Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
Allan Songer

Mullah Bush and the American Taliban strike again

Recommended Posts

Howard Stern reports today that the FCC will levy unprecidented fines against Viacom today for "violations" going back several years and that he will be fired from his radio show within days. I am no Howard Stern fan, but this is CENSORSHIP plain and simple. It seems Mr. Stern has been bashinig the Bush administration regularly in recent weeks and recently all but gave his endorsement to John Kerry.

Kansas Senator and religious zealot Sam Brownback seems to the the American Taliban's point man on this.

And yesterday Okalahoma Representative Tom Cole stated that a vote for Kerry would be the same as supporting Adolph Hitler during WWII.

I am so ashamed . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be ashamed, comparing the President to the Taliban. You just don't have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the first part of an editorial concerning the use of less than a second of 9/11 footage in President Bush's commercial. This is the commercial that made Allan want to puke.

*************

Do Orwell-ocrats Own 9-11?

By Lowell Ponte

FrontPageMagazine.com / March 5, 2004

WHO OWNS 9-11? AND WHO OWNS HISTORY in general, the right to evoke the past and use pieces of it in creating the present?

The first television campaign ad for President George W. Bush came under partisan attack in the Leftist media because it included a few solemn, dignified frames of devastation from the World Trade Center, destroyed by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

Among the attacking voices were fat-cat Fire Fighters Union bosses feasting on caviar in ritzy Bal Harbour, Florida, who have endorsed Democratic presidential candidate-apparent Senator John Kerry (D.-Mass.) but for no specified reason accused President Bush of demeaning the memory of firefighters who died on 9-11. (The real reason is clear enough the Democrat fat-cats are exploiting these dead heroes, unable to speak for themselves, as a handy political weapon with which to beat Mr. Bush.)

NBC and its offspring networks out-hustled their rival giants in interviewing selected 9-11 victim family members who called the Presidents ad exploitation of a tragedy. Those carefully chosen by NBC stressed that Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry was not likewise exploitative in his campaign use of 9-11, but that Republican President Bush was.

My impression of these interviews is that NBC and a few Democratic family members were exploiting the tragedy of 9-11 to make partisan attacks against the President.

Lets pull back the camera to see a bigger picture. Those who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center have suffered enormous pain and grief.

Some, doubtless, unconsciously blame themselves for sending loved ones off to work on 9-11 to bring home the bacon for them. Some have tried to bury their pain and guilt by forgetting.or by displacing their guilt and anger onto a President who, they prefer to believe, somehow might have prevented the terrorist attacks.

But their loved ones were not the only Americans attacked on 9-11. We ALL were attacked. Nobody should have a monopoly controlling whether and how this shattering event in our history, this rip in the fabric of our society, can be discussed. It belongs to all of us. And each of us needs to address this unresolved tragedy in our own ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and this rant has a 2-channel audio question iin it? Hmmmmmmmmmmm,must've missed that part. 3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like howard stern take freedom of speech way too far. When our founding fathers wrote that into our constitution, i have no doubt in my mind they could not even comprehend the vulgarness that would come into our society.

While I agree with freedom of speech, I also fully believe that if you are in an industry where the audience can not be regulated, there should be some boundries.

Think about it. Why is it ok for people like howerd stern to spew their filth all over the airways for our children to hear, yet at the very same time, we regulate what our children watch in the movie theaters by the rating system.

I have the strong belief that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spew garbage for our children to hear. The fact of the matter is, our children do listen to the radio.

A local radio station here had a concert ticket give away. People had to find something shocking and off the wall to do in order to win the tickets. A teenage girl came down to the radio station to drink the urine of another man. This was happening live right there on the raidio for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of teens and children to hear. They were cheering here on, poking and prodding at her and basiclly dehumanizing this girl. Image that was your daughter... Would you really want that for her? Imagine being the father of the radio d.j.'s? Would you really be proud of them for that behavior?

I would not necessarly recommend that howard stern be pulled, rather asked to tone down is filth. if he can't won't, then pull him off the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't know we engineered 911 did you, Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are excerpts from an article from Slate:

Howard Stern

The shock jock in winter.

By Bryan Curtis

Posted Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 3:30 PM PT

Stern loves to roast his enemiesrival disk jockeys, fire-breathing ministers, the Federal Communications Commission. As Paul Colford notes in his book Howard Stern: King of All Media, Stern spends hours on-air bemoaning the forces arrayed against him. When New York's WNBC fired him for lewdness, Stern railed that network brass had conspired against him. When the FCC pelted him with finesa record $1.7 million in 1995he staged giant protest rallies around New York City. In 1987, he appeared in a prisoner's outfit and shrieked, "Is it spelled FCC or KGB?"

Last week, Stern whined: "They are so afraid of me and what this show represents." The problem is, Stern is no one's idea of a First Amendment casualty. Three years ago, he signed a new radio contract that reportedly paid him $18 million per year. He wrote two best-selling memoirs, and his biopic grossed more than $41 million. When David Remnick wrote an admiring profile in The New Yorker, dubbing him "Sophie Portnoy's other son," Stern forever lost the right to claim victim status.

Indeed, the mainstream media have embraced Sternperhaps too much so. Stern's favorite target these days is Jay Leno. His beef is not that Leno has marginalized him but that Leno has stolen his best material. Stern says Leno's "Jaywalking" bitwhere he quizzes hapless pedestrianswas lifted directly from his radio show. "Stuttering John" Melendez, the Stern player, was just hired as the new announcer of The Tonight Show.

The great provocateurs all had second acts. Imus climbed out of Hazelden and became a switchboard for the political and media elite. Larry Flynt became a presidential candidate, and Al Franken morphed into a left-wing apparatchik. Stern remains stuck in the same gear: filth. He rarely ventures far from his beloved strippers and porn stars. He ran for governor of New York in 1994, on the Libertarian ticket, but dropped out of the race rather than disclose his income. He has offered endorsements to politicos like Christine Todd Whitman and George Pataki but never used his audience to become a national powerbroker. He seems hesitant to stray from his raunch act, or at least refine it, to make himself stand out.

The shock jock's act is premised on greater honesty: I say the things everyone else is thinking, he says, and by daring to say them I am the more honest man. How long, then, can Stern affect the pose of a bedraggled victim? How long can he pretend that his act shocks anyone but the most timid souls? Stern has threatened to leave radio forever when his contract expires in two years. He should leave. There's nothing more pathetic than a provocateur waving his arms and saying, "Seeeverybody still hates me!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mr. Parrot--what about THIS?

WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/

According to press reports, Congressman Cole said a vote

against President Bush's re-election is like supporting Adolf Hitler during

World War II, and that, "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden

wins the election."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Mr. Stern has been bashinig the Bush administration regularly in recent weeks and recently all but gave his endorsement to John Kerry.

Oh No, I bet the Bush Administration is just clinging to hope that Stern's endorsement doesn't harm them too awfully bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderator --- As with a previous off topic thread, I ask you to remove this thread... It has no place in this forum. Too much noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------------

On 3/5/2004 12:10:10 PM Allan Songer wrote:

Hey Mr. Parrot--what about THIS?

WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/

According to press reports, Congressman Cole said a vote

against President Bush's re-election is like supporting Adolf Hitler during

World War II, and that, "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden

wins the election."

----------------

The Hitler statement is over the top and out of line.

On the other hand, there was a news story today that said North Korea is rooting for Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, i think this is an interesting conversation but find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with both sides. first, howard stern, and his lesser known colleague bubba the love sponge (who was fired by clear channel a couple weeks ago) certainly are obscene at times, and in my opinion should not be able to transmit obscene bits to the general public. 5 years ago, i would agree that the government's involvement in this could be perceived to be a "freedom of speech" issue. but now, with the popularity of satellite radio, howard stern and pals can be subscribed to, similar to cable tv. parents can decide whether or not to expose their children to this, while they can't realistically filter their childrens exposure to radio. on the second issue (politicians capitalizing on 9/11), i have to say "get real". these are politicians, and if you think they're truly interested in protecting the families of 9/11 victims you're naive. everything they say is meant to either promote themselves/party or to demote their competitors. so yes, the republicans are taking advantage of 9/11 by using images in their commercials, and yes, the democrats are taking advantage by questions the image's use. you're both right. and you're both wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------------

On 3/5/2004 12:10:10 PM Allan Songer wrote:

Hey Mr. Parrot--what about THIS?

WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/

According to press reports, Congressman Cole said a vote

against President Bush's re-election is like supporting Adolf Hitler during

World War II, and that, "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden

wins the election."

----------------

Funny... I heard it was just the oposite. I guess it just depends on your news sources...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3045A1.pdf

Howard Stern ( or anyone else) looses any claim to first ammendment protection when using the public airwaves. Profanity has always been an unlawful use of the airwaves. This applies to commercial broadcast as well as two way radio communications. Mr Stern has a history of seeing how far he can go before provoking a response, then claiming himself the "victim".

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3dzapper

based on what is in that PDF file, darn near every single radio jock I have heard breaks the law.

I'm actually happy that J.J.'s boob fell out. It has brought much needed attention to this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------------

On 3/5/2004 1:42:36 PM m00n wrote:

I'm actually happy that J.J.'s boob fell out.

----------------

And your happiness with this is supposed to surprise us??

9.gif9.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mOOn,

The Federal Communications Act of 1934 as ammended, covers broadcast and cable transmissions as well as sattilite and microwave transmission. A general cleaning is in order.

If the opposition to the act thinks that they can muster the legislative strength to rewrite those laws, it is more than free to do so. It would mean though withdrawal from the treaty of (I Think) 1932(?) which also prohibits lewd and obscene radio broadcasts while giving humanity the right to it's use.

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bored today, so I'll share my useless thoughts:

1) Howard Stern is an idiot, but a very smart, shrewd, and

successful one. A perfect symbol of these times, you might say......

2) The Constitution was written to be interpreted as black and white, not indeterminate shades of gray. Getting away from the vagaries of wishy-washy political interpretations by each new government was a prime consideration for the founding fathers (go look it up for yourself). It wasn't meant to be a "living, breathing" document but one that was pretty much chiseled in stone...you know, kind of like the ten commandments! Either "thou shalt not kill, period" or just forget the whole thing....

3) Freedom of Speech means you allow precisely the behaviors that some of you guys are suggesting being prohibited.

It's the speech that you strongly and even violently disagree with that must be free to occur, not just what you already agree with or have no feelings about or just "kinda disagree" with. That is, if you REALLY believe in "freedom" of speech. If you REALLY want THE PEOPLE to have the power and control of the government, RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

4) THE PEOPLE have the right to be stupid, childish, self-centered, repressive, racist, bigoted, uneducated, etc. and to pass any laws they wish to override and do away with the Constitution. They can like Klipsch or they can like Bose. They can express those opinions or all them dang Bose owners can be shut up, shut out, or even better yet, shot at sunrise.

5) Democracy and "freedom" is a messy, nasty, conflict-happy affair. It's much better to live under the rule of a tyrant or dictator. I would much prefer it if everyone just did things my way, and shut the hell up about YOUR opinions. Life would be so much easier for me in that way.

6) Weak people prefer to be ruled. Rulers like weakness and for people to fight amongst themselves...it makes the job of ruling so much easier. Rulers always have the best interests of those who they rule over at heart. Especially if they are good looking or wealthy. Then you should vote for them for sure. Never mind what they say. Never mind what they do. Don't ask too many questions. A peak behind the curtain could upset them...

7) Zip cord is as good as Monster cable. Low wattage SET amps beat the tar out of solid-state or tubes. Friends don't let friends drive Chevy's, but driving drunk is okay.....my goodness, we wouldn't want to hurt someone's FEELINGS, would we? Oh yes, one other thing.....

8) Weak people have thin skin. Sticks and stones have pretty much been outlawed, so now we've got to go to work on outlawing certain names (words).

9) I told you I was bored........

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chacal must have fallen to sleep before he got to ten. either that or Michael Powell.........

2.gif

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------------

On 3/5/2004 11:02:27 AM Allan Songer wrote:

Howard Stern reports today that the FCC will levy unprecidented fines against Viacom today for "violations" going back several years and that he will be fired from his radio show within days. I am no Howard Stern fan, but this is CENSORSHIP plain and simple. It seems Mr. Stern has been bashinig the Bush administration regularly in recent weeks and recently all but gave his endorsement to John Kerry.

Kansas Senator and religious zealot Sam Brownback seems to the the American Taliban's point man on this.

And yesterday Okalahoma Representative Tom Cole stated that a vote for Kerry would be the same as supporting Adolph Hitler during WWII.

I am so ashamed . . . .

----------------

Yes, let's put Howard Stern up there on the exalted pedestal of first amendment rights with some other great Americans: Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, Madonna, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, etc. Gee, it makes me proud to be an American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...