Media Hypocrisy Subverts American Culture

NewsMax.com ^ | Feb. 11, 2003 | Barrett Kalellis

[dirtboy]

Baloney.

Such a strong rebuttal. Look around you. The busybodies are asking the feds and state governments to ban guns, limit fast food, outlaw SUVs, restrict smoking and pass laws to aid many other causes. In turn, too many conservatives are in favor of limited government until it comes to their pet peeve, and then it's time to unleash the legislators. Of course, it never stops with banning porn or indoor smoking. It just starts there.

[MWS]

Interesting points. However, I was not saying that everything someone considers harmful ought to be banned. I would not even say that it should be a matter of what the "majority" of people believe to be harmful, as we know that simply because a majority of people believe something to be true does not make it so. However, one can certainly evaluate things based on their merits. What benefit comes from what is being considered? What harm does it cause? Does it create the problems it is related to or is it merely a symptom of larger problems? If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it? We elect representatives to debate and discuss issues for the very purpose of considering such matters and to pass laws in accordance with their decisions (that the system has been reduced to simple pandering for votes is a sad, sad thing).

I suppose my main contention is with this notion that society has no right to ban certain activities and that all such bans are really just matters of "preference" on the part of a few.

[dirtboy]

If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it?

What is important is to recognize the inherent dangers in having government determine what is beneficial to us. For example, I like beer and a good steak. There are do-gooders who see no benefit to me having either. If the answer to your question is NO, they would be justified in having the government prohibit me from consuming either.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I guess some cretins fail to apprehend the detriment of "rap" music's glorification of raping "bitches" and killing cops to the minds of nine-year olds.

I guess this "cretin" does. Why don't you spell it out in detail, genius. And be sure to include all relevant research, peer-reviewed, of course.

Forgive me for being unimpressed by your hysterical suppositions.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I guess some cretins fail to apprehend the detriment of "rap" music's glorification of raping "bitches" and killing cops to the minds of nine-year olds.

I guess this "cretin" does. Why don't you spell it out in detail, genius. And be sure to include all relevant research, peer-reviewed, of course.

Forgive me for being unimpressed by your hysterical suppositions.

[MWS]

What is important is to recognize the inherent dangers in having government determine what is beneficial to us. For example, I like beer and a good steak. There are do-gooders who see no benefit to me having either. If the answer to your question is NO, they would be justified in having the government prohibit me from consuming either.

I agree that, generally speaking, it is VERY dangerous to allow government determine what is beneficial for us in an unchecked manner. (I've read too many dystopia novels to believe otherwise)

However, government certainly is a necessary component to stable society, is it not? Governments exist to regulate the manner in which a society works so that there can be at least some order in the daily interactions of those who constitute it. Societies need laws if they are to function properly.

The fact is that society has legislative government precisely for the purpose of deciding what is beneficial to society and what is harmful. This is technically what a government does when it passes a law. This also happens to be what is dangerous about government- in its role to decide these things to some degree, it can overstep its bounds and become overly intrusive. Ultimately, this is why the founding fathers, in their brilliance, created our system in the manner which they have. The powers that the government possesses were split so that, when one branch goes beyond what it is permitted, it can be overridden. Politicians that legislate in a manner that tramples the rights of the citizenry are replaced in the next election. When the government as a whole begins to overstep its role the people, if they were wise enough to hold on to them, have recourse to their guns and revolt.

(Lest I fall into a trap I am unwittingly laying for myself, I should add that I believe regulations along the lines I am speaking of should happen on the state or city level, and certainly not on the national level.)

A society without government cannot remain stable. A government without the ability to pass laws is not really a government. A law that does not make any judgement regarding what is "beneficial" and "harmful" to society is not really a law. Government does exist to make judgements such as these. The key is that we remain vigilant and not let it go beyond what is reasonable.

[dirtboy]

The fact is that society has legislative government precisely for the purpose of deciding what is beneficial to society and what is harmful.

I have less of an issue with a government determining harm than I do having them determine benefit, and believe governments should react accordingly.

[MWS]

I have less of an issue with a government determining harm than I do having them determine benefit, and believe governments should react accordingly.

Actually, I agree. Originally I only meant that government should weigh the benefits and harmful aspects of the matters it is considering. Guns may have the "harmful effect" of killing people, but they also have benefits that offset that- they help people defend themselves from violent criminals, among other things. That's all I meant when I said that government needs to determine what is beneficial at times.

[Pagey]

"However, is it wrong to ban something that is potentially harmful to society"?

That is one heck of a good question.(Well,ask yourself, how could Hillary Clinton possibly be allowed to become a U.S. Senator? But I digress) Looking back to the 80's and 90's when Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest (in separate court cases) were sued by the parents of children who listened to "that Heavy Metal Music" as they called it, and claimed the lyrics instructed them to end their own lives ( which in both cases were proven false,of course ), it is my opinion that Rap ( or any music that doesn't ring my ear) as explicit and unappealing as it may be---it is more the lack of discipline/direction by the parent(s) in their kids lives that determine how the child develops.I don't allow that music in my home,know that.But you can't ban music---anyone can create a song and put it online nowadays anyway, but it's my choice to ignore it and spend my money elsewhere.Tipper Gore put labels on CD's in 198?. That's more than enough of a ridiculous action already IMO.

[weegee]

I'm not sold on censorship. The media doesn't need to support this man with radio airplay or interviews though.

There have been former hoods with recording careers before (including members of the Ramones, Merle Haggard, and others of different musical persuasions). Some artists like Johnny Cash continue to record dark songs. There is a "lifestyle" (known as being a "playa" in "the game") that is being sold. The media doesn't need to support it but they do. I was surprised to see gansta hip hop videos being aired locally in Houston on PBS on Saturday nights. There is a double standard but I don't want to see things defined downward as "equal opportunity" outrage is given its coverage).

Some of it is a vamp. Playing up an image that has nothing to do with reality. There were songs with rough sexual and violent lyrics in the 1950s (this is from the man who wrote and first cut "Good Rockin' Tonight" on that same label, Roy Brown and His Mighty Men). This wasn't even a "white label" adults only party record. This is a blues shouter but it could almost be a rap as it is more spoken/shouted than "sang":

BUTCHER PETE (PART 1 & 2)
(Brown - Bernard)
ROY BROWN (DELUXE 3301, 1950)

(Part I)

Hey everybody, did the news get around
About a guy named Butcher Pete
Ol' Pete just flew into this town
And he's choppin' up all the women's meat

[Chorus]
He's hackin' and whackin' and smackin'
He's hackin' and whackin' and smackin'
He's hackin' and whackin' and smackin'
He just hacks, whacks, choppin' that meat

Butcher Pete's got a long sharp knife
He starts choppin' and don't know when to stop
All you fellows better watch your wives
'Cause Pete don't care who's meat he chops

[Chorus]

Ever since Pete flew into town
He's been havin' a ball
Just cuttin' and choppin' for miles around
Single women, married women, old maids and all

[Chorus]

Wakes up in the morning, half past five
Chops from sunrise to sunset
I don't see how he stays alive
Meat's gonna be the death of ol' Pete yet

[Chorus]

The police put Pete in jail
Yes, he finally met his fate
But when they came to pay his bail
They found him choppin' on his cellmate

[Chorus]

That Butcher Pete is a crazy man
Tries to chop down the wind and the rain
Just hacks on anything he can get
Say, turn this record over, you ain't heard nothing yet

(Part II / Side II)

Well, they let ol' Pete out of the jail
He went back to his store
All the women who payed his bail
Were waitin' on Pete to chop some more

[Chorus]

There's an old woman, who's ninety-two
Lives down the street
She said, one thing more I wanna do
Is find ol' Pete and let him chop my meat

[Chorus]

Pete went to church one Sunday night
He gave the preacher a fit
That crazy Pete started a fight
When he went hackin' on the pulpit

[Chorus]

Well, they put him in jail again
They tried to give him life
Pete beat the case, he pleaded insane
They gave him back his same ol' knife

[Chorus]

He got out of jail on Sunday night
Monday he tightened his grip
He started to China to see the sights
Went nuts again and chopped up the ship

[Chorus]

They brought ol' Pete back to town
To electrocute him there
But Pete was crazy like a clown
He chopped down that electric chair

[Chorus]

He's a maniac!
He don't do nothin' but hack.

Music censorship in the 1950s gave us an extreme example when there were bans in Boston (and elsewhere) of the Link Wray instrumental called "Rumble" because it was "too suggestive".

[weegee]

I hate the "ban because I don't like it" crowd. I hate having to deal with the idiots that seem to drive minivans, but I'm not calling for an end to minivans or the rounding up of their drivers.

Don't have to push for a ban on minivans, just better licensing of their drivers.

Music makers/publishers are not licensed (since speech is constitutionally protected) and so this approach would not work. They must come to responsibility on their own.

[weegee]

OR at the least the venue ought to regulated where all this sh*t isn't one-click-away accessible or foisted upon the masses as "art," for the consumption of all -- regardless of age.

Better get ready to rail against the ALA (American Library Association) if you haven't already. They do not believe in the concept of age appropriate material. They honestly believe that kids should have access to all items in the library (R rated movies, X-rated "art" films, and all books and websites). They believe that if parents complain about their kids having access to library materials, then they should prohibit their kids from getting library materials (as a way of overseeing things).

I believe that there is a place in the library for the Complete Works of Robert Crumb underground comix collection but see absolutely no reason to put it on a shelf next to "all age" materials. A glass case is suffient (and is used for items that are routinely vandalized or more expensive and at time "mature" items).

[weegee]

So Tipper used her husband's influence to get Senate hearings over the content of sex violence and drugs in music (circa 1985). Is music lyric content and imagery better or worse off these days?

I think Albert Gore II went for this as an "issue" because his dad, Albert Gore Sr., saw his political shot at the White House go down the tubes when fellow Tennessee Senator Estes Keffauver ran his own name into the national spotlight investigating juvenile delinquency and its causes (culminating in Senate hearings that led to the censorship of comic books with the Comics Code Authority).

Keffauver picked up the Dem's VP slot and Albert Gore Senior's shot faded away (next came JFK, LBJ....).

[DB]

The first amendment wasn't written to protect you from being offended. Being offended and surviving it is part of the cost of being free.

The PC crowed would love to regulate your "hate" speech (saying what your doing is a sin for example is hate speech) by force of law. They already control most of higher education and can get you expelled for saying something they don't like. Call someone a "water buffalo" and your out… Of course they can say the vilest things imaginable about Christians or conservatives and that isn't hate speech they say. No one has every gotten expelled for that… The country as a whole doesn't need to follow their example of the tyranny of the majority.

The government needs to stay out of the speech regulation business unless one is being unlawfully slandered or threatened physically by such speech.

When you put what you can say in the hands of others you are taking the first steps at becoming a slave to them.

[F16Fighter]

"Look around you. The busybodies are asking the feds and state governments to ban guns, limit fast food, outlaw SUVs, restrict smoking and pass laws to aid many other causes. In turn, too many conservatives are in favor of limited government until it comes to their pet peeve, and then it's time to unleash the legislators. Of course, it never stops with banning porn or indoor smoking. It just starts there."

Now you've made a good point or two -- and I agree there has been a rash of idiocy thrashing about out there lately that needs some stomping on...

However, America has always had obscenity laws, blue laws, and community standards until very recently -- and for good reason as far as I can see. Let's not compare time-tested tradition laws as I've just mentioned with those proposed by a minority of pin-headed neo-fascists who want micro-manage our lives by preventing you and I from eating a second Big Mac.

[F16Fighter]

"I guess this 'cretin' does [fail to apprehend the detriment of "rap" music's glorification of raping "bitches" and killing cops to the minds of nine-year olds]" Why don't you spell it out in detail, genius. And be sure to include all relevant research, peer-reviewed, of course.

Please forgive me for neglecting to review with you the tutorial where the formula of 2 + 2 was explained.

[F16Fighter]

"Better get ready to rail against the ALA (American Library Association) if you haven't already..."

Yep, even the librarians are conspiring to corrupt society.

They and the whole thing makes me sick...

[First Amendment]

I am not in the least opposed to free speech. But the courts have whimsically interpreted "speech" and "action" or "expression" to by synonymous. Why is a "Gay Pride" parade with faggots dressed like nuns screwing each other free speech? Why are live sex shows free speech? Why is pornographic movies free speech? Those are not speech, they are not protected under the First Amendment, and were not intended to be by the original authors.
But anyone can and should be able to speak or write their viewpoints about these things.

[First Amendment]

I am not in the least opposed to free speech. But the courts have whimsically interpreted "speech" and "action" or "expression" to by synonymous. Why is a "Gay Pride" parade with faggots dressed like nuns screwing each other free speech? Why are live sex shows free speech? Why is pornographic movies free speech? Those are not speech, they are not protected under the First Amendment, and were not intended to be by the original authors.
But anyone can and should be able to speak or write their viewpoints about these things.

[First Amendment]

I am not in the least opposed to free speech. But the courts have whimsically interpreted "speech" and "action" or "expression" to by synonymous. Why is a "Gay Pride" parade with faggots dressed like nuns screwing each other free speech? Why are live sex shows free speech? Why is pornographic movies free speech? Those are not speech, they are not protected under the First Amendment, and were not intended to be by the original authors.
But anyone can and should be able to speak or write their viewpoints about these things.