Link ña-dink-a-doo
The Onion does an Enquiring Photographer send-up [1] on the recent FCC shenanigans. Check out those quotes!
Iíve been posting quite regularly about the FCC, and linking to John Rookís site [2]. John sent out an e-mail alert earlier this week: SCANDALS & SCOUNDRELS
Again, FCC chairman Michael Powell refuses to answer questions about a new scandal uncovered by the Center for Public Integrity.
The FCC's Strange Non-Profit -- Powell runs venture capital firm that claims itís private
Read how he controls funds from those he is expected to regulate. Outrageous !
The NEWEST SCANDAL in the life of the FCC chairman.
Read the latest from John here [3]. And continued kudos to John for his persistent efforts. The man has passion. The sort that radio people before the Post-Reagan/DeReg & Consolidation/Powell-FCC Era can relate to, big time.
Bill Safire in The New York Times offered another excellent essay with regard to the FCC matter in the Op-Ed section: Big Media Silence [4]. Just in case that link wonít work (yes, the Times is still stuck on the concept of charging readers for the fishwrapper section, that is, any article over a few days old), you can find a copy that was captured right here [5].
Congressman Maurice Hinchley continues the good fight. Heís joined up in support of Bernie Sandersí legislation [6] to reverse the FCC ownership ruling (or, as many call it, give-away to the fat cats).
You, too, can join in support of this bold step by Bernie Sanders (et al). There is bipartisan support, as the right of a free and open media, a non-monopolistic media, is a basic tenet of the system. Republicans and Democrats alike see through this pandering ass-kissing of the Powell FCC to reward the huge companies that have exercised power and influence in the form of junkets, holidays, and who-knows-what.
Write to your Congressional Representative! Write to your Senator! Make sure they hear your voice in opposition to these monopolistic and fat-cat-feeding FCC rule changes.
If the airwaves belong to the people (that's what it says in the FCC's charter), then let the voice of the people be heard. Do it today!
FROM SADDAM TO SODOMY
Move over, Iraq! WMD Begone -- Make room for the Landmark Sodomy Ruling!!
So The Supremes, that group of nine who shoved George Bush on us, is continuing their process, having now stricken the Texas anti-Sodomy law. This will have a ripple effect on all other states with similar laws on the books. A South African paper came up with a good headline: US sodomy ruling causes stir. Many news sources carried coverage of gay groups celebrating [7] the Courts ruling. In one gay bar, a celebrant hailed the events, called for everyone to have a drink on him, and yelled out, ìBottoms Up!î
Jerry Fallwell, of course, found this a bit hard to swallow. In The New York Times he is quoted [8] as referring to the sodomy ruling as a ìslippery slope.î Gee, where did he get such insight? His Virginia neighbor Pat Robertson warned this would put the US in a moral sewer [9]. Obviously, one-time Presidential aspirant Robertson finds this ruling to be a pain in the ass.
A Virginia professor, discussing how the Supreme Court ruling overturns standing Virginia statues, had the quote of the day [10], ìRonald Krotoszynski, a constitutional law professor at Washington & Lee University Law School in Lexington, said the ruling leaves little "wiggle room" for the Virginia law to stand.î Choice words, eh?
Louisiana Gubernatorial candidate Jay Blossman came out [11] (hmmm ... is that the right choice of words?) against the Supreme Court ruling. Further, Blossman said heíd support fighting the decision, and would be glad to enact Anti-Sodomy laws.
You think his opponents will say that such a position, well, just sucks? Or will they try to back-end the issue, and avoid it altogether?
Noted homophobe and self-righteous issuer of statements on right, wrong, and just exactly how you and everyone else should live their life, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum made it known [12] that he thought the Supremes were wrong this time. Santorum said instead of basing its decision solely on constitutional grounds, the court went a step further by overturning the Texas statute.
ìThe right to privacy, up until yesterday, was within marriage,î said Santorum, ìThey have now changed it to consenting adults. I think most Americans would find that to be a very broad reading of the Constitution.î
What's with this guy? He wants to limit privacy to those who are married? What's the difference? I wonder if he's some sort of asshole buddy with John "no breasts, please" Ashcroft, another beltway type eager to eliminate as many rights of freedom and privacy as possible. All this, of course, in the name of chauvinism and religion.
After the April Santorum flap (in which he was lambasted for equating gay relationships with bestiality and with priests molesting teenagers) there were cries in some quarters that as the third ranking Republican in the Senate, he should have resigned. Or, to put it another way, he should have pulled out, given his position.
All this is very cuckoo, donít you think? And speaking of that . . .
[13] I note consistent referrer blog hits from this site, KooQoo [14]. Anyone have any idea just what this is, who is behind it, what goes on there? Let me know if you do!
Spike TV (Shelton Leeís nemesis) Update
Shelton Jackson ìSpikeî Lee appeared in court, represented by noted OJ lawyer Johnnie Cochran. There they were to argue that Viacom, owner of TNN, is capitalizing on Leeís "name and prestige" by renaming its network Spike TV. Articles about this are all over the place. One mention of yet another Spike is here, from the Professional Wrestling Torchís site [15].
State Supreme Court Justice Walter Tolub agreed to impose an injunction on TNN, accepting Cochranís arguments that Shelton Jackson Lee has somehow cornered the market on the name ìSpike.î Lisa de Moraes in The Washington Post continues her excellent reportage [16] on this idiocy.
Many, including yours truly, suspect that Judge Tolub was eager to move it out of his courtroom, and avoid any prolonged dealings with Cochran. Fear of race-baiting and having Cochran as an adversary might just be coming into play here.
Spike Jones, Jr., whose late father is probably more of a worldwide well-known Spike name with greater universal recognition, weighed in, in opposition to the position taken by Shelton Jackson Lee. CNN carried the story [17] on Wednesday of last week. My kids loved to watch some old Spike Jones videos back when they were younger. There's a Spike usage that predates Shelton's. Where does Shelton come up with such gall?
Dumpshock Forums [18] carries an interesting exchange of views in a forum [19] on the topic.
Whatís next? Will Shelton, and his lawyer Cochran go after the State of Virginia next, for their liberal usage of the name Lee? Remember Grant, Remember Shelton! Will Shelton have Johnnie draw up papers against the creative team at Rugrats, for their use of the name he so covets as his own, on Spike the dog? Worse yet for Shelton, thereís a Rugrats movie coming out soon. Guess who is the voice of Spike the dog? Bruce Willis. Will Shelton sue Bruce?
The Shelton vs. TNN court battle continues, tentatively scheduled for August, when the court will hear the case. In effect, Shelton has won an early victory, by postponing the networkís name change. Rather than debut the new programming with the new name, it remains known as TNN. Of course, now that must stand for The Nameless Network.
Discussing this ridiculousness with a buddy at my city office, a new take on this came to light. All along I saw this as a major ego play on Sheltonís part. My buddy had a different take: Shelton and Johnnie are in it for the money. He suggests that they will offer to settle with TNN, and that their part of the settlement will be to accept massive sums of money from TNN in return for Shelton dropping his Cochran-plead attack. Yes, it probably is nowhere near as much the ego thing (which is satisfied by all the press and this early victory) as it is a money thing.
Funny, watching the ESPN coverage of the Yankees-Mets game last Sunday, I thought of this stupidity. When Met player Jeromy Burnitz slid into 2nd Base he was tagged by Yankee Alphonso Soriano. As Soriano pivoted to turn and throw to first in hopes of a double-play, his left foot landed on Burnitzís right hand. Baseball players wear cleats, also known as ìsheltons.î
Poor Burnitz! The Met got ìsheltonedî by Soriano and had to leave the game with a bruised hand. Maybe to kill the pain, he sheltoned a drink and went to sleep. Players will have to be careful with their Sheltons, so as not to hurt members of the other team. An old phrase in Baseball might come into play in this TNN court battle. When players are about to retire, they refer to, ìhanging up their Sheltons.î
