.
mmm. now that's a judgement call. you could use the community standards or
what not. but i don't feel anyone is qualified to judge what others deem as
art.
> Defend it as free speech
> as you want, but I don't even think that's the issue. If a parent wants
> some way to judge the suitability of this music for their children, and
they
> don't have the time or money to personally screen every album on the
> Billboard 100, and they believe that the PMRC (or whatever the governing
> body concerning this is) more or less reflects their values as parents,
then
> why shouldn't they be afforded the favor of this warning?
i am not sure how much time, effort and money it takes to research who your
kids are listening to. kids will yammer on and on about whomever their
favorite is. all you have to do is listen.
> It's not
> censorship. It's a fucking 1" by 1/2" sticker. And if they don't sell it
> at the Wal-Mart? Well, fuck Wal-Mart. What is anybody doing buying music
> there anyway?
well, sometimes you get those crazy gift certificate for christmas
and. . .
ummm. . . .
well you can only buy so much shampoo.
Thad Thompson
>or in the case of the evil, evil wal-mart they just sell a censored version
>of the cd-- but don't really tell you unless your read the teeny, tiny,
>itty, bitty writing on the price tag.
They go bananas over cover art too. Remember the dabacle with The Black
Crowes' "Amorica"? Oh my god, HAIR!!! My personal favorite is when they
wouldn't stock a Goo Goo Dolls (!) album because of the cover art. What was
it? A picture of the frontman when he was a kid, when he managed to smear
strawberry jam all over himself.
The Wal Mart folks said it looked like blood, and pulled it.
Of course, once it cracked the Top 20, it mysteriously reappeared....
double-edged standard,
the Doug
----------
In article <20000404233406...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
> Gem said:
>
>>or in the case of the evil, evil wal-mart they just sell a censored version
>>of the cd-- but don't really tell you unless your read the teeny, tiny,
>>itty, bitty writing on the price tag.
>
> They go bananas over cover art too. Remember the dabacle with The Black
> Crowes' "Amorica"? Oh my god, HAIR!!! My personal favorite is when they
> wouldn't stock a Goo Goo Dolls (!) album because of the cover art. What was
> it? A picture of the frontman when he was a kid, when he managed to smear
> strawberry jam all over himself.
>
> The Wal Mart folks said it looked like blood, and pulled it.
>
> Of course, once it cracked the Top 20, it mysteriously reappeared....
>
> double-edged standard,
Yeah- and they pulled Sheryl Crow for bitching about how they censor albums
yet still sell guns.
the Doug
March Hare
"Gem" <Gemi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> march hare wrote:
> [snip]
> if i remember correctly, tipper got all bunged up because of the
lyrics on
> "purple rain." if she had paid any attention to anything, she'd have
> realized what prince was all about.
it was "darling nikki" to be precise. right album though. i'd hate to
think what might happen if she'd got hold of "controversy".
[snip]
damn I had a great closing quote at the coffee shop but now I've
forgotten. I hate that,
Hare out.
March Hare
>
[snip]
>
> Let me put this in mathematical terms:
>
> Rating != Censorship
>
> For all you English Majors out there: That means "Rating does not
equal
> Censorship". Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped
you
> from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what:
it ain't
> censorship.
>
>
> And the idea behind this is to help the parent do that job. What is
the big
> problem with this? If you don't agree with their judgment, then buy
what
> you want. And buy your kids whatever you think is suitable for them
as
> well.
>
just another intrusion on yet another facet of our lives. one i could
do without. give me a more dangerous, and autonomous society versus a
safer, more sanitized, but less free one.
I am not left-handed,
>Bo7-~
"I'm not left-handed either" - The Dread Pirate Roberts
March Hare
"the Doug" <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <8cdos4$u9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, March Hare
<marc...@wack.com>
> wrote:
>
> > tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
> >> The Doug said:
> >>
> >> >If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting
> > judgment upon
> >> >the art created, and ergo- the artist.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Couple quick points.
> > 1.I have no moral problem "judging" art. There IS such a thing as
> > "crap" art, IMNSHO.
>
that
> there is no crap art. The key here is not in judging art, but whether
or not
> judging it for other people is a good idea.
>
> > that person is a better athlete than that other person, yet when it
> > comes to art we're supposed to suddenly pretend it's all of equal
> > merit? Bullshit, that's nothing more than the emperor's new
clothes.
>
to the
> beholder to decide for themself if it is of merit. It is all about
taste and
> opinion. In contrast, an athlete's quality can be judged by very
specific
> criteria, be it points scored, yards run or whatever. But in both
cases the
> judgment needs to be made AFTER the performance.
>
> That's my $.02
>
> the Doug
>
people don't realize this) -namely, the artist's skill in wielding the
tools of technique and COMPOSITION. it is the "artful" use, or clumsy
use of these which AFFECTS the formation of the taste and opinion in
the mind of the viewer, albeit on a subconscious level. a good artist
does so effortlessly, and good art doesn't usually come across as
having had to WORK to achieve good composition or technique - it just
flows. that's why some art and artists are better than others, IMFUO.
the viewer is just not aware of it unless he or she takes some time to
actually study what's going on with the work, where the focal points
are, how it makes the eye move, etc.
but we agree that it's not the job of the thought police to decide for
us, we just agree for different reasons is all.
What the fuck was I talking about,
>Bo7-~
March Hare
seren...@serenebabe.com wrote:
> March Hare wrote:
> [snip]
> > What's wrong with Al?
> > I don't much care for some of his views on environmentalism either.
> > (I'd say they're a bit alarmist and extremist). Here are some
quotes
> > taken from Gore's book Earth in the Balance:
> >
> > "It seems an easy choice - sacrifice the tree for a human life -
until
> > one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient
treated.
> > ...Suddenly we must confront some tough questions. How important are
> > the medical needs of future generations?" -page 119
> >
> > "Within the context of the SEI (Strategic Environment Initiative),
it
> > ought be able to establish a coordinated global program to
accomplish
> > the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal
combustible
> > engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period." -page 325
> > Does that mean we are saying goodbye to the family car?
> >
> > "… It is not merely in the service of analogy that I have referred
so
> > often to the struggles against Nazi and communist totalitarianism,
> > because I believe that the emerging effort to save the environment
is a
> > continuation of these struggles." -page 275
>
>
> And what were you saying was wrong with Al?
>
> Sounds good to me, all that stuff.
Sounds good to me too, except for the parts about eliminating the
internal combustion engine, about global programs, about even
considering valuing three trees over a single human life and
simultaneously equating the environmental cause with the fight against
both fascism and communism which claimed millions of lives (and which
are at opposite ends of the political spectrum at that).
but yeah, other than that it's all good.
Frank Zappa was right,
>#^P
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
shawn <shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JtuG4.11045$9g4.4...@news5.giganews.com...
> > that we need government censors imposing filtering mechanisms in order
> > to save us (and our children) from ourselves, and rather badly I might
> > add.
>
>
> Rating != Censorship
>
> For all you English Majors out there: That means "Rating does not equal
> Censorship". Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped you
> from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what: it
ain't
> censorship.
censorship. they won't play a song that has a label affixed to it on the
radio.
you want censorship?
as of 1995, the radio station that dared to play George Carlin's act, Seven
Words You Can't Say on Television, were still paying off their legal fees
from a case that happened in the 70's.
the real issue here isn't labels, judgments, or warnings. the real issue is
to attempt to dissect and understand why those in power are so razzled by
words they use daily themselves.
lenny bruce and george carlin went over this shit. the word in and of
itself is not harmful, or "bad." it's the intention of the speaker that
matters. what is bad about a word that says the same thing that "feces"
says?
bruce went to jail for saying cocksucker during a performance. carlin
caused a censorship case to go to the supreme court.
if you try to play a CD that has a label on it in this FREE country, you
will get busted. the law will come down on your head.
they decide what words are acceptable and which are not. it is that simple.
is that censorship?
>
> > At most that's supposed to be the parents' job.
>
> And the idea behind this is to help the parent do that job. What is the
big
> problem with this? If you don't agree with their judgment, then buy what
> you want. And buy your kids whatever you think is suitable for them as
> well.
>
herein lies the question again: why do the parents have to do this "job" of
preventing certain words from being spoken? what is wrong with these words?
why is it that the act of sex in detail cannot be shown to kids, but blowing
someone's head off and firing a round from an Uzi gets the "okay" from those
in charge so that kids can see it?
no, labels aren't censorship. they're after the fact.
ngruk
SereneBabe
[snip]
> Sounds good to me too, except for
> considering valuing three trees over a single human life and
> simultaneously equating the environmental cause with the fight against
> both fascism and communism which claimed millions of lives
> but yeah, other than that it's all good.
The destruction of the environment could lead to the death of millions.
We went to war in WWII to save lives, but it cost us lives to do it.
It isn't to say that human life isn't important (three trees saved while
killing one human), it is to say, one human life might be worth the fate
of the three trees because those three trees might save many more human
lives. (Now, wouldn't *this* be silly out of context?)
:-)
Heather
********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
March 29: "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful"
SereneBabe
>
> March Hare wrote:
> [snip]
> > Sounds good to me too, except for
> [snip]
> > considering valuing three trees over a single human life and
> > simultaneously equating the environmental cause with the fight against
> > both fascism and communism which claimed millions of lives
> [snip]
> > but yeah, other than that it's all good.
> [snip]
>
> The destruction of the environment could lead to the death of millions.
>
> We went to war in WWII to save lives, but it cost us lives to do it.
>
> It isn't to say that human life isn't important (three trees saved while
> killing one human), it is to say, one human life might be worth the fate
> of the three trees because those three trees might save many more human
> lives. (Now, wouldn't *this* be silly out of context?)
Ish.
I just re-read that and the analogy or metaphor or whatever the hell
example is difficult.
What I mean to say is I do think one human life MIGHT be worth saving
three trees.
I do not mean that LITERALLY as in I think if it came down to a direct
choice, face-to-face, person or trees -- I mean that ideologically (if
that's how that's spelled)... in other words: the environment is awfully
fucking important.
Martin the Evil
Gem wrote
>march hare wrote:
>
>> Couple quick points.
>> 1.I have no moral problem "judging" art. There IS such a thing as
>> that person is a better athlete than that other person, yet when it
>> comes to art we're supposed to suddenly pretend it's all of equal
>> merit? Bullshit, that's nothing more than the emperor's new clothes.
>> that we need government censors imposing filtering mechanisms in order
>> to save us (and our children) from ourselves, and rather badly I might
>
>EXACTLY!
>
>parental warning labels just make it easier for people to be lazy parents.
>
>"purple rain." if she had paid any attention to anything, she'd have
>realized what prince was all about.
>
a
>clue what she was letting her kids buy.
I SO agree with Gem. how about if Parents do the FUCKING work themselves
and take an active interest in their children. In their childrens lives and
activities. First we had Television as a substitute babysitter. Now
computers and the internet and Sega and Video games. WTF? Sure I surf and
play games. I'm not saying it's wrong for me or children or anyone. It's
the LACK of supervision and PARTICIPATION. Give a listen to LiMp BiZkIt
with your kid, yo? You may not LIKE the music, but what's it about? Read
the lyrics, don't be judgemental. Whatever, it's just about the awareness
and involvement.
And get your damn kid outside some, huh? : )
>> 2.Thad's not wrong either. Part of my job is submitting ALL new
>> computer games we publish, to the Entertainment Software Rating Board
>> for an ESRB rating (that's that big stenciled letter in the corner of
>> all computer games and ads for games). Before Columbine it was no big
>> deal, but after it surfaced that Klebold and Harris were avowed
>> "Doomers", Wal-Mart, K-Mart and their mass merchant cousins refused to
>> carry any unrated titles. It's supposed to be "voluntary" but like the
>> movies it isn't really. When was the last time you saw an Unrated film
>> at your local suburban multiplex, hmm?
>
>ironic.
>
>doesn't both wal-mart and k-mart still sell guns?
BOOM. Nail on the head. How FUCKING hypocritical is it. Not sure about
the K, but Walmart sells guns. Walmart is all about old school traditional
values. Can't sell the harmless games with pretend violence or music with
naughty words. There's that context issue. BUT they will distribute the
guns?
Don't get me wrong. The games aren't the cause of the killing. And neither
are the guns. Guns have a certain EASE to them, for killing, and ACCIDENTS.
Anyone think it's ironic that we do things to make killing EASIER?!? But
the games and guns are NOT the real issue.
It all goes back to morals and values.
And raising kids right.
Define "right."
I can't but I don't care who you are or where you come from. There are some
really basic principles that we could all live by.
lou
Martin the Evil
YES. And allow me to project forward to a world we destroy, whether it be
throught some very Sci-Fi ish Apocolypse. Or just through Overpopulation
and carelessness and mismanagement of our resources.
What value would one life out of a Gazillion be in the face of a barren and
Dieing Earth? And if it means the demise of mankind, likely it could, a
human life would be at the MOST worth no more than the Trees, and likely far
less.
My point is simply that the earth is not just beautiful, but VITAL in the
support of our lives on it. That whole eco-system thing. We are dependent
on it after all. So lets rate the value of the tree a little higher huh : )
Not to mention who would WANT to live in a world without trees anyway.
Oh god I'm rambling and not articulating WELL at all...
lou
Thad Thompson
>why is it that the act of sex in detail cannot be shown to kids, but blowing
>someone's head off and firing a round from an Uzi gets the "okay" from those
>in charge so that kids can see it?
I've always wondered about that.... here's a somewhat similar story from here
in Atlanta. Recently, an adolescent boy was hauled into court for torturing a
puppy. A few days after, the legislature tried float a bill to prevent this
sort of thing from happening, or at least to stiffen the penalties. By the
time it passed, most of the teeth had been taken out of the bill; it was then
basically a statement saying "torturing puppies is BAD."
Of course, a lot of people went through the roof over this, and were up in arms
first over the pup, and then over weakened bill.
Why is there never this kind of outrage when a human being gets shot? We're
that desensitised. The death of a human being is no longer shocking.
something's skewed,
Thad Thompson
>It isn't to say that human life isn't important (three trees saved while
>killing one human), it is to say, one human life might be worth the fate
>of the three trees because those three trees might save many more human
>lives. (Now, wouldn't *this* be silly out of context?)
Then Al needs a new editor, because it reads like he's in favor of trees vs.
humans.
and you can grow a new tree,
the Doug
----------
In article <8cen2k$utd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, March Hare <marc...@wack.com>
wrote:
> In article <8cea78$mtn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "the Doug" <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <8cdos4$u9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, March Hare
> <marc...@wack.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <20000404152535...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
>> > tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
>> >> The Doug said:
>> >>
>> >> >If that product has been labelled as offensive, it is casting
>> > judgment upon
>> >> >the art created, and ergo- the artist.
>> >>
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >
>> > Couple quick points.
>> > 1.I have no moral problem "judging" art. There IS such a thing as
>> > "crap" art, IMNSHO.
>>
>> And that is fine. It is your opinion. I don't think anyone would say
> that
>> there is no crap art. The key here is not in judging art, but whether
> or not
>> judging it for other people is a good idea.
>>
>> >Why do we have no problem saying as a society, oh,
>> > that person is a better athlete than that other person, yet when it
>> > comes to art we're supposed to suddenly pretend it's all of equal
>> > merit? Bullshit, that's nothing more than the emperor's new
> clothes.
>>
>> No, art by its very nature starts out on equal footing, then is left
> to the
>> beholder to decide for themself if it is of merit. It is all about
> taste and
>> opinion. In contrast, an athlete's quality can be judged by very
> specific
>> criteria, be it points scored, yards run or whatever. But in both
> cases the
>> judgment needs to be made AFTER the performance.
>>
>> That's my $.02
>>
>> the Doug
>>
> ah yes but art CAN be defined by specific objective criteria (most
> people don't realize this) -namely, the artist's skill in wielding the
> tools of technique and COMPOSITION. it is the "artful" use, or clumsy
> use of these which AFFECTS the formation of the taste and opinion in
> the mind of the viewer, albeit on a subconscious level. a good artist
> does so effortlessly, and good art doesn't usually come across as
> having had to WORK to achieve good composition or technique - it just
> flows. that's why some art and artists are better than others, IMFUO.
> the viewer is just not aware of it unless he or she takes some time to
> actually study what's going on with the work, where the focal points
> are, how it makes the eye move, etc.
It seems this dialogue has strayed from being about whether or not art
should be labelled to questioning the nature of what art "is" and how it is
defined.
And that is an entirely different beast altogether.
While your statements are not wrong they do seem to speak from a fixed point
of view. Any time you begin to assign criteria to art, you must first assume
that the work in question comes from an established historical perspective.
While your criteria are perfectly applicable to modes of graphic and object
based art, they negate the possibilities of concept, emotion and experience.
Art is not about crafting objects that appeal solely to sensibilities of
technique and composition. Ultimately that is a concept that has been dying
for 80 years. To judge a piece by these merits ignores any higher purpose
the artist may have.
The best art gives us something we didn't have before. It makes us see and
feel things that we otherwise couldn't have had. It makes us look at things
in ways we haven't thought of. And the most successful artists do this
without using established modes of creation.
And as I said before, ultimately the choice is up to the viewer as to
whether or not a piece of art is "good" or "successful." All of it is apples
and oranges. But judging artwork by a set list of criteria represents a
limitation in the viewer, not the art.
>
> but we agree that it's not the job of the thought police to decide for
> us, we just agree for different reasons is all.
>
>
Amen.
the Doug
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
>
>
> ----------
> In article <8cen2k$utd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, March Hare <marc...@wack.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ah yes but art CAN be defined by specific objective criteria (most
> > people don't realize this) -namely, the artist's skill in wielding the
> > tools of technique and COMPOSITION. it is the "artful" use, or clumsy
> > use of these which AFFECTS the formation of the taste and opinion in
> > the mind of the viewer, albeit on a subconscious level. a good artist
> > does so effortlessly, and good art doesn't usually come across as
> > having had to WORK to achieve good composition or technique - it just
> > flows. that's why some art and artists are better than others, IMFUO.
> > the viewer is just not aware of it unless he or she takes some time to
> > actually study what's going on with the work, where the focal points
> > are, how it makes the eye move, etc.
>
>
> It seems this dialogue has strayed from being about whether or not art
> should be labelled to questioning the nature of what art "is" and how it
is
> defined.
>
> And that is an entirely different beast altogether.
>
but it is also the crux of the beast of censorship as well. if you can't
define or understand art, how can you begin to control or censor it?
as for understanding art: Picasso once openly wept because he could not
achieve the visual perspective of a five year old boy. he obviously thought
art was something that could be mastered by a five year old, but not an
adult... or something of the sort.
ngruk
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
Thad Thompson <tl...@aol.compadre> wrote in message
news:20000405131022...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> and you can grow a new tree,
you can grow new babies, too.
in fact, too many of them only makes it worse for the rest of the babies.
if there were only a million people in the world, then maybe, yes, a human
life would be that precious.
but doesn't anyone remember evolution? survival of the fittest? perry
farrell?
... who said: "some people SHOULD die."
i'm not wishing death upon people, but i think we are a little full of
ourselves when we try to place so much value on a human life. we aren't
THAT hot. plus, too many of us just equals disaster... unless we get smart
enough to live off of the planet.
ngruk
shawn
Gem <Gemi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gFwG4.36213$pK3.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> shawn wrote:
> > Longer answer: Most popular music is not "art". Most of it is
"product".
> > Ninety-nine percent of what constitutes the "objectionable material"
does
> > not fall into the "artistic statement" category.
>
> mmm. now that's a judgement call. you could use the community standards
or
> what not. but i don't feel anyone is qualified to judge what others deem
as
> art.
The problem that I have with this sort of philosophical relativism is not
even that it's necessarily wrong but that I think it stifles discourse. The
underlying assumption -- that all opinions are equally valid -- seems to
render conversation and passionate belief essentially meaningless. Again,
I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I'm very disturbed by the implications.
In this particular instance, without getting into the larger issue of "What
is Art?", all I can say is that (I know I'm gonna catch hell for saying
this) I call it like I see it: Spice Girls? N'Sync? Brittany Spears?
Not art.
> i am not sure how much time, effort and money it takes to research who
your
> kids are listening to. kids will yammer on and on about whomever their
> favorite is. all you have to do is listen.
Taken on its own, yeah you're right. But in the context of an endless
succession of hectic days, I'm not sure this parenting thing is as easy as
you make it out to be.
-S
shawn
> >
> > Longer answer: Most popular music is not "art". Most of it is
"product".
>
the
> PMRC is a bad thing is a paraphrasing of Zappa's, who was an artist. But
> when you impose a ratings system on art, you have to throw the baby out
with
> the bath water. Everyone gets the stamp. If it truly wasn't mandatory, and
> recording artists really had a choice about the labels, we wouldn't be
> having this discussion.
I don't think of the "intention" of the rating system as being to rate the
art as "good" or "bad", but as "suitable for children" or "possibly not
suitable for children". In practice, maybe this is not the way it works.
In theory, while I might not agree with a parent's decisions regarding what
their child should or shouldn't be exposed to, I generally support their
right to make that decision. If they make that decision based solely on a
label without further thought... maybe I don't agree with that, but again --
I support their right to make that decision. But in such cases, I think the
fault lies with parent, not with the label or the system which produced it
per se.
> > Ninety-nine percent of what constitutes the "objectionable material"
does
> > not fall into the "artistic statement" category. Defend it as free
speech
> > as you want, but I don't even think that's the issue. If a parent wants
> > some way to judge the suitability of this music for their children, and
they
> > don't have the time or money to personally screen every album on the
> > Billboard 100, and they believe that the PMRC (or whatever the governing
> > body concerning this is) more or less reflects their values as parents,
then
> > why shouldn't they be afforded the favor of this warning? It's not
> > censorship. It's a fucking 1" by 1/2" sticker. And if they don't sell
it
> > at the Wal-Mart? Well, fuck Wal-Mart. What is anybody doing buying
music
> > there anyway?
>
> I agree that it is a good thing for parents to be aware of what their kids
> are listening to. And I know I live in a fantasy world but I think a
better
> way than labelling is for parents to talk to their children. Sans that, if
> your children are under the age of 18 (and let's face it, they are the
only
> ones affected by this) then it is your duty to pay attention to what your
> kids do. Forget the notion of screening the Billboard 100 and just listen
to
> what your kids buy. There are other ways to learn about the objectionable
> material. For example- ask the store clerk.
I think I agree with you ideologically, but I also think this is an
oversimplification. Maybe parents *should* be this involved, but in many
cases and for a variety of reasons, they just can't be.
> At heart, I don't have much of a problem with the ratings system itself. I
> have a problem with the precedent. Say only 1% of the stickered albums are
> art. That is art that has been judged and labelled by a value system
> unrelated to the artist. That is an artist that has been judged. It is a
> door that has been opened. The question is where does it stop?
I'm not sure I understand your objection. I don't think you're saying that
art shouldn't be judged period, but I guess I'd like to hear more about what
you mean by saying that art shouldn't be judged "by a value system unrelated
to the artist". On the other hand, the whole slippery-slope argument... on
its own I just don't buy it. It can be used to argue pretty much against
anything.
Although it doesn't resolve the issues we're discussing, I just want to say
I'm glad we're alive in a time when we have this glorious internet as a
means to distribute all sorts of art that would never make it through the
normal means of distribution. Of course, the difficulty is in separating
the wheat from the chaffe.
-S
shawn
>
> EXACTLY!
>
> parental warning labels just make it easier for people to be lazy parents.
With all due respect (and you *know* I respect you), this strikes me as an
over-simplified statement. And it's also the kind of thing I can only
imagine being said by a non-parent. Being realistic: if a parent doesn't
have the time or energy (which most don't) to be on top of every single
thing their child is doing on a day-to-day basis, that does'nt necessarily
make them lazy. It just means that supporting and raising children is a
fucking difficult job. And things like parental warning labels, no matter
how imperfect the system is, often give them a much-appreciated helping
hand.
And no, I don't have kids. Six times an uncle, though, for whatever that's
worth.
-S
shawn
> shawn wrote:
> > For all you English Majors out there: That means "Rating does not equal
> > Censorship". Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped you
> > from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what: it
> ain't
> > censorship.
>
That's OK. I like it when you beg.
Jesus, did I just say that?
> perhaps not in the musical sense. maybe the parental warning stickers
don't
> really matter.
>
> but in the motion picture sense, ratings do equal censorship. at least in
> some form.
>
> how many times have you heard about movies having to be re-edited to gain
> the R rating?
>
> eyes wide shut, i believe was re-edited. i know american psycho has to
edit
> out a sodomy scene (yet all the nasty violence gets to say).
>
> granted perhaps it's not censorship per se. but everyone knows an NC-17
or
> X movie isn't gonna do jack at the box office, if it even gets a wide
> release.
What you're talking about may have the appearance of de facto censorship,
but it's not. To say that an organization (in this case, the motion picture
industry) does not readily and actively provide you access to NC-17 or
X-rated material is not the same as saying that anyone is actively denying
or blocking your access to such materials. Your right to view these movies
does not in any way entail that the local cinema is required to show them to
you. Actually, this is pretty much market-driven: theater chains don't
think they can make money on NC-17 movies, or they think they are alienating
some of their customers by doing so. I agree that this is a shame
(especially because the attempt to use the NC-17 rating to distinguish
certain adult-oriented films from "mere pornography" has largely failed),
but this does not conform to the model of top-down censorship. You're
basically banging your head against the brick wall of community standards in
a market-driven economy. Economics aside, filmmakers can make their movies
the way they want to. If they expect to get a big-time Hollywood budget and
be widely distributed and actually make money, then yes, they're going to
have to aim for an R-rating or lower. It may suck, but it's not
"censorship". It's just "business".
How about this, from J.S. Mill his own badass self: "What I contend for is
that the inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable
judgment of others are the only ones to which a person should ever be
subjected for that portion of his own conduct and character which concerns
his own good..." blah blah blah. I would argue that the situations you
describe fall under the rubric not of "censorship" but instead of
"inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable judgment
of others".
> why should a parent need help in doing this sort of job? as a parent i
> think you should not only be interested in but aware of what your kids are
> listening to. do a bit of research. don't let the government do the
> parenting for you.
Well, I don't know... I guess I'm thinking "easier said than done". Also,
"to the best of my knowledge" the government has nothing to do with MPAA
ratings or parental advisory labels. I believe they are the result of
"industry self-policing". Although TV and radio are different because they
fall under the FCC.
-S
shawn
> my only problem with this is that that's not the government's job. it's
> just another intrusion on yet another facet of our lives. one i could
> do without. give me a more dangerous, and autonomous society versus a
> safer, more sanitized, but less free one.
I don't think the government is involved in the ratings we've been
discussing, are they? My understanding is that these policies are
self-imposed by the industries themselves. I think there is a heap of
difference there -- legally, morally, and philosophically speaking --
although the results may be similar. Now TV, radio, and the FCC are another
story...
-S
shawn
news:o2IG4.1062$5e.9...@newshog.newsread.com...
> censorship. they won't play a song that has a label affixed to it on the
> radio.
>
> you want censorship?
>
> as of 1995, the radio station that dared to play George Carlin's act,
Seven
> Words You Can't Say on Television, were still paying off their legal fees
> from a case that happened in the 70's.
>
> the real issue here isn't labels, judgments, or warnings. the real issue
is
> to attempt to dissect and understand why those in power are so razzled by
> words they use daily themselves.
Well, I think FCC issues are much more deserving of the censorship
discussion than the mere act of labelling CDs with explicit lyrics. BUT,
the FCC's concern is with things PUT ON PUBLIC DISPLAY, not with what people
are allowed to consume in privacy.
> lenny bruce and george carlin went over this shit. the word in and of
> itself is not harmful, or "bad." it's the intention of the speaker that
> matters. what is bad about a word that says the same thing that "feces"
> says?
These are two men I respect and admire and generally agree with. And I also
think what you are saying here has a lot of relevance to the recent
discussion of Politically Correct speech in this newsgroup.
> if you try to play a CD that has a label on it in this FREE country, you
> will get busted. the law will come down on your head.
>
> they decide what words are acceptable and which are not. it is that
simple.
> is that censorship?
Not allowing James Joyce's "Ulysses" into this country until December
1933 -- that was censorship, all the more ironic because not more than one
person in a hundred would get past the first twenty pages, obscene or no.
Not allowing PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR DISPLAY of materials which the community
standards deem are explicit or obscene? Is that censorship? Maybe. Of a
sort. I'm not as certain of it as you, though. I'm not saying I agree with
it, but I think it's a very grey area. Call me up when the police bust in
and arrest you for reading "How To Talk Dirty and Influence People" in the
privacy of your own home, or when the FBI raids a CD pressing plant and
confiscates copies of George Carlin's latest comedy album. Then I'll tell
you for sure: yup, that's censorship.
Seriously, though: I'm not trying to be a dickhead and I'm not at all
pro-censorship, but I think there are MAJOR differences when you are
discussing the public and private spheres. Privately, I pretty much think
anything goes as long as you are not causing harm to non-consenting others.
Publicly... I wouldn't say "fucking cocksucker" in front of a stranger or a
child, and I wouldn't necessarily defend someone's right to do it over the
open airwaves either. You may call that censorship. I call it good taste.
On the other hand, if you want to buy a CD with somebody saying "fucking
cocksucker" for 74 minutes straight and listen to it in the privacy of your
own home, I'll defend you to my last breath. As a matter of fact, I've got
some recording equipment and a CD-burner: how many people would pay me 10
bucks a pop for a CD with 74 minutes of people saying "fucking cocksucker"
on it? Come on, do it for free speech!
> herein lies the question again: why do the parents have to do this "job"
of
> preventing certain words from being spoken? what is wrong with these
words?
>
> why is it that the act of sex in detail cannot be shown to kids, but
blowing
> someone's head off and firing a round from an Uzi gets the "okay" from
those
> in charge so that kids can see it?
You and I may disagree with the community's standards on these issues. In
fact, I agree with you 100% on these particular ones. But I don't dispute
the community's rights to have standards and -- under particular
circumstances and within certain limits -- to enforce them publicly.
> no, labels aren't censorship. they're after the fact.
Well, if you say so.
-S
shawn
Thad Thompson <tl...@aol.compadre> wrote in message
> I've always wondered about that.... here's a somewhat similar story from
here
> in Atlanta. Recently, an adolescent boy was hauled into court for
torturing a
> puppy. A few days after, the legislature tried float a bill to prevent
this
> sort of thing from happening, or at least to stiffen the penalties. By
the
> time it passed, most of the teeth had been taken out of the bill; it was
then
> basically a statement saying "torturing puppies is BAD."
>
> Of course, a lot of people went through the roof over this, and were up in
arms
> first over the pup, and then over weakened bill.
>
> Why is there never this kind of outrage when a human being gets shot?
We're
> that desensitised. The death of a human being is no longer shocking.
Because we think of animals as innocents. Humans, by very virtue of their
being human, deserve what they get. Is this not so?
-S
Edddddddd
in arms
> first over the pup, and then over weakened bill.
>
> Why is there never this kind of outrage when a human being gets shot?
We're
> that desensitised. The death of a human being is no longer shocking.
>
> -TLT
> ---
> Thad Thompson
I hear you. Remember a couple of months ago the 6-year-old boy who shot
the 6-year-old girl in Flint, Michigan? I don't particularly want to start
a gun control debate here since I'm assuming none of you are gun-crazy
hippies, but this kid just found a gun lying around the house. I know the
hippies wouldn't like it and neither would any of our Presidential
candidates, but it's pretty obvious that we should put a ban on guns that
aren't for hunting. Places all around the world have done it and they
don't have any crime. Hell, even New York City has done it and their
gun-related homicides have gone down like 80%. I don't even want to get
started.
--
Ed Parker kh...@tmbg.org ICQ# 4693418
"I'm not wearing any pants...film at 11."-Kentucky Fried Movie
"You will never know what it feels like to be truly adequate."-Phil
Hartman, Newsradio
SereneBabe
[snip]
> ourselves when we try to place so much value on a human life. we aren't
> THAT hot. plus, too many of us just equals disaster... unless we get smart
> enough to live off of the planet.
I agree.
I also think that we place too much emphasis on "extending life."
My opinions on this have tremendous exceptions (i.e. my gramma isn't
allowed to die. Ever.), but, really, whose good is it to extend life as
long as we are with such outrageous measures?
I have no idea how we draw the line, perhaps it will always be a
personal issue and I do think medical "advances" are important to make.
Awww, I'm not feeling particularly verbose this eve.
--Heather
********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
April 5: Communityof Opportunity: Part II
SereneBabe
[snip]
> of view. Any time you begin to assign criteria to art, you must first assume
> that the work in question comes from an established historical perspective.
> While your criteria are perfectly applicable to modes of graphic and object
> based art, they negate the possibilities of concept, emotion and experience.
I really enjoyed this paragraph.
Well done.
Thad Thompson
>Because we think of animals as innocents. Humans, by very virtue of their
>being human, deserve what they get. Is this not so?
Amadou Diallo deserved what he got?
Kids being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a drive-by shooting deserve
what they got?
A man gets mugged and shot in the back deserved it?
I think not.
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
shawn <shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> [CENSORED] THE [CENSORED] <ltan...@northlink.com> wrote in message
> news:o2IG4.1062$5e.9...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> > censorship. they won't play a song that has a label affixed to it on
the
> > radio.
> >
> > you want censorship?
> >
> > as of 1995, the radio station that dared to play George Carlin's act,
> Seven
> > Words You Can't Say on Television, were still paying off their legal
fees
> > from a case that happened in the 70's.
> >
> > the real issue here isn't labels, judgments, or warnings. the real
issue
> is
> > to attempt to dissect and understand why those in power are so razzled
by
> > words they use daily themselves.
>
> Well, I think FCC issues are much more deserving of the censorship
> discussion than the mere act of labelling CDs with explicit lyrics. BUT,
> the FCC's concern is with things PUT ON PUBLIC DISPLAY, not with what
people
> are allowed to consume in privacy.
>
yes, but even in the realm of warning labels and what Walmart will or will
not sell.... why do they choose to ban certain words? call it censorship or
just "lack of availability," but something is going on because people have a
prejudice about certain words and behaviors. THAT is what needs to
addressed and examined.
> > lenny bruce and george carlin went over this shit. the word in and of
> > itself is not harmful, or "bad." it's the intention of the speaker that
> > matters. what is bad about a word that says the same thing that "feces"
> > says?
>
> These are two men I respect and admire and generally agree with. And I
also
> think what you are saying here has a lot of relevance to the recent
> discussion of Politically Correct speech in this newsgroup.
>
oddly enough, i agree with a lot of PC theory about the way we should carry
ourselves... however, i do not agree that we should use it as a blanket over
all our behavior, nor let it limit our ability to recognize and enjoy humor
or self-criticism. PC sometimes takes shit way too far in trying not to
insult anyone... and we all know it's impossible to not insult people.
heck, some of us think that sometimes you have to insult people in order to
get a point to fly.
in that spirit: fuck all y'all.
> > if you try to play a CD that has a label on it in this FREE country, you
> > will get busted. the law will come down on your head.
> >
> > they decide what words are acceptable and which are not. it is that
> simple.
> > is that censorship?
>
> Not allowing James Joyce's "Ulysses" into this country until December
> 1933 -- that was censorship, all the more ironic because not more than one
> person in a hundred would get past the first twenty pages, obscene or no.
>
> Not allowing PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR DISPLAY of materials which the
community
> standards deem are explicit or obscene? Is that censorship? Maybe. Of a
> sort. I'm not as certain of it as you, though. I'm not saying I agree
with
> it, but I think it's a very grey area. Call me up when the police bust in
> and arrest you for reading "How To Talk Dirty and Influence People" in the
> privacy of your own home, or when the FBI raids a CD pressing plant and
> confiscates copies of George Carlin's latest comedy album. Then I'll tell
> you for sure: yup, that's censorship.
>
well, don't be so sure it can't happen. Wilhelm Reich was only 50 years
ago.
hell, for that matter, Timothy Leary was only 30 years ago. they put him in
jail FOR YEARS for possession of a single marijuana cigarette, back when
drug laws were much more lenient.. they censored the PERSON in that case.
if i attempted to perform some rigorous scientific tests to discover whether
or not marijuana or LSD were actually healthy, i would go to jail. there is
no way to take on such a project without suffering consequences (or living
in hiding).
is that censorship? i legally cannot find a way to SCIENTIFICALLY back up
my beliefs about these drugs. in other words, unless i lie, i am not
permitted to speak about these drugs in a certain manner. when they have
SCIENTIFIC control of what can and cannot be done in this country, i suppose
it's not surprising that we don't get all that upset that they also have a
degree of artistic or consumeristic control.
> Seriously, though: I'm not trying to be a dickhead and I'm not at all
> pro-censorship, but I think there are MAJOR differences when you are
> discussing the public and private spheres. Privately, I pretty much think
> anything goes as long as you are not causing harm to non-consenting
others.
> Publicly... I wouldn't say "fucking cocksucker" in front of a stranger or
a
> child, and I wouldn't necessarily defend someone's right to do it over the
> open airwaves either. You may call that censorship. I call it good
taste.
> On the other hand, if you want to buy a CD with somebody saying "fucking
> cocksucker" for 74 minutes straight and listen to it in the privacy of
your
> own home, I'll defend you to my last breath. As a matter of fact, I've
got
> some recording equipment and a CD-burner: how many people would pay me 10
> bucks a pop for a CD with 74 minutes of people saying "fucking cocksucker"
> on it? Come on, do it for free speech!
>
hey, maybe we could make a song that chants "uncle fucker" throughout!
> > herein lies the question again: why do the parents have to do this
"job"
> of
> > preventing certain words from being spoken? what is wrong with these
> words?
> >
> > why is it that the act of sex in detail cannot be shown to kids, but
> blowing
> > someone's head off and firing a round from an Uzi gets the "okay" from
> those
> > in charge so that kids can see it?
>
> You and I may disagree with the community's standards on these issues. In
> fact, I agree with you 100% on these particular ones. But I don't dispute
> the community's rights to have standards and -- under particular
> circumstances and within certain limits -- to enforce them publicly.
>
herein lies another key point.
community's rights VS. individual's rights
should the community have the right to stop certain behaviors and words from
being seen publicly? should the individual have the right to free speech,
absolute, within the public realm? what does the Constitution say on this
matter?
i think we get into a very fuzzy ground when we talk community. because we
are not talking about community so much as we are government. what are the
community standards? everyone i know speaks supposed "vulgarities" in the
course of everyday speech. sometimes, *gasp* -- even in front of children.
but you cannot allow these things on radio?? on tv?? who makes up the
standards for the community? I'm a part of the community, and i had NO SAY
regarding the standards that I am supposed to live by.
what was it they used to say? "no taxation without representation."
how about: "no censorship without representation."
if i can't have a say as to what is considered decent and what is not, then
i should not be censored (or labeled or judged, for that matter).
> > no, labels aren't censorship. they're after the fact.
>
> Well, if you say so.
>
well, i have a penchant for the dramatic. what can i say?
maybe censorship isn't what i'm trying to say. there's a prejudice involved
that can be called "community standards." that prejudice comes before the
labels and is what needs to be examined and addressed... because it's what
leads to labels, censorship, or just plain putting people in jail.
and it needs to be addressed because i don't think our current community
standards match up to the belief systems of the community.
ngruk
Joey Joe Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo
This is from an e-mail conversation I've been having with an old alum from
my school about language. It's funny how this topic came up at exactly
the same time here on Ye Olde Candybarre...
Him:
I don't want to comment further on speech patterns and other linguistic
phenomena, but I think the subject of profanity deserves (although it
really shouldn't)a passing reference. You wrote (and I have to indent it
to highlight it, because it IS priceless):
"While I agree with you about the erosion of
the English language, I don't think pro-
fanity really has anything to do with it."
We must be from different planets, because I see the all-to-common
injection of profanity into language as one major cause in the erosion
process. Perhaps I'm jaded and used to the linguistic worse in most
people, living near and working in the City of New York where people say
whatever they feel like saying, no matter on whose ears their foul words
fall. I'm happy that you are able to control your use of profanity and
that you're able to turn it on and off as with a spigot, but how did you
arrive at that point in the first place? It's probably due to the fact
that you grew up with that kind of substandard language all around you,
such as in movies, "entertainment" etc.; you've become accustomed to it,
and, therefore, you really don't find anything wrong with its use.
Me:
No, it's just that they're only *words*. Their power comes from people
like you who give them power. Who arbitrarily decided that f-cking should
be considered worse than having sex? I know it wasn't just one person,
but why is one term worse than the other?
Him:
To me,
it's nothing less than a fissure in the solid rock of language (you can
tell my one semester of Physical Geology with Dr. Kauffman at F&M has come
in handy!). It is indicative of the breakdown and dissolution of language.
Yes, many swear words describe acts that all people know about, but we
don't have to be thinking constantly about these acts; and besides,
these thoughts and profane words can be kept to oneself, and our ears
should not have to be ravaged by the constant litany of these words.
You write that "...they're just words." I look upon language as being
something majestic with the endless ability to convey the most beautiful
thoughts of mankind, muscular, with glorious antecedents from the past,
not as being breach-birthed in manure.
Me:
See above.
Ah! The urge to quote strikes again
which I fear you'll only view as more fodder for sarcasm, but wasn't it
Oscar Wilde who wrote, "We're all lying in the gutter, but only some of us
are looking up toward the stars." All this to demonstrate that if I had
the choice of either listening to you swearing OR listening to a Beethoven
concerto, a Wagner overture, or a Rossini opera, you would know which
choice I would make!
Me:
I too would much rather listen to Beethoven than pretty much anything
else, which may surprise you. Wagner tends to bore me, and I'm not an
opera buff. But Beethoven's 9th is, I believe, mankind's ultimate
creation.
--
Hew
> In this particular instance, without getting into the larger issue of
> "What is Art?", all I can say is that (I know I'm gonna catch hell for
> saying this) I call it like I see it: Spice Girls? N'Sync? Brittany
> Spears? Not art.
you don't like them. they don't exemplify the qualities that you think
should go into art. i'm cool with that. but since when does that make
them NOT art, as opposed to BAD art?
can you imagine someone saying "the Simpsons sucks. it's not a
television show." well then, what is it? "oh god, that new John Irving
novel blows. it's not a book." to me, saying "that's not art" is just
about the same.
and moreover, no matter what's art or not art, a Britney Spears record
is a form of self-expression -- verbal self-expression, even! -- and so
the first amendment says the government has to ease back. i take my cues
from that.
a
"I actually liked STANDING STONE by Paul McCartney a lot but I'm not
including it here as the real Paul died in a car crash in 1969 and let's
not encourage this sort of passing each other off as someone else when we
have perfectly good cloning technology."
- Scott Miller's 1997 top ten
the Doug
----------
In article <g5QG4.2699$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "NGRUK THE OBVIOUS"
<ltan...@northlink.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> if you can't
> define or understand art, how can you begin to control or censor it?
Good question.
>
> as for understanding art: Picasso once openly wept because he could not
> achieve the visual perspective of a five year old boy. he obviously thought
> art was something that could be mastered by a five year old, but not an
> adult... or something of the sort.
>
> ngruk
>
Picasso was talking about how a lifetime of training and practice allows you
to accomplish anything with a paintbrush except naivete.
After 500 paintings or so, it gets very hard to approach a canvas and feel
like you are doing it for the first time. Children are also much more open
to new ideas, as they have not yet been conditioned to approach things the
"correct" way.
If you look at the careers of artists like Picasso and Matisse, who worked
their whole lives right up to their deathbeds, you'll find that in the
twilight of their careers they opted for very simple forms and shapes. They
were trying to find their way back into the mind of a child. They felt that
art, in its most pure form should be direct, honest and simple. Like a
child.
Interesting sidenote:
When Picasso and Bracque were doing their wildest cubist experimentation,
nobody understood what they were painting. Even art critics nothing more
than jumbles of shapes.
Children today have been so barraged with visual information through
television, movies and computers that the average five-year-old can look at
one of those early cubist paintings and say, "That's a guitar."
They "get" it.
the Doug
March Hare
"the Doug" <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <8cen2k$utd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, March Hare
<marc...@wack.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <8cea78$mtn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > "the Doug" <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote:
> >> ----------
> > <marc...@wack.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>---------
> >> > In article <20000404152535...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> >> > tl...@aol.compadre (Thad Thompson) wrote:
> >> >> The Doug said:
> It seems this dialogue has strayed from being about whether or not art
> should be labelled to questioning the nature of what art "is" and how
it is
> defined.
that's because there's apparently another art historian in the house!
> And that is an entirely different beast altogether.
>
> While your statements are not wrong they do seem to speak from a
fixed point
> of view. Any time you begin to assign criteria to art, you must first
assume
> that the work in question comes from an established historical
perspective.
how so? i was not assuming that in my statements.
> While your criteria are perfectly applicable to modes of graphic and
object
> based art, they negate the possibilities of concept, emotion and
experience.
ah but most if not all art is visual. i would be hard pressed to define
art that is not visual. it need not be limited to two-dimensional in my
mind. i appreciate what you are saying also. what i say negates those
possibilities is because i do not agree that the "concept, emotion, and
experience" are themselves the equivalent of the art.
the art merely helps the artist express and convey his or her
"concept, emotion, and experience" in the chosen media, and inform his
or her techniques, decisions, and overall compositional vision. in my
world anyway. and certainly what the viewer experiences may differ from
the artist's intent. sometimes the artist has no specific intent.
> Art is not about crafting objects that appeal solely to sensibilities
of
> technique and composition. Ultimately that is a concept that has been
dying
> for 80 years. To judge a piece by these merits ignores any higher
purpose
> the artist may have.
again. the purpose itself is not the art. heck not even all purposes
and messages are of equal merit, so how can the art which derives from
them be?
> The best art gives us something we didn't have before. It makes us
see and
> feel things that we otherwise couldn't have had. It makes us look at
things
> in ways we haven't thought of. And the most successful artists do this
> without using established modes of creation.
certainly innovation and revolution are essential to art not becoming
static and stale. so i agree with your assessment that the best art
"breaks rules" but i think it breaks prevailing stylistic ones, not
compostional ones. rule breaking art often announces a new style but it
succeeds in abolishing the old style precisely because its excellent
composition makes it effective in conveying to viewers what the artist
did in fact intend. the rules on composition depend on relatively
stable things, like how the human eye works, and the psychology of
color, the weight we give lines, and solid forms. composition is not
content-specific.
> And as I said before, ultimately the choice is up to the viewer as to
> whether or not a piece of art is "good" or "successful." All of it is
apples
> and oranges. But judging artwork by a set list of criteria represents
a
> limitation in the viewer, not the art.
i think i can reconcile the two. i'd like to think i could view a piece
and deem it good (i.e. it works) even if i hated the underlying message
or that i could deem it bad even if i loved what the artist was trying
to say but having to concede that it was badly done. call me a critic.
> > but we agree that it's not the job of the thought police to decide
for
> > us, we just agree for different reasons is all.
> >
> >
>
> Amen.
>
> the Doug
>
hey The, we still agree on this last one though!
I am not left-handed
(but you oughta see me write that way),
>#^P
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
the Doug
----------
In article <uVSG4.118490$Pa1.3...@news6.giganews.com>, "shawn"
<shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Gem <Gemi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
I agree with Gem, but not for the simplified reasons. Parents should spend
at least enough time with their children to pass on ideas regarding how to
live, what is right and what is wrong. If your child somehow gets hold of an
album with words like "SHIT" and "FUCK" on it and that pollutes their mind
and changes who they are, YOU'RE A PRETTY WORTHLESS PARENT. If none of your
kids have albums with PMRC stickers, congratufuckiglations. Just don't pat
yourself on the back too hard thinking your job is done.
I know that if I was a parent and my child was a rotten human being, I
wouldn't blame music or television or video games. I would blame myself.
the Doug
the Doug
----------
In article <vVSG4.118491$Pa1.3...@news6.giganews.com>, "shawn"
<shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
[snip] Also,
> "to the best of my knowledge" the government has nothing to do with MPAA
> ratings or parental advisory labels. I believe they are the result of
> "industry self-policing". Although TV and radio are different because they
> fall under the FCC.
>
>
> -S
>
All true. The movie industry has never been prevented from putting whatever
they want in film, they just have to be prepared to make less revenue if
they include "objectionable" scenes.
And although the FCC has pretty strict regulations, they won't do jack until
somebody complains. So on the airwaves you are free to say whatever you want
until you offend someone.
the Doug
the Doug
----------
In article <yVSG4.118492$Pa1.3...@news6.giganews.com>, "shawn"
<shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Gem <Gemi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>> but i don't feel anyone is qualified to judge what others deem
>> as art.
>
> The problem that I have with this sort of philosophical relativism is not
> even that it's necessarily wrong but that I think it stifles discourse. The
> underlying assumption -- that all opinions are equally valid -- seems to
> render conversation and passionate belief essentially meaningless. Again,
> I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I'm very disturbed by the implications.
>
But what is the alternative? That some opinions are more valid than others?
Whether or not an individual perceives something as art is a personal
revelation. If anything, it opens the door to conversation and passionate
personal belief is the only tool that has ever been available to educate
others.
> In this particular instance, without getting into the larger issue of "What
> is Art?", all I can say is that (I know I'm gonna catch hell for saying
> this) I call it like I see it: Spice Girls? N'Sync? Brittany Spears?
> Not art.
>
Now you're just talking silly. Brittany is a genius.
>> i am not sure how much time, effort and money it takes to research who
> your
>> kids are listening to. kids will yammer on and on about whomever their
>> favorite is. all you have to do is listen.
>
> Taken on its own, yeah you're right. But in the context of an endless
> succession of hectic days, I'm not sure this parenting thing is as easy as
> you make it out to be.
>
No offense intended here, Shawn but more than once you have made reference
to the insurmountable challenge it is to be a parent. This outlook seems to
affect the way you look at these issues. I'm not a parent, and I know it is
not easy. But I know too many parents that have thrown themselves into the
task and do a wonderful job. Raising a child is a responsibility that
requires a lot of time, love and attention. And lots of patience. It is
possible to be involved with your children's lives without having everything
fall to shit.
the Doug
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
i think i can grok why Picasso shed tears.
thanks for offering more insight to what i had had only as a vague blurb in
the back of my head until now.
>
> Interesting sidenote:
>
> When Picasso and Bracque were doing their wildest cubist experimentation,
> nobody understood what they were painting. Even art critics nothing more
> than jumbles of shapes.
>
> Children today have been so barraged with visual information through
> television, movies and computers that the average five-year-old can look
at
> one of those early cubist paintings and say, "That's a guitar."
>
> They "get" it.
>
another interesting sidenote:
i took Harper to a performance recently. five person performance group,
doing a show for a maximum of 16 people a shot. the 16 people sat in a
square, 4 to a side, with 10 feet open in the center. the stage was the
center of this seating, as well as all around. it was a very intimate
setting for a show.
the performance was mostly abstract, didn't have a specific story to tell,
and appealed most to the senses over the intellect.
Harper (my four year old son, for those that do not yet know), was
enthralled. he was wide-eyed and big-grinned through the whole thing. as a
group, we talked about the show after, and a lot of folks said they got more
of a kick out of watching Harper watch the show than watching the show
themselves.
he seemed to "get" it more than any adult there.
ngruk
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
shawn <shawn_reynolds@$#!%SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > shawn wrote:
> > > Longer answer: Most popular music is not "art". Most of it is
> "product".
> does
> > > not fall into the "artistic statement" category.
> >
> or
deem
> as
> > art.
>
> The problem that I have with this sort of philosophical relativism is not
> even that it's necessarily wrong but that I think it stifles discourse.
The
> underlying assumption -- that all opinions are equally valid -- seems to
> render conversation and passionate belief essentially meaningless. Again,
> I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I'm very disturbed by the
implications.
>
well, i think maybe you take it the wrong way. sure, everyone's opinions
are equally valid, but that in and of itself doesn't mean or say much.
when you take such a statement -- all opinions are equal -- and apply it to
a scenario in a real setting with real people, it changes face. people who
stand up and speak the loudest, people who have facts and real experience to
back up their opinions, and generally the more eloquent and brightest, begin
to stand out. people listen to them, and are swayed by their opinions. a
majority develops. (in our world, you don't have to be brighter or have
experience on your side, you just need to get on tv)
so, while everyone's opinions are equally valid, certainly not all opinions
are equally as strong.
some folks' opinions are stronger than most on some issues, while weaker on
others. it has a lot to do with where that person hails from. you have to
be careful when making generalizations because you run into this type of
trap of absurdity. when a statement like the one in question is made, **in
theory** it runs into trouble and dissolves almost everything it touches,
which is what you seem to fear. but in practice, that doesn't happen.
hell, look at us and our equally valid opinions that we've become so
passionate about.
> In this particular instance, without getting into the larger issue of
"What
> is Art?", all I can say is that (I know I'm gonna catch hell for saying
> this) I call it like I see it: Spice Girls? N'Sync? Brittany Spears?
> Not art.
>
think about what you loved as a teenager. I saw Def Leppard in concert.
Duran Duran, too. I think both of those bands are pretty pathetic nowadays.
that doesn't mean that their "art" didn't have a significant impact on my
life, which is what great art is all about.
we have to be careful not to disregard something as art only because it
attracts mostly the younger crowd. there are some folks out there who do
some INCREDIBLE work for young kids on tv, in books, in theatre, and in the
classroom. this is not always recognized as art, but me thinks that's
mostly because a lot of people refuse to take kids seriously.
and when you refuse to take kids seriously, you are playing with fire.
ngruk
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
>
> No offense intended here, Shawn but more than once you have made reference
> to the insurmountable challenge it is to be a parent. This outlook seems
to
> affect the way you look at these issues. I'm not a parent, and I know it
is
> not easy. But I know too many parents that have thrown themselves into the
> task and do a wonderful job. Raising a child is a responsibility that
> requires a lot of time, love and attention. And lots of patience. It is
> possible to be involved with your children's lives without having
everything
> fall to shit.
>
as a single parent, i'd like to comment.
in some ways, being a parent is MUCH easier than you'd think. it depends
upon you, the child, and the surroundings, but many things people play up as
the horrors of parenthood are just not true.
in other ways.... ways you'd least expect, of course... parenting is
terribly hard.
i don't have a teenager yet, so i can't quite comment on this discussion of
watching what your kids listen to, but i can imagine it's not that easy.
having a teenager scares the bejesus out of me, but i think that's because
of the very hype that seems to be prevalent here.
most teenagers i have known since i've been an adult have been pretty good
kids. that's mostly because they have parents who take them seriously when
they state their needs, who listen to them, who treat them like adults.
that's what kids want really.... to be treated as an equal.
in that sense, parenting is incredibly easy. be direct, honest, and don't
hold anything back. listen and treat your kid as an equal.
it's just that most folks can't even be honest with themselves in the first
place, so the kids don't respect them, and the whole mess gets jumbled.
gaps get wider.
ngruk
D. Meyers
--
"Did you check the Lazy Susan?"
the Doug <dbur...@enginenumber9.com> wrote in message
news:8cioib$o39$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I agree with Gem, but not for the simplified reasons. Parents should spend
> at least enough time with their children to pass on ideas regarding how to
> live, what is right and what is wrong. If your child somehow gets hold of
an
> album with words like "SHIT" and "FUCK" on it and that pollutes their mind
> and changes who they are, YOU'RE A PRETTY WORTHLESS PARENT. If none of
your
> kids have albums with PMRC stickers, congratufuckiglations. Just don't pat
> yourself on the back too hard thinking your job is done.
>
> I know that if I was a parent and my child was a rotten human being, I
> wouldn't blame music or television or video games. I would blame myself.
When I worked at the record store (CD store still doesn't sound right), I
followed our return policy to the "T". Unless it involved a parent who was
upset with the lyrical contents of the CD (most of these CD's did NOT have a
sticker). I never questioned it. I always appreciated the fact that they
actually paid attention to what the kids were listening to.
Even the woman that barked at me about how foul "Weird Al Yankovic" was.
"He said, "SLUT"!
I really had a hard time not laughing at that one.
But...he's Gump!
It's in his head!
B, ahhh, D! :~)
Martin the Evil
the Doug wrote in message <8cimdv$55h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>----------
>In article <g5QG4.2699$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "NGRUK THE OBVIOUS"
><ltan...@northlink.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>>
>> if you can't
>> define or understand art, how can you begin to control or censor it?
>
>Good question.
[snip]
>
>If you look at the careers of artists like Picasso and Matisse, who worked
>their whole lives right up to their deathbeds, you'll find that in the
>twilight of their careers they opted for very simple forms and shapes. They
>were trying to find their way back into the mind of a child. They felt that
>art, in its most pure form should be direct, honest and simple. Like a
>child.
For Matisse I should add that it may not have been such a specific agenda.
His eyes were failing him in his old age. And he was doing art on a level
that was equivalent to cutting and pasting construction paper. Because it
was what he could do.
>Interesting sidenote:
>
>When Picasso and Bracque were doing their wildest cubist experimentation,
>nobody understood what they were painting. Even art critics nothing more
>than jumbles of shapes.
Glad to see you mention Bracque, as he was as much a father of cubism as
Picasso, but generally not credited for it the way Picasso is.
But truthfully Picasso and Braque were more like the Nursemaids of cubism,
where the WONDERFUL painter Paul Cezanne IS the father of cubism. It was
something found in some of his later works, which Picasso and Braque took
and further developed.
Paul Cezanne. Father of Cubism.
I just had to share, it's actually something I know about. Not to mention
that I do love a lot of Cezanne's work, particularly still lifes.
lou
>Children today have been so barraged with visual information through
>television, movies and computers that the average five-year-old can look at
>one of those early cubist paintings and say, "That's a guitar."
>
>They "get" it.
>
>
>the Doug
Martin the Evil
March Hare
>> >> >> The Doug said:
>[snip]
>> It seems this dialogue has strayed from being about whether or not art
>> should be labelled to questioning the nature of what art "is" and how
>it is
>> defined.
>
>that's because there's apparently another art historian in the house!
Yeah, and that's without me chiming in. I've been more interested in
following along than butting in. I don't think I had that much of anything
different to offer anyway.
[snip]
>ah but most if not all art is visual. i would be hard pressed to define
>art that is not visual. it need not be limited to two-dimensional in my
>mind. i appreciate what you are saying also. what i say negates those
>possibilities is because i do not agree that the "concept, emotion, and
>experience" are themselves the equivalent of the art.
Most art being visual is a determination that is dependent upon the
definition of art. Though truthfully most art is visual. Music being the
biggest class of exception. Not many artists have worked exclusively with
"smell" for example, at least to my knowledge.
Personally, I'm a fan of performance art that involves "touch."
But that tends to be a personal, umm... more intimate experience, not
public.
>the art merely helps the artist express and convey his or her
>"concept, emotion, and experience" in the chosen media, and inform his
>or her techniques, decisions, and overall compositional vision. in my
>world anyway. and certainly what the viewer experiences may differ from
>the artist's intent. sometimes the artist has no specific intent.
>
>> Art is not about crafting objects that appeal solely to sensibilities
>of
>> technique and composition. Ultimately that is a concept that has been
>dying
>> for 80 years. To judge a piece by these merits ignores any higher
>purpose
>> the artist may have.
And why not? What of things that have no "higher purpose" yet are
aesthetically pleasing? One of my favorite pieces back at the Tate Gallery
is a large narrow white flat triangle, pointing down, with a slifhtly curved
top. It is set slightly off of the wall, the same color as the wall. The
most significant effect it has is the shadow, between and below it and the
wall.
I think that it is "aesthetically pleasing, in other words fly."
Art IS "about crafting objects that appeal solely to sensibilities of
technique and composition." Just mostly not recognized as such. I could
beautifully execute a piece, technically perfect, and have the subject
matter be gross, offensive, unrecognizable, totally unappreciable. It just
won't be likely accepted as "aesthetically pleasing." Which in most eyes
will LOWER it's artistic merit or value.
Truthfully I like art that I find pleasing and LIKE to look at. But that
doesn't make it a requirement. This can easily become an argument that
comes back on itself. As it comes back to one's definition of art.
This argument is so fun and open ended because it is often so TOTALLY
SUBJECTIVE.
>> The best art gives us something we didn't have before. It makes us
>see and
>> feel things that we otherwise couldn't have had. It makes us look at
>things
>> in ways we haven't thought of. And the most successful artists do this
>> without using established modes of creation.
The "best" art has to be/or do something new? But it's all been done before
; )
Being innovative doesn't mean being "better," does it? Plenty of artists
revisit previously covered ground. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against
groundbreaking in art. But it wouldn't be a big deal if all art was
groundbreaking. It's about balance and it's all relative. If everyone was
doing groundbreaking art, the "static" artists might be the standouts.
>certainly innovation and revolution are essential to art not becoming
>static and stale. so i agree with your assessment that the best art
>"breaks rules" but i think it breaks prevailing stylistic ones, not
>compostional ones. rule breaking art often announces a new style but it
>succeeds in abolishing the old style precisely because its excellent
>composition makes it effective in conveying to viewers what the artist
>did in fact intend. the rules on composition depend on relatively
>stable things, like how the human eye works, and the psychology of
>color, the weight we give lines, and solid forms. composition is not
>content-specific.
>
>
>> And as I said before, ultimately the choice is up to the viewer as to
>> whether or not a piece of art is "good" or "successful." All of it is
>apples
>> and oranges. But judging artwork by a set list of criteria represents
>a
>> limitation in the viewer, not the art.
>
>i think i can reconcile the two. i'd like to think i could view a piece
>and deem it good (i.e. it works) even if i hated the underlying message
>or that i could deem it bad even if i loved what the artist was trying
>to say but having to concede that it was badly done. call me a critic.
critic. but hey, isn't everyone?
>> > but we agree that it's not the job of the thought police to decide
>for
>> > us, we just agree for different reasons is all.
agreed. no thought police please.
lou
March Hare
"Martin the Evil" <sprin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> the Doug wrote in message <8cimdv$55h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >
> >
> >----------
> >In article <g5QG4.2699$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "NGRUK THE
OBVIOUS"
> ><ltan...@northlink.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >
worked
> >their whole lives right up to their deathbeds, you'll find that in
the
> >twilight of their careers they opted for very simple forms and
shapes. They
> >were trying to find their way back into the mind of a child. They
felt that
> >art, in its most pure form should be direct, honest and simple. Like
a
> >child.
>
> For Matisse I should add that it may not have been such a specific
agenda.
> His eyes were failing him in his old age. And he was doing art on a
level
> that was equivalent to cutting and pasting construction paper.
Because it
> was what he could do.
Any discussion of visually impaired artists has to mention Grandma
Moses and the venerable Impressionist Claude Monet. Grandma Moses only
took up painting at a very advanced age, yet her paintings uniformly
exhibited a very untrained, child-like visual style of depicting forms,
very heavy use of thick lines and loud primary colors. I don't know for
sure that her sight was bad, but certainly it could have been at her
age. Or perhaps her age itself influenced her technique.
Monet was painting in a new style that was a paradigm example of a
rebellion against the very conservative styles still being promoted by
the ecole de beaux arts, such as realistic allegorical, neoclassicist
depictions, grand battle scenes, sea scapes and so on. What is
interesting is not only that it was a novel reaction and approach to
the prevailing taste, but also how was accomplished. Impressionism
differed in its subject matter, being content to focus on the mundane
and ordinary. As a school of also took an instantaneous view of
reality, trying to capture the "impression" of a specific moment in
time, like a polaroid would (through painting). It's actually
stylistically kin with hyper- and photo-realism, but achieves the
realism in a very different way, primarily by using rapid (or the
appearance of rapid) technique, various hurried brush strokes and so
on. On the surface these visual styles were very abstract, blurry
patches of color and texture, especially the closer one looked. From
further away, or by squinting, many Impressionist paintings come into
better focus. And such was the work of Monet. So when in his 80's,
painting in an already blurry and I suppose "unrefined" style, he
developed cataracts, this only exaggerated the levels of abstraction.
If his water lily paintings seem abstractions, and yet still convey
water lilies, his Japanese Bridge emerges only at great distance,
appearing up close to be nothing more than an arch composed of bursts
of brilliant red spanning a pool of blue and black bursts, all of it
punctuated with lush green bursts representing foliage. And yet who's
to say, if we were at that spot, and viewed the scene out of the corner
of our eye, turning our heads to catch only the briefest glance, that
it wouldn't look the way Monet expressed it, for the slightest instance
anyway?
I'm sure there are many stories of artists young and old whose poor
eyesight had a profound impact on their work. In any case I find
Impressionism fascinating. Cubism and surrealism definitely owe some
influence to it as well.
> >Interesting sidenote:
> >
> >When Picasso and Bracque were doing their wildest cubist
experimentation,
> >nobody understood what they were painting. Even art critics nothing
more
> >than jumbles of shapes.
>
> Glad to see you mention Bracque, as he was as much a father of cubism
as
> Picasso, but generally not credited for it the way Picasso is.
>
> But truthfully Picasso and Braque were more like the Nursemaids of
cubism,
> where the WONDERFUL painter Paul Cezanne IS the father of cubism. It
was
> something found in some of his later works, which Picasso and Braque
took
> and further developed.
>
> Paul Cezanne. Father of Cubism.
I'm more a fan of Georges Seurat myself. Father of another post-
Impressionist style known as Pointillism. Seurat promoted, and
demonstrated with much success, his color theories. He believed that
it was not necessary to mix yellow and blue on the pallette to make
green; that the human eye would interpret areas of dots of the two, in
certain locations and proportions to each other, ON the canvas, AS
green. In other words, that the colors mixed IN the eye. Paul Signac
was another notable pointillist. Their works anticipate using dots to
depict newspapers for example. Like Impressionism, Pointillism displays
a fuzzy abstract realism, but the technique is much more exacting and
precise than Impressionism. And again the stylistic change and
groundbreaking are done by breaking the current STYLISTIC rules(or not
so much breaking them as borrowing from them and adding something not
previously attempted). And it is done through different uses of
composition and technique and ways of seeing and thinking.
Look I'm not saying personal aesthetic taste has nothing to do with
classifying art as good or bad, I'm just saying composition and
technique have a lot to do with it also. Hey I like some bad art, and
you may hate some really good art. There's nothing wrong with that.
THAT's where personal subjective tastes enter into it I think. But as
often as not, people subconsciously react to like or dislike a
particular work of art precisely due to its compositional nature and
execution, which can at least be proximally and objectively dissected.
[snip]
Hare regretting he sold his copy of Jansen's History of Art for coffee
money,
>:o7
"I'm not left-handed either" - The Dread Pirate Roberts
March Hare
This is interesting. I agree music is "art" in the vernacular sense,
but music is in a different category from visual art. I don't think
many people would disagree that music definitely follows its own set of
compositional rules, or that playing technique won't color the popular
notion of a song's being good or bad.
Music and visual art both manipulate electromagnetic waves. Visual art
manipulates the visible color spectrum, which has its unique
wavelengths and RANGE of available frequencies. Fairly high frequency,
and fairly short wavelength, at least when compared to low frequency,
longer wavelength sound waves which music manipulates. These light
waves enter the eye and are processed through a series of chemical
reactions involving the brain. Sound has a different available range of
frequencies. These sounds enter the ear, which, different from the eye,
works through vibrations and produces its own set of chemical reations
in the brain. In theory there are multitude of tones, semi tones and
fractional tones that can be generated. In practice an "octave scale" -
that is, the difference between the harmonics which sound like the
note "C" can perhaps be divided into notes of one-twelfth. There is a
finite number harmonics which generate pleasing, not to mention
audible, sounds. Mathmatically, certain scales just don't work, and
sound terrible, or can't be heard clearly. Fortunately with 8 notes
per octave and a range of eleven octaves, the possible mathematical
combinations and permutations encompassing all songs is pretty wide
open to novelty and variety still. Though the number of possible songs
in the universe, while great, may indeed be finite. Hmmm.
Music still has compositional rules, they're just different ones than
visual compositional rules. And music that follows them in whatever
way, and is executed well, will be good, whether liked or not at the
time. Like and dislike are often more about one's feelings about a
particular style rather than the greatness of the work itself. If that
makes sense.
Smell or touch as art? Hmm. That raises novel possibities. Smell does
not travel via the electromagnetic spectrum. It is molecular amounts of
solid matter of varying densities and pressures and temperatures within
a specific volume (so small that they're considered gas). When the gas
interacts with the inner nose, by coming into contact with it, still
other chemical reactions in the brain take place. I bet if there ever
became a thing known as "Smellart", compositional and technique rules
for "executing" it, as well as what makes good and bad smellart,
specific to it as a medium, would develop and emerge. At least, I bet I
could fashion an argument that there were.
Touch art could jokingly refer to sex. Touch relies on direct physical
stimulation and contact to create its impact on the "viewer" but
there's still electrochemical reactions in the skin and nerves and in
the brain. Think technique would matter? How about how the touch
performance is composed?
In all cases, there is of course no one specific right way no magic
formula to making good art. The trick is to do it however you want
while observing the general framework of compositional guidelines. All
art that operates on the senses ultimately depends on electrochemical
neural impulses of a human being to transmit the messages, and while
there are variations, chemically, most humans work basically the same,
react the same, to the same stimulus. Which only reinforces the
importance of good composition, in making good art. I swear I'm not
being full of shit!
[snip]
The Cheeky Delinquent out.
>Bo7-~
PS vote Quimby
al
>Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped you
>> from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what: it
>ain't
>> censorship.
>
>
>
>radio.
guh! what the hell?
ok, the situation with a lot of popular music is this: there's some swear
words in the songs, so they put the sticker on the record, and it goes to
stores and people buy it by the truckload; pop radio plays radio-sanitized
mixes of the songs with the offending words edited out. radio still plays
it, just not in its original form. which really doesn't bother me. i
don't necessarily mind hearing DMX songs as often as i do, but a lot less than
i would if all the "nigga" this and "nigga" that were kept in there, i dunno.
>lenny bruce and george carlin went over this shit. the word in and of
>itself is not harmful, or "bad." it's the intention of the speaker that
>matters. what is bad about a word that says the same thing that "feces"
>says?
what is so important about using a word that means the same thing as "feces"
but is less acceptable to a large portion of the audience? would Bruce or
Carlin be considered the comedy geniuses they purportedly are if they didn't
persue shock value? i watch Comedy Central's bleep-a-thon edit of Chris
Rock's HBO special and it makes me laugh every bit as hard. it's not like
i can't figure out what he's saying unless i hear the entire unedited word.
i think the biggest irony of the whole censorship issue that people always seem
to miss is that everyone who hears a bleep or an awkwardly replaced expletive
knows exactly what the original phrase was. it's just a formality. it's
almost the same as if someone replaced every use of the word "the" with
"a"---it would be messed and would make stuff a little harder to understand at
first, but the point still gets across.
sleepy and not fit to post,
-al
al
>> Sounds good to me too, except for
>[snip]
>> considering valuing three trees over a single human life
>It isn't to say that human life isn't important (three trees saved while
>killing one human), it is to say, one human life might be worth the fate
>of the three trees because those three trees might save many more human
>lives. (Now, wouldn't *this* be silly out of context?)
you guys are both totally missing the point;
any presidential candidate worth his salt should be able to kill a lot more
than just one person with 3 trees.
-al
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
al <hotel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000408023927...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
what does importance have to do with it? does it have to be important in
order for someone to be allowed to say it?
try finding a way to get across the meaning of the exclamation "fuckin' A!"
or "shit, maaan" without using those "bad" words. try it without watering
it down. and then tell me what's wrong with those phrases and why they
shouldn't be allowed.
> would Bruce or
> Carlin be considered the comedy geniuses they purportedly are if they
didn't
> persue shock value?
yes.
a lot of folks seem to think that when Carlin or Bruce point out things
about ourselves that we don't recognize or don't want to recognize, it's
shock value. why is it shock value to speak a truth that people hide from?
and on that note, you make it seem like shock value is inherently a negative
thing. why?
ngruk
al
>and on that note, you make it seem like shock value is inherently a negative
>thing. why?
because it's an obnoxious, age-old attention-getting device. a lot of great
minds have used it to good effect, but mostly it's abused by those lacking
substance. i dunno.
>what does importance have to do with it? does it have to be important in
>order for someone to be allowed to say it?
that's not what i meant. i meant "importance" as in the significance people
try to place on whether or not they're allowed to say "fuck" in certain
contexts and situations
the bottom line is, we're all being allowed to discuss this stuff in an open
forum in any way we wish, using whatever expletives we want, so obviously the
thought police haven't gotten everywhere yet. private discourse, even in a
public forum, is still mostly unfettered, and that's what i think really
matters, more so than a sticker on a CD i buy.
-al
shawn
> ngruk writ:
> >and on that note, you make it seem like shock value is inherently a
negative
> >thing. why?
>
> because it's an obnoxious, age-old attention-getting device. a lot of
great
> minds have used it to good effect, but mostly it's abused by those lacking
> substance. i dunno.
And on top of that, the more readily people use words for their shock-value,
the quicker that shock-value depreciates. The beautiful thing about
"obscenity" is that when used sparingly, it can actually have a dramatic
effect (I have a friend who says "cunt" all the time, and I'm forever
telling him to stop it because he's desensitizing people to the last great
obscenity that has IMPACT -- in America at least). Nowadays, every other
drivetime disc-jockey plays the obnoxious/obscene in such a pathetic way
that it ruins it for the rest of us.
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
al <hotel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000408131341...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> ngruk writ:
> >and on that note, you make it seem like shock value is inherently a
negative
> >thing. why?
>
> because it's an obnoxious, age-old attention-getting device.
i don't mean to be offensive, but i find that statement over-simplified and
the type of generalization that limits critical thinking.
why do you think shock value is negative? what about it? why do you feel
it's main value is to gain attention? is it shock value that is obnoxious,
or is the way some people tend to use it?
i know that many have used it for poor reasons... but that goes with every
device used for communicating a point, including reason and logic. that
doesn't mean we should throw it out the window.
a lot of great
> minds have used it to good effect, but mostly it's abused by those lacking
> substance. i dunno.
>
which are Bruce and Carlin to you?
> >what does importance have to do with it? does it have to be important in
> >order for someone to be allowed to say it?
>
> that's not what i meant. i meant "importance" as in the significance
people
> try to place on whether or not they're allowed to say "fuck" in certain
> contexts and situations
>
> the bottom line is, we're all being allowed to discuss this stuff in an
open
> forum in any way we wish, using whatever expletives we want, so obviously
the
> thought police haven't gotten everywhere yet. private discourse, even
in a
> public forum, is still mostly unfettered, and that's what i think really
> matters, more so than a sticker on a CD i buy.
>
i wasn't really all that focused on the "thought police."
i just find it interesting the way certain words are perceived (that goes
for the "good" ones, too, not just the "dirty" ones). and i think any
conversation about music labeling, movie ratings, or censorship should focus
on why things are perceived as inherently wrong, bad, dirty, or whatever.
ngruk
al
>a lot of great
>> minds have used it to good effect, but mostly it's abused by those lacking
>> substance. i dunno.
>>
>
>
>which are Bruce and Carlin to you?
the former. but that's neither here nor there, really.
>why do you think shock value is negative? what about it? why do you feel
>it's main value is to gain attention? is it shock value that is obnoxious,
>or is the way some people tend to use it?
well, for one, i should amend this: my negative view of shock value applies
mostly to the here and now--- a few decades ago, when Bruce and Carlin were
in their prime, it actually meant something-- it was still possible to
simultaneously repulse and resonate with your audience.
these days, people are by and large not only less inhibited, they are also more
jaded. i know Marilyn Manson legitimately shocked a lot of people, but at
the time that he was getting the most publicity, myself at age 14, an audible
yawn and shrug were all that i could summon in response. certainly no gasp of
indignation there, not from me, at least.
>i just find it interesting the way certain words are perceived (that goes
>for the "good" ones, too, not just the "dirty" ones). and i think any
>conversation about music labeling, movie ratings, or censorship should focus
>on why things are perceived as inherently wrong, bad, dirty, or whatever.
good point. but i'm not sure where that would get us. what are we gonna
do, research the history of linguistics and psychology and society's standards
or decency? to most of the people who support various forms of
ratings/labels/censorship, that kind of thing would make little difference to
them, and to those of us who don't, it'd just be a smug justification of the
views we've already formed.
there's always going to be people who are so adamant about challenging
authority (rather than questioning it) that they're going to speak defiantly
and manipulate language for shock value, either because they were raised with
un-PC values, or because they're rebelling against PC that they were brought up
with. and that's fine and good for them. but honestly, it's just annoying.
especially since those individuals are often mixed up with and confused for
those intellectuals and iconoclasts whose unique view of the world happens to
be considered somehow obscene by the majority. those who understand both
sides of the spectrum, and have made a decision about which they want.
me, call me a lazy conformist if you must, but i'd rather not bother with most
of it. i take a stand on those rare occasions when i see fit, but usually i
don't think it's worth it. my attitude towards those who openly embrace
shock value for its own sake is echoed in the words of St. Paul:
"everybody's dressin' funny, color me impressed".
-al
Gem
> Gem said:
>
> >or in the case of the evil, evil wal-mart they just sell a censored
version
> >of the cd-- but don't really tell you unless your read the teeny, tiny,
> >itty, bitty writing on the price tag.
>
> They go bananas over cover art too. Remember the dabacle with The Black
> Crowes' "Amorica"? Oh my god, HAIR!!! My personal favorite is when they
> wouldn't stock a Goo Goo Dolls (!) album because of the cover art. What
was
> it? A picture of the frontman when he was a kid, when he managed to smear
> strawberry jam all over himself.
>
> The Wal Mart folks said it looked like blood, and pulled it.
>
> Of course, once it cracked the Top 20, it mysteriously reappeared....
oh oh and don't forget the oh-so-controversial butthole surfers (?) album.
the one with the cartoon guy and the pencil in his ear. they had the inside
cover displayed for that one.
--gem
"And I followed him through corridors of make believe and love," Jeanette
Winterson.
Gem
> March Hare <marc...@wack.com> wrote in message
> news:8cejlb$r92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > my only problem with this is that that's not the government's job. it's
> > just another intrusion on yet another facet of our lives. one i could
> > do without. give me a more dangerous, and autonomous society versus a
> > safer, more sanitized, but less free one.
>
> I don't think the government is involved in the ratings we've been
> discussing, are they? My understanding is that these policies are
> self-imposed by the industries themselves. I think there is a heap of
> difference there -- legally, morally, and philosophically speaking --
> although the results may be similar. Now TV, radio, and the FCC are
another
> story...
i think they are "self-imposed" ratings to avoid any such government
involvement.
Gem
> The best art gives us something we didn't have before. It makes us see and
> feel things that we otherwise couldn't have had. It makes us look at
things
> in ways we haven't thought of. And the most successful artists do this
> without using established modes of creation.
i really, really like this definition.
i do.
you done good.
Gem
> YES. And allow me to project forward to a world we destroy, whether it be
> throught some very Sci-Fi ish Apocolypse. Or just through Overpopulation
> and carelessness and mismanagement of our resources.
>
> What value would one life out of a Gazillion be in the face of a barren
and
> Dieing Earth? And if it means the demise of mankind, likely it could, a
> human life would be at the MOST worth no more than the Trees, and likely
far
> less.
>
> My point is simply that the earth is not just beautiful, but VITAL in the
> support of our lives on it. That whole eco-system thing. We are
dependent
> on it after all. So lets rate the value of the tree a little higher huh
: )
>
> Not to mention who would WANT to live in a world without trees anyway.
if i remember correctly. there are two schools of thought when it comes to
the enviornment. some say that conservation, tree-hugging and stringent
laws regarding pollution and what-not is the only way to save the planet.
the other school thinks that science and technology will save the planet.
i am not sure which is right. i just know that i do my bit part the best
that i can.
Gem
> [CENSORED] THE [CENSORED] <ltan...@northlink.com> wrote in message
> news:o2IG4.1062$5e.9...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> > censorship. they won't play a song that has a label affixed to it on
the
> > radio.
> >
> >
> > as of 1995, the radio station that dared to play George Carlin's act,
> Seven
> > Words You Can't Say on Television, were still paying off their legal
fees
> > from a case that happened in the 70's.
> >
> > the real issue here isn't labels, judgments, or warnings. the real
issue
> is
> > to attempt to dissect and understand why those in power are so razzled
by
> > words they use daily themselves.
>
> Well, I think FCC issues are much more deserving of the censorship
> discussion than the mere act of labelling CDs with explicit lyrics. BUT,
> the FCC's concern is with things PUT ON PUBLIC DISPLAY, not with what
people
> are allowed to consume in privacy.
doesn't the FCC derive it's power based on the medium. the airwaves
"belong" to all of us, that's why they are in charge of making sure they are
"safe" for all of us.
i think that was the crux of the case against carlin's "seven dirty words."
> > lenny bruce and george carlin went over this shit. the word in and of
> > itself is not harmful, or "bad." it's the intention of the speaker that
> > matters. what is bad about a word that says the same thing that "feces"
> > says?
>
> These are two men I respect and admire and generally agree with. And I
also
> think what you are saying here has a lot of relevance to the recent
> discussion of Politically Correct speech in this newsgroup.
>
> > if you try to play a CD that has a label on it in this FREE country, you
> > will get busted. the law will come down on your head.
> >
> > they decide what words are acceptable and which are not. it is that
> simple.
> > is that censorship?
>
> Not allowing James Joyce's "Ulysses" into this country until December
> 1933 -- that was censorship, all the more ironic because not more than one
> person in a hundred would get past the first twenty pages, obscene or no.
books are still banned today. not to the extent that joyce and henry miller
were banned. but there are still schools and what not that don't want
students to read "catcher in the rye" or "huckleberry finn."
i believe the latest book ban nonesense concerns the harry potter books
touting sorcerism and crap like that.
> Not allowing PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR DISPLAY of materials which the
community
> standards deem are explicit or obscene? Is that censorship? Maybe. Of a
> sort. I'm not as certain of it as you, though. I'm not saying I agree
with
> it, but I think it's a very grey area. Call me up when the police bust in
> and arrest you for reading "How To Talk Dirty and Influence People" in the
> privacy of your own home, or when the FBI raids a CD pressing plant and
> confiscates copies of George Carlin's latest comedy album. Then I'll tell
> you for sure: yup, that's censorship.
but, "community standards." i know that's how the supreme court has
decided to judge pornography or obscenity. but i don't buy it. what's the
"community" standard. who gets to choose? is it put to a popular vote?
> Seriously, though: I'm not trying to be a dickhead and I'm not at all
> pro-censorship, but I think there are MAJOR differences when you are
> discussing the public and private spheres. Privately, I pretty much think
> anything goes as long as you are not causing harm to non-consenting
others.
> Publicly... I wouldn't say "fucking cocksucker" in front of a stranger or
a
> child, and I wouldn't necessarily defend someone's right to do it over the
> open airwaves either. You may call that censorship. I call it good
taste.
> On the other hand, if you want to buy a CD with somebody saying "fucking
> cocksucker" for 74 minutes straight and listen to it in the privacy of
your
> own home, I'll defend you to my last breath. As a matter of fact, I've
got
> some recording equipment and a CD-burner: how many people would pay me 10
> bucks a pop for a CD with 74 minutes of people saying "fucking cocksucker"
> on it? Come on, do it for free speech!
ok, ok, i see your point. but where do you draw the line between public and
private? if i choose to read something in the park. something someone
finds offensive, say "lady chatterly's lover" or something like that. what
if someone finds that offensive? or the book jacket?
can i still read it? i am not hurting anyone, if someone glimpses it and
deems it offensive, don't i still have the right to read it in the park?
> > herein lies the question again: why do the parents have to do this
"job"
> of
> > preventing certain words from being spoken? what is wrong with these
> words?
> >
> > why is it that the act of sex in detail cannot be shown to kids, but
> blowing
> > someone's head off and firing a round from an Uzi gets the "okay" from
> those
> > in charge so that kids can see it?
>
> You and I may disagree with the community's standards on these issues. In
> fact, I agree with you 100% on these particular ones. But I don't dispute
> the community's rights to have standards and -- under particular
> circumstances and within certain limits -- to enforce them publicly.
but i want to know how decides these community standards? i don't think
anyone should be making any of these sorts of decisions for me.
Gem
> my attitude towards those who openly embrace
> shock value for its own sake is echoed in the words of St. Paul:
> "everybody's dressin' funny, color me impressed".
the man is a genius, isn't he?
Gem
> > > For all you English Majors out there: That means "Rating does not
equal
> > > Censorship". Has that little prenatal advisory sticker ever stopped
you
> > > from buying an album that you wanted to buy? No? Then guess what: it
> > ain't
> > > censorship.
> >
>
> That's OK. I like it when you beg.
>
> Jesus, did I just say that?
yes, you did.
but a few posts ago you said you respected me. so it's all good.
--gem (who isn't really a very good beggar)
Gem
> >
> > parental warning labels just make it easier for people to be lazy
parents.
>
> With all due respect (and you *know* I respect you), this strikes me as an
> over-simplified statement. And it's also the kind of thing I can only
> imagine being said by a non-parent. Being realistic: if a parent doesn't
> have the time or energy (which most don't) to be on top of every single
> thing their child is doing on a day-to-day basis, that does'nt necessarily
> make them lazy. It just means that supporting and raising children is a
> fucking difficult job. And things like parental warning labels, no matter
> how imperfect the system is, often give them a much-appreciated helping
> hand.
i don't think it's too much to ask your kids what they are listening to,
reading, watching. it's taking an active interest. what 12-year-old
burgeoning music geek won't go on and on and on about who their favorite
artist is?
all you have to do is ask the kids. is that really too much?
--gem
Gem
> > > Longer answer: Most popular music is not "art". Most of it is
> "product".
> > > Ninety-nine percent of what constitutes the "objectionable material"
> does
> > > not fall into the "artistic statement" category.
> >
> > mmm. now that's a judgement call. you could use the community standards
> or
> > what not. but i don't feel anyone is qualified to judge what others
deem
> as
> > art.
>
> The problem that I have with this sort of philosophical relativism is not
> even that it's necessarily wrong but that I think it stifles discourse.
The
> underlying assumption -- that all opinions are equally valid -- seems to
> render conversation and passionate belief essentially meaningless. Again,
> I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I'm very disturbed by the
implications.
hey now.
how can all opinions not be equally valid? i think the judging straight off
of right and wrong renders conversation and passionate belief more
meaningless than thinking all opinions are worth hearing.
how can the discourse even begin if you dismiss an opinion right away?
sure, perhaps some are more valid than others but you've got to listen to
them all before you can make such a judgement, don't you think?
> > i am not sure how much time, effort and money it takes to research who
> your
> > kids are listening to. kids will yammer on and on about whomever their
> > favorite is. all you have to do is listen.
>
> Taken on its own, yeah you're right. But in the context of an endless
> succession of hectic days, I'm not sure this parenting thing is as easy as
> you make it out to be.
i know it's not. i see it all the time. but i think it's about priorities.
i still don't think it takes all that much time to talk to your kids.
that's all you gotta do.
Gem
> How about this, from J.S. Mill his own badass self: "What I contend for is
> that the inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the
unfavorable
> judgment of others are the only ones to which a person should ever be
> subjected for that portion of his own conduct and character which concerns
> his own good..." blah blah blah. I would argue that the situations you
> describe fall under the rubric not of "censorship" but instead of
> "inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable
judgment
> of others".
ooohhh. . . i lose control when you quote ol' john. mmmmhmmm.
> > why should a parent need help in doing this sort of job? as a parent i
> > think you should not only be interested in but aware of what your kids
are
> > listening to. do a bit of research. don't let the government do the
> > parenting for you.
>
> Well, I don't know... I guess I'm thinking "easier said than done".
Also,
> "to the best of my knowledge" the government has nothing to do with MPAA
> ratings or parental advisory labels. I believe they are the result of
> "industry self-policing". Although TV and radio are different because
they
> fall under the FCC.
how had is it to talk to your kid?
i am not saying that have to be reading rolling stone and tuning into mtv
everyday. just talk to your kids, hell people, especially children, love to
talk about things they are interested in.
while i have yet to be a parent, i spent grueling hours upon hours listening
to 11-year-old crimson (a young girl i babysat for) go on and on about the
spice girls and brittney spears.
on and on and on.
more than anyone who didn't give birth to her should have to.
but kids will talk, all parents have to do is listen.
March Hare
seren...@serenebabe.com wrote:
> NGRUK THE OBVIOUS wrote:
> [snip]
> > i'm not wishing death upon people, but i think we are a little full
of
> > ourselves when we try to place so much value on a human life. we
aren't
> > THAT hot. plus, too many of us just equals disaster... unless we
get smart
> > enough to live off of the planet.
>
> I agree.
>
> I also think that we place too much emphasis on "extending life."
Well ok. I guess I see your point. Then why don't let's start by not
trying to save the homeless, or the hungry people in poorer, less
economically developed nations (says George Carlin: "They're living in
a DESERT!"). I mean, without charitable intervention, many of them will
die frozen under some bridge or the victim of a violent crime, or of
their various addictions, or plain old malnutrition, if nature is left
to take its course. Selection of this sort culls the herd of the very
young, very old, weak or sick, and leaves the surviving gene pool that
much stronger for it. In the absence of natural predators anyway. And
just because some humans are better equipped (or lucky) and survive
while other's don't, to me this only says that people (while equal
under the law) are in fact unequal but still worth more than a tree.
just playin'
Devil's Advocate.
Hare
March Hare
seren...@serenebabe.com wrote:
> Edddddddd wrote:
> >[I wrote:]
> > > What's wrong with Al (not al)? Can you tell me what you think?
> >
> > Well, I like Al Gore better than Bush2 but he's pretty
conservative for a
> > democrat (not that I love the Democrats, I think it's because I'd
like to
> > have a better choice).
A democrat can NEVER be too conservative.
Here's a question for all of you -- who would you like to see as
> president? Really and truly, who would you like to see running our
country?
>
> Of course, being the Candybar, I suspect this could get silly. But, I
> thought I'd see what folks have got to say.
>
> Here's my list:
> President Tom Harkin
> Vice President Hillary Clinton
>
> President ____ Biden (I forget his balding headed name, Tom also?)
> Vice President Diane Feinstein (sp?)
Joe Biden.
> President Paul Wellstone
> Vice President Barbara Boxer
>
> President Homer Simpson
> Vice President Lisa Simpson
>
President Charlton Heston
Vice President Tom Selleck
President Arnold Schwarzenegger
Vice President Ted Nugent
President William F. Buckley
Vice President George Will
President Joe Quimby
Vice President Rainier Wolfcastle.
Honestly ? I don't know. I hope who ever it is spares us further
international embarrassment.
But I doubt it.
>Bo7-
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
> ngruk writ:
> >why do you think shock value is negative? what about it? why do you
feel
> >it's main value is to gain attention? is it shock value that is
obnoxious,
> >or is the way some people tend to use it?
>
> well, for one, i should amend this: my negative view of shock value
applies
> mostly to the here and now--- a few decades ago, when Bruce and Carlin
were
> in their prime, it actually meant something-- it was still possible to
> simultaneously repulse and resonate with your audience.
>
> these days, people are by and large not only less inhibited, they are also
more
> jaded. i know Marilyn Manson legitimately shocked a lot of people, but
at
> the time that he was getting the most publicity, myself at age 14, an
audible
> yawn and shrug were all that i could summon in response. certainly no
gasp of
> indignation there, not from me, at least.
>
this conversation has been going through my head all day Sunday as i clean
house and go about my day. something about it won't let me rest.
i think we are talking somewhat here about the loss of innocence.
collectively, it seems, the loss of innocence comes too early and brings us
this jaded viewpoint. we are no longer open enough to allow something to
truly shock us; we've been too overblown with too many grotesque images. so
the shock becomes only that... a mild, grotesque, slightly annoying pin
prick.
but is that us, or the shock? personally, i think it's us. i think we
forget ourselves when we let the media induce us with so many images of
people dying, parents murdering their kids, kids murdering their parents,
etc. i think we forget what's in front of us... we forget the things we see
and the people we meet. we let these grotesque images stay with us and they
haunt us.... a wash drowns over you, and then anytime something comes along
that
might have been shocking, it's like a dull whack on the knee. you feel it,
but you know how to keep it from effecting you. you can detach the feeling
of that knee from the rest of yourself altogether. you make it mean
nothing.
that's what i see. that's what i see in myself when i don't allow myself to
be shocked if i see or hear about some tragedy. i intellectualize it and
say that the media shouldn't be sending this stuff out there... it's none of
our business. or if i see some of the antics that come from the worlds of
music or art. Marilyn Manson doesn't mean anything anymore, Carlin doesn't
shock anymore, nobody is effective in this way.
Or are they? While I consider myself somewhat jaded in this way, i also
found myself pleasantly shocked by some of the things that Andy Kaufman did
that i didn't know about (when seeing Man on the Moon). And sometimes, if i
try to step into the shoes of someone else, i can even be shocked by Carlin.
It sounds funny, but it's really my choice.
>
>
> >i just find it interesting the way certain words are perceived (that goes
> >for the "good" ones, too, not just the "dirty" ones). and i think any
> >conversation about music labeling, movie ratings, or censorship should
focus
> >on why things are perceived as inherently wrong, bad, dirty, or whatever.
>
> good point. but i'm not sure where that would get us. what are we
gonna
> do, research the history of linguistics and psychology and society's
standards
> or decency? to most of the people who support various forms of
> ratings/labels/censorship, that kind of thing would make little difference
to
> them, and to those of us who don't, it'd just be a smug justification of
the
> views we've already formed.
>
i'd have to disagree with you here. i'm not interested in solidifying my
current viewpoint so that i may be "smugly" justified. and a lot of others
are not as well. are we not going to talk about something because it
supposedly doesn't do any good? how can we know? don't we learn from our
discussions with each other? isn't just LEARNING about other people and
their views good enough anymore? a conversation doesn't have to change the
world. why NOT research the history of linguistics? would that hurt us?
do we fool ourselves into thinking that we are making a big difference? NO.
but we do recognize the power of thought, reason, and information. none of
what we are saying about these things will change anything overnight. the
more you spread in the way of the idea, the more you spread the possibility
of change. it may not happen in ten, twenty years. it may not happen for
fifty years. it may not ever happen. does it matter?
it's not a matter of smugness, or thinking we have found the better way.
it's about looking to the possibilities, looking at how things might change
for the better, learning some new viewpoint, and just plain expressing
ourselves. i'm not sure why anyone would see that this is doing no good?
> there's always going to be people who are so adamant about challenging
> authority (rather than questioning it) that they're going to speak
defiantly
> and manipulate language for shock value, either because they were raised
with
> un-PC values, or because they're rebelling against PC that they were
brought up
> with. and that's fine and good for them. but honestly, it's just
annoying.
> especially since those individuals are often mixed up with and confused
for
> those intellectuals and iconoclasts whose unique view of the world happens
to
> be considered somehow obscene by the majority. those who understand
both
> sides of the spectrum, and have made a decision about which they want.
>
> me, call me a lazy conformist if you must, but i'd rather not bother with
most
> of it. i take a stand on those rare occasions when i see fit, but
usually i
> don't think it's worth it. my attitude towards those who openly
embrace
> shock value for its own sake is echoed in the words of St. Paul:
> "everybody's dressin' funny, color me impressed".
yeah, fighting authority is so typical nowadays that doing so is pretty much
status quo.
you don't have to take a stand. i'm not sure what that means anymore. what
are you gonna do? you can't walk into Walmart and hold a protest. You'll
be a minor distraction, and nobody who's really in charge will even be
around, because they are at the corporate offices. People who do those
things nowadays end up in mental homes (which is another discussion of
injustices of another sort altogether).
but because of this, i'm not going to limit what i can think about and what
i think is possible. it goes back to that whole jaded thing, the loss of
innocence thing. we think that we can't do anything but live our lives,
without disturbing anything so as not to disturb our ownselves. hell, it's
not worth it. we won't change anything, right?
but try to imagine living in the seventies. Nixon was running the show.
The backlash from the 60's was pretty significant. then think of the
freedom of the internet. do you think that many people thought such a forum
was possible back then? don't look at it from a technological viewpoint...
look at it from a political or social viewpoint. a forum that allows people
from all over the world to converse without restriction or limitation? a
forum that allows people to put whatever information they want out there,
without restriction?
no, they didn't think it was possible. these people were taking shit for
passing out flyers on the street.
twenty short years, baby. a LOT has changed, radically. in the 60's, Bruce
was getting harrassed for speaking honestly, shock or no. in the 70's,
Leary was in jail as a political prisoner.
what will happen in twenty years from today? being pessimistic might be the
route that makes you look more intellectual and realistic.... but it just
doesn't suit for me, i guess. and just because i'm not all that pessimistic
doesn't mean that i'm taking any stand of any sort or throwing myself on the
line to change the world. i just hope that the more intelligently we create
discourse, the more intelligently people will think... and act.
oops, i said "hope",
ngruk
NGRUK THE OBVIOUS
yeah, yeah.
well, the plain glaring truth is this: there is enough resources on this
planet to abolish starvation and poverty completely. Without question.
does that mean anything to anyone running the show?
i doubt it.
while those hungry and homeless people certainly don't deserve their lot,
getting sentimental about it is silly, IMO. People die unfairly every day,
but no one wants to ban automobiles for all the car accidents that claim
lives every year. everyone will pick their cause... some people pick a
cause that would save the life of a tree and ignore the problems of the
humans (although that's not really ignoring the problems of the humans, is
it?).
Death is apart of life. It's no cliche... it's the truth. you can either
accept it, or live in fear of it and fight it. Death doesn't care, and
neither does life, for that matter.
ngruk