America being ridiculous...again

[Beatrycze]

Actually that's what I think => The USA is less free than for example countries in Europe!

Which countries do you mean? Russia? Byelorussia? Ukraine? Turkey? France where wearing religious symbols is forbidden? Germany with their growing support for nasism and decreasing remorse for it? European Union, which new members are told off for having different opinions? Not to mention Rocco Buttiglione's case...

 

[Beatrycze]

Spoiler

How can anything this country does surprise anyone after Nov. 2?

Irene Wilde

And what is so suprising? Nation decided. People in Ukraine would like to have that luxury.

 

[novella]

I'm not sure where the world got the idea that the president didn't want coffins of fallen soldiers on the air. The president has little to say about it. The presses and networks make their own decisions.

Not true at all.

From the Washington Post

Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A23

Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.

To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.


In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.

From what I've heard, the Saving Private Ryan airing had little to do with the FCC. The network was much more concerned about their sponsors. Nobody wanted to pay for the broadcast, because the sponsors were afraid that nobody would watch it during the 7-9 period. Therefore, none of the networks would air it. It was a simple money issue and had little to do with the government.

Again, not true.

From today's New York Times, "Arts, Briefly" column:

"ABC's unedited broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan" yielded better numbers than the network's regular Thursday programs, but its gains were hampered because many affiliates, saying they feared Federal Communications Commmission fines for indecency, chose not to show the film." — KATE AURTHUR

 

[Cathy C]

yielded better numbers

Hence, saying it WAS broadcast. Whether affiliates feared the FCC was immaterial. I doubt they will do anything to the network.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could find completely opposing reports in the press. But that's the beauty of this country. You can FIND opposing reports.

 

[novella]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could find completely opposing reports in the press. But that's the beauty of this country. You can FIND opposing reports.

Can you really? I would be interested in whatever you have, from reliable papers well supported with facts, of course.

I don't think these reports can be contradicted by any credible evidence, but you're certainly welcome to try.

 

[novella]

Hence, saying it WAS broadcast. Whether affiliates feared the FCC was immaterial. I doubt they will do anything to the network.

The network IS its affiliates. Their fear of FCC reprimand is exactly the point. It is their cited reason for not broadcasting. I'm not sure you understand how this works?

 

[Cathy C]

an offtopic thought.

oh. and i don't understand either that how come people who are highly-educated, and who have read soooooooooo many books can still do harms to others???

its none of my business. but then whose business??

Highly educated doesn't mean unemotional, watercrystal. Most wars and crimes are emotion-driven. Anger, and hate and fervant belief that one belief or another is "right" cause intelligent people to lose their minds, or at least shut down their minds long enough to cause harm.

Do people need violence? Good question. I don't know the answer. I think probably people need conflict of some form, just as people need release of some form. Just as conflict comes in a variety of manners, so does release. Some people read to release, some get drunk. Others eat themselves into oblivion, or take drugs. Something has to uncoil the tightly-wound spring of emotions inside. If peaceful methods can't do it, then violence follows. Lots of books have been written about a world at peace. It doesn't last for long, so you're probably right. We need violence. Sad, but true.

Cathy

 

[Cathy C]

The network IS its affiliates. Their fear of FCC reprimand is exactly the point. It is their cited reason for not broadcasting. I'm not sure you understand how this works?

Yes, I do. It means that certain areas chose not to show it, instead putting on a different movie. That doesn't mean it wasn't broadcast. In fact, it DID appear in a number of areas around the country. Affiliates every day change programming of the main network, for various reasons. A show can appear in New York City and Los Angeles, and never make the TV listings in Austin or Chicago. Sorry, don't buy that argument. If it got high ratings, then it was probably shown in major metro areas. But that part won't make the papers, so it will be harder to find.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rogue]

And see, I disagree. I actually think that the U.S. is more tolerant than many places in the world. Of the thousands and thousands of schools here, there are a very few where the bannings occur, and they seldom occur for long (usually only until the next month's PTA or school board meeting). Same with evolution. Having been a public library trustee, and worked in an elementary school in a conservative area, there are always requests from both sides of the argument (one side who wants Harry Potter out, and the other side who wants Penthouse in -- in an elementary school!) But the moderates -- those people who don't have any disagreement with anyone about anything -- aren't the ones who show up in the press. The day-to-day good things in America never make the press. The people who are perfectly happy to let people live their lives number in the tens of millions, but nobody sees them. Our little town of 5,000, where the poverty rate is over 40%, donated over $60,000 of school supplies and clothing for an Iraqi town because one of the soldiers asked for donations. It took over 300 boxes and crates, but people didn't hesitate to do it, because it would help people who needed help -- people who had even less than us. No press, no applause, just a bunch of strangers in another country who couldn't grasp the concept of a "donation" from people who had never met them and who couldn't believe they could keep the items forever without some price.

You would like to thank them for donations??? So tell me who bombed their country into poverty and killed their families?

Generally, moderates ignore the press. I'm an independent. Some of my views are conservative, some are liberal, but most of the time, what other people do isn't my business, and shouldn't be the business of the government. I'm not sure where the world got the idea that the president didn't want coffins of fallen soldiers on the air. The president has little to say about it. The presses and networks make their own decisions. Just ask the New York Times and Fox. I do know that the Pentagon requested that certain coffins not be shown without the permission of the soldier's families, but that's not the same thing, IMO. Unfortunately, there's little room for "real" news on broadcast television here, because they're too busy concentrating on Janet Jackson (yes, STILL!), and the Peterson trial (don't ask... ) and whether or not Justin Timberlake hit a photographer (like I care).

This wasn't a request but a ban of such coverage!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3239659.stm

 

[novella]

Yes, I do. It means that certain areas chose not to show it, instead putting on a different movie. That doesn't mean it wasn't broadcast. In fact, it DID appear in a number of areas around the country. Affiliates every day change programming of the main network, for various reasons. A show can appear in New York City and Los Angeles, and never make the TV listings in Austin or Chicago. Sorry, don't buy that argument. If it got high ratings, then it was probably shown in major metro areas. But that part won't make the papers, so it will be harder to find.

.

Yes, but the story that some affiliates wouldn't show it IS the story. That's what the original story was, and that is what this discussion is about. So I'm wondering what you thought the story was . . .?? Perhaps you thought it was something different?

Perhaps if you went to Abu's original link and actually read the story, there would be a little less confusion.

 

[hay82]

Fair enough. What do you consider free, bobby?

I can't speak for bobby, but I would say that being free is having a choice and having access to information so you can make your choice based on knowledge.

And see, I disagree. I actually think that the U.S. is more tolerant than many places in the world.

That might just be the case but that is not the impression I get when I hear/read about USA. I hear about lawsuits, censurship (the thing about Janet Jackson is just plain stupid in my view) and stuff like that, it doesn't exactly say openminded.

there are authours that keep producing books loaded with violence and conflicts, and killing, don't they see that there are already enough outside and around themselves???

I read something in englishclass once that said "Some are born to sweet delight some are born to endless night" and my teacher asked me which I would choose. I knew he wanted me to say sweet delight but I thought how would you know sweet delight if you had never experinced "endless night". Can you know love if you have never felt hate? I would say that when we read about violence and conflicts, and killing we feel better about our own life.

Hay

 

[novella]

just because we have choice, that doesn't make us free.

What does it all mean? We will return to our regularly scheduled beating of the hairy dogbed, but first . . .


I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all of a special offer on the classic bobbyburns bumperstickers:

"free bobbyburns"

and

"My other couch is bobbyburns"

and the new

"bobbyburns in '04" , now offered at special discount

and the trendy

"be the bobby"


These are not free, but you do have a choice.

 

[mr_michel]

Yes, but the story that some affiliates wouldn't show it IS the story. That's what the original story was, and that is what this discussion is about. So I'm wondering what you thought the story was . . .?? Perhaps you thought it was something different?

Perhaps if you went to Abu's original link and actually read the story, there would be a little less confusion.

so lets simply resort to:
hey its abc, what can you expect (althought they have a couple nice sitcoms)

 

[bobbyburns]

point. counterpoint.

 

[Wabbit]

And see, I disagree. I actually think that the U.S. is more tolerant than many places in the world. Cathy

Oh really?

Then why is it you are the only western country not to allow gay marriage? What happened to everybody equal?

Why is it you are the only country in the western world that has not seperated church and state?

Why is it that you are the only country in the western world to STILL have the death penalty? Oh yeah, very tollrent. Let's kill them.

I could go on with endless lists of things. I have been to America personally, many many many times. More times than you can imagine And not just as a tourist either. I find that I like America and I like Americans but one thing you are NOT is free compared to the EU!!! I find there are SO many rules for things that I can't do that it's just crazy. I mean, you might think its a small thing but I want to be able to go open a bottle of wine and sit on the grass in public. You can't EVEN do such a small thing and enjoy the sunshine!

 

[novella]

Oh really?

Then why is it you are the only western country not to allow gay marriage? What happened to everybody equal?

Why is it you are the only country in the western world that has not seperated church and state?

Why is it that you are the only country in the western world to STILL have the death penalty? Oh yeah, very tollrent. Let's kill them.

I could go on with endless lists of things. I have been to America personally, many many many times. More times than you can imagine And not just as a tourist either. I find that I like America and I like Americans but one thing you are NOT is free compared to the EU!!! I find there are SO many rules for things that I can't do that it's just crazy. I mean, you might think its a small thing but I want to be able to go open a bottle of wine and sit on the grass in public. You can't EVEN do such a small thing and enjoy the sunshine!

Hey Wabbit, what the heck are you reading down in that hole? Are they spiking your carrots with crack or something?

Where you live, for starters:

--England's official state religion is Church of England Christianity,
--gay marriage is illegal in the UK,
--being gay was a punishable offense in the UK until 1967 (Oscar Wilde did time for it).

France has an official state religion, Roman Catholicism.
So does Spain.

The US does not have a state religion. That is barred by the Constitution.

Gay marriage is legal at this point in several US states (Massachusetts for one). This is an issue in flux that has not yet been adjudicated at the federal level, and states' laws are still in effect.

The death penalty, like gay marriage, is presently left up to states' law and is not legal in every state. In NY since the death penalty was reinstated, nobody has been killed. It's very likely that it will be rescinded in the next couple of years. As for the State of Texas, well. . . .

I think before you go on the attack with this stuff you might want to read around a teensy amount.

 

[Rogue]

What about this little Guantanamo stuff? Don't you think that what the US is doing down there is pretty much illegal?
Let me see what else there is: frying kids and retarded people on the electric chair, can't vote properly, not allowed to drink alcohol till age 21 or in public, the Patriot Act, you can sue everbody for everything you did wrong (and win), you have a lot of stupid laws, don't have social health care....
I wouldn't call the US a tolerant or free country.


The following are genuine State Laws that are still technically in force in America:

In Hartford, Connecticut: it is illegal to cross a street while walking on your hands.

In Ottumwa, Iowa: it is unlawful for a man to wink at any woman that he does not know.

In Los Angeles: you cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time.

In Zion, Illinois: it is illegal to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other animals kept as pets.

In Carmel, New York: a man cannot go outside while wearing a jacket and trousers that do not match.

In St. Louis: it's illegal to sit on the kerb of any city street and drink beer from a bucket.

In Baltimore, Maryland: it's illegal to throw bales of hay from a second-storey window within the city-limits. It's also illegal to take a lion to the cinema.

In Carrizozo, New Mexico: it's forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public (includes legs and face.)

In Michigan: a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.

In New York: it is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.

The state of Washington has passed a law stating that it is illegal to paint polka dots on the American flag.

In order for a pickle to be officially considered a pickle in Connecticut, it must bounce.

If you sell hollow logs in Tennessee, you are breaking the law.

Oklahoma forbids a person from taking a bite out of another person's hamburger.

Selling doughnut holes in Leigh, New England, is forbidden.

In North Carolina: it is against the law to use elephants to plough cotton fields.

In Pennsylvania: cars travelling on country roads at night must send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the raod to clear.

In Utah: it is against the law to fish from horseback.

In South Bend, Indiana: back in 1924, a moneky was convicted the crime of smoking a cigarette and was sentenced to pay a 25 dollar fine and the trial costs.

In Oklahoma: Harthahorne City Ordinance, Section 363, states that it shall be unlawful to put any hypnotized person in a display window.


In Gary, Indiana: people are prohibited from attending a cinema and from riding public transport within four hours of eating garlic.

 

[novella]

What about this little Guantanamo stuff? Don't you think that what the US is doing down there is pretty much illegal?
Let me see what else there is: frying kids and retarded people on the electric chair, can't vote properly, not allowed to drink alcohol till age 21 or in public, the Patriot Act, you can sue everbody for everything you did wrong (and win), you have a lot of stupid laws, don't have social health care....
I wouldn't call the US a tolerant or free country.

Gizmo,

My point to Wabbit is that it's pretty silly to try to have a discussion when you don't have the facts straight.

Whether "this little Guantanamo stuff" is legal is currently under discussion. I believe it's in violation of the Geneva Conventions, but whether that means it is illegal in the eyes of the US gov. is another question altogether. That does not mean that I'm defending their position, merely that I think their decision on legality will be a critical test of whether the present administration is will to accept international law.

Drinking age, death penalty, and litigation are determined by states' laws. Whether they are tolerant or not depends on the state.

The US is extremely tolerant at the level of individual experience. These issues and US law are under discussion in the world's eyes. It's an open discussion and I am really confident that the US Constitution will continue to protect all US citizens, just as our election was fairly played out and fully open, despite the disappointment of many, including myself. Sometimes there are wrinkles that take time to iron out.

 

[hay82]

England's official state religion is Church of England Christianity

Having a state religion does not mean that church and state isn't seperated (you probably know this but I wanted to be sure ), but I think that what SillyWabbit means is that in order to become president in America you have to be religious.

The following are genuine State Laws that are still technically in force in America:

I think most countries have laws like that, which are just to stupid to be taken seriously.

What about this little Guantanamo stuff? Don't you think that what the US is doing down there is pretty much illegal?

Yes and unfortunately there isn't anyone who can make them change the way it's done. USA says jump and those who don't jump just sulk in the corner.

I have nothing against americans but I dislike the attitude displayed towards the rest of the world.

Hay

 

[hay82]

My point to Wabbit is that it's pretty silly to try to have a discussion when you don't have the facts straight.

Well it is SillyWabbit isn't it

And just to get a headstart on all those who thought that was a lame remark I'll just say: "yes I am going to bed very soon".

Hay