The American Family Association is a fundamentalist culture-warriors organisation headed by Don Wildmon, whose record conspicuously lacks humour, empathy, tolerance or sense. They have released yet another doozy: a “call to action” regarding a “profanity laden” documentary about 9/11 which the CBS network plans to broadcast for the upcoming anniversary.
The profanity is so bad that CBS has warned their affiliates that they could be subject to huge fines. The FCC says it will fine not only the networks, but also affiliates if the law is violated. Under the new Broadcast Decency Act the $325,000 per incident could run into millions of dollars not only for the network but also for local affiliates.
CBS could very easily bleep out the profanity, but they refuse. The goal of CBS is to be able to show whatever they want at anytime. The network wants no restraints on their programming. If they are allowed to get away with this, they will simply air even more profanity in the future.
The profanity in question is the uncensored reactions of onlookers and rescue workers to the events they are witnessing as the towers are struck and then fall. CBS wishes to broadcast these reactions without bleeping or cutting in order to maintain journalistic integrity. Wildmon et al (America’s Largest Pro-Family Online Action Site!) apparently think profanity is more shocking than the events that are prompting the profanity.
This links to the whole warped notion of what is okay on screen and what is not that seems to also be linked to some fundie-Christian veiw of the world – nudity/sexuality/profanity is awful, but violence is fine. And it is not just a US thing – when I lived in PNG (a culture very influenced by fundamentalist Christian teachings) many of the people I lived with were into Rambo/Terminator/Chuck Norris (I think that is his name) movies, and were quite happy for their small kids to watch these videos. But if we dared play something that had a swear word, or even worse, people kissing, that was it, mass walk out from the screening.
Why is this? Can some of the greater minds on this board explain why violence is okay but flesh is not? Or at least why these people think this way?
So if the AFA get their way, can we expect to see footage of the North Tower crumbling in ruins and clouds of smoke and dust, with a soundtrack dubbed in of New Yorkers saying “Bother!”, “Jeepers!”, “Golly!” and “Crumbs!” as they scurry out of harm’s way?
Paul, not ‘Jeepers’ that’s getting too close to the mark. But also interesting, if you follows the links above, is the ruling:
Or as Kodos, the alien from the Simpsons, would say, “Holy flurking shnit.”
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kang.
I wonder if these godfearin’ folk know that Steve Irwin’s “Crikey” is a blasphemous contraction of “Christ”.
But is that ok if one is wrestling crocodiles? (But not ok if one is watching a building crash to the ground.)
wpd, that is an interesting ruling, and one that, in that snippet, seems a tad extreme. Surely surveys etc that are outside the state-defined core curriculum should have some sort of opt-out parental permission clause, and surely a sexuality survey would be considered outside the core curriculum.
This is, of course, how these “pro-family” organisations get hold of broadbase support – they engage in activism on areas such as that above which most parents would be concerned about. Many of the parents who become AFA members might not be as committed to the anti-homosexual and anti-profanity etc extremism but their membership dues drive that activism anyway.
“Broadcast Decency Act”……..whatever happened to the First Amendment, quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
emphasis is mine.
But bush has been stacking the us supreme court with reactionary judges each time he gets a chance. Wait for it, there will be an assault on Roe v Wade and even maybe an assault on the time-honored criminal staple, Miranda v Arizona.
However, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad/Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company should be safe. This older one, a favorite of Bush’s big business mates in tobacco and other places, extends constitutional protections once presumed apply only to natural persons to corporations as well…………effectively in tobacco’s case barring the govt from making laws that prohibit tobacco advertising.
never mind that tobacco consumption is related to far more death and disabiltiy than illegal drugs, yet they have an extraordinary assault on relatively harmless illegal drugs.
I am hoping this US stuff doesn’t get much more of a hold here:
PM, ministers to brief Christian leaders
IMHO it ain’t really about the actual words used in the actuality footage of the day. It is all about who gets to exercise power in the day to day running of things. In this case, the American Family Association and their ilk are having a go to see if they can get CBS to bow to their will. And, if CBS backs down, how much longer will it be before there is something else that the fundamentalist right believes must be censored, restricted, controlled. These people make the Talibaan look like a paragon of tolerance…
Cheers…
Is it the drugs that are relatively harmless (I would argue that they are very harmful) or their proportional use to tobacco (Tobacco use causes far more health problems than illicit drugs).
But I do take your general point – the tobacco companies have enormous influence and use this to their advantage, even the in knowledge that their product kills.
Ahhh, I always wondered why it was called a Miranda warning… now I know.
Let’s remember this is a country where the president is considered justified in launching a war based on lies, supposition and exaggeration, but getting head from an intern is a sacking offence. There’s a fascinating case study to be found in analysing the social and cultural effects of Puritanism and how they conflict with those of the USA’s war-laden history, I’m sure.
Thanks Ron. This god and governmetn thing is running out of control at full speed. Of course those of us who are not god-botherers have a right to comment, these guys are seeking to wield their influence on matters that affect all of us.
Before Howard got in, there was criticism of Labor’s “special interest groups” and “favors for mates”………. piss ooff Howard, you all are like that.
One of Howard’s team is allied to Hillsong, the House MP for Greenway, Louise Markus is in her first term. She got into this previously safe labor seat after an anonymous and vicious whispering campaign against its ALP candidate of Middle-Eastern origin.
QuietStorm, the Iraq War was not based on lies but the claim that it was is, indeed, a lie. America’s “war-laden” history has often been the story of an isolationist country being dragged reluctantly into other people’s wars. (To, for example, save Europe). Bill Clinton was not in trouble for a blow-job but for lying under oath. Just as Scooter Libby is now being tried for perjury, not for being the mastermind of compromising “undercover” CIA “agent” Valerie Plame. The Clintonistas aren’t going into bat for Scooter, funnily enough.
Utterly stupid reaction from this group, tigtog, agreed.
Less stupid, though, than our own Victorian government’s policy of trying to jail Christian ministers for quoting the Koran.
Steve Bracks is a far more dangerous and extremist wowser than the AMA.
Shaunna, while I agree with your sentiments regarding free speech (especially regarding this case), it’s doubtful that the Founding Fathers had in mind a lot of what is customarily thought to be covered by the First Amendment. Last year, I reported (as it were) a case in Seattle where a 17-year city moratorium on new strip clubs was ruled to be an unconstitutional prohibition of free speech. I’m not sure if there has been an appeal since then but I don’t think that decision made Seattle a better, happier, more peaceful and equal place.
In the same way, the NRA is always claiming the original right to bear arms (muskets) is some kind of constitutional guarantee to own a closet full of Glocks and a machine-gun.
Anyway, shame on the AMA for this precious and ridiculous stunt.
At the risk of completely sidetracking this thread:
PM, Ministers to brief Christian leaders
The ABC has been told the meeting is being held to give churches a say on Liberal policy.
Now I know that “[media outlet] has been told” carried about as much weight as “undisclosed sources close to [prominent figure]” in these situations, but the idea that church groups are carrying more political influence year after year is scaring me a little.
Brilliant title Tigtog
Tell me, CL: Is there a Labor Government somewhere that’s responsible for Steve Irwin’s death? I’m just asking, because there’s a conspicuous lack of âbut Labor is worseâ? on that thread, and I want to make sure that it isnât because youâve overlooked a very exciting chance to make another variation on the same tired argument.
“Last year, I reported (as it were) a case in Seattle where a 17-year city moratorium on new strip clubs was ruled to be an unconstitutional prohibition of free speech.”
This is quite a reasonable interpretation of the law, as both Stripping and Pornography are deemed in the US to be “performance” rather than prostitution, so shutting down a strip club is looked upon the same way as shutting down a theatre or an art gallery.
QuietStorm and Anna:
“Today’s meeting follows the Labor Party’s recent ‘Family Watch Task Force’ meeting in which Catholic Social Services Australia and other church-related organisations presented their point of view to the Opposition.”
I’m sure that that comment was relevant to me in your head, but it certainly didn’t translate…
C.L. – I presume you mean the AFA, rather than the Australian Medical Association.
“it’s doubtful that the Founding Fathers had in mind a lot of what is customarily thought to be covered by the First Amendment.”
Well, that just goes to show how truly great they were, doesn’t it? They could have made all kinds of prurient proscriptions, but instead went for a robust all-inclusive amedment to the effect that a bunch of adults can work their issues out without anyone’s right to say what they think being curtailed.
If you scroll up Anna, you’ll note that both Ron and QuietStorm have made reference to TEH Evil Howard meeting Christian groups for policy discussions. They introduced local comparisons and tangential subject-matter.
I was pointing out that Labor has already done the same thing. If you then scroll up to your earlier comment, you’ll see that you had sarcastically asked me for a “Labor is worse” angle.
“Labor is no better” was the best I could do.
Do you have any opinions on the subject at hand, by the way, or are you just going to start abusing people as usual?
> “Can some of the greater minds on this board explain why violence is okay but flesh is not?”
Okay, I’ll offer a primer (although I think the AFA’s complaint in this case is stupid because spontaneous swearing “into the empty air”, under extreme provocation, is hardly a sexual turn-on…)
1. Humans (apart from some rare pyschopaths) have very strongly-embedded, almost innate reluctance to kill other humans. This is so strong that military recruits have to undergo intensive, extreme desensitisation before they are “ready for battle”… and many still freak out as a result. It is so strong that soldiers in the infantry suffer much more trauma than, say, bombardiers.
2. Humans have no such innate reluctance to having sex with other humans. Quite the, ah, opposite.
3. Now, it’s obviously true that, on its own, a single instance of Person A screwing Person B is going to cause much less harm, or much lower likelihood of harm, than a single instance of Person A killing Person B.
4. However, when you adjust for the relative attractness of killing others versus screwing them, and when you concede (as a few of the wiser flower children have started to do) that screwing people is not a 100% harm-free activity, it’s quite possible that the cumulative harm to society from people following their natural instincts with regard to screwing may well exceed the cumulative harm to society from people following their natural instincts with regard to screwing.
To illustrate, compare the number of people you know of who regret sex they had as teenagers, with the number of people you know of who as teenagers emulated Kliebold & Harris, or Rambo for that matter. I’d bet there will be a statistically significant disparity.
Compared to depicting violence on screen, depicting sex on screen…
(a) is considerably more tempting, as an inducement to go and do likewise
(b) is more likely to excite the appetites concerned, rather than to be cathartic. (I’ve often walked out of cinemas after some Bruckheimer-esque blockbuster feeling drained and wanting to sit down for a drink. I haven’t ever walked out of a cinema after watching a “sexy” film feeling drained and post coitum triste).
I realise the temptation of another free kick at the dreaded Mus- … or, Christian Fundamentalists is hard for the true Larvaprodder to resist. Especially when a few hundred people out of a US populatio pushing 300,000,000 tape a huge “Kick Me” sign, metaphorically speaking, to their butt.
Not everyone, CL. Just you.
Try sticking to the topic, or bitch about the Labor Party on your own blog. It isn’t relevant here for a number of reasons, the biggest being that the post is about a bunch of Americans.
So FDB, you endorse the National Rifle Association’s (and wider American culture’s) ludicrous view of the Second Amendment?
“…a robust all-inclusive amedment”? (I presume you mean amendment).
I didn’t introduce local political comparisons, Anna. Others did.
Please stop abusing people.
I think that FDB’s point was that decisions about what the Contitution does and doesn’t mean have nothing to do with what the framers though or intended, only to do with a. what it actually says, and b. what the people in the positions of power set up by the constitution interpret them to mean.
Please stop trying to make every thread about your own little hobbyhorse.
Problem is you thesis about the relationship between sexual openness in the media and sexual conduct doesn’t stand up:
Teenage birthrate in the highly censored United States 64 per 1000
Other countries which have much more liberal attitudes to sexual material in broadcast media:
New Zealand 35
Britain 33
Canada 27
Australia 21
Germany 13
Sweden 13
Spain 12
France 9
Italy 9
Japan 4
Maybe more sex in the media actually has a repressive effect on all that animality that FF discusses with such grim relish.
Katz, you will please note the difference between “rate of teenagers having sex”, “rate of teenagers getting pregnant”, and “teenage birth rate”.
Also, how do those figures control for… ah, how do I say this delicately… different, ah, ethnic groups within the United States?
Thank goodness for the Bill of Rights there. What a shame we don’t have one over here…….ideally it wouldn’t be the same, but should be refined and crafted using the experience of the US, UK etc and all of the Case Law that happened thereafter.
You don’t even need to be an adult to receive protection. example in Plymouth County, MA, USA. As a side note, I am a transexual. Young people like myself have numerously used the first amendment to address violations of their rights to present themself in their “gender of identity”, eg if they were raised a male and sought to present as a female, they had to sue for the right to do so after most commonly their school principal, school board or school district violated their rights of freedom of expression by attempting to discipline or exclude them when similarly attired female students would not be disciplined or so excluded. Many such legal actions have been successful.
Its broadness of scope is precisely what makes it so useful. It is there for all people.
another news article, copied from
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_144083006.html
details how a trangender [transexual] student wins support of the ACLU in battling her school over her rights to enter the school formal, presented as a female though having been originally enrolled years before as a male.
Local and tangential political and cultural comparisons were introduced by others, Anna. Not me. (These included Steve Irwin, PNG, the Simpsons, Monica Lewinski’s blowjob, Howard meeting Christians, Roe v. Wade, tobacco and Hillsong – all before I arrived). I raised several points relevant to the topic, one of which drew on a local comparison relating specifically to free speech.
Please read the thread and stop ruining it with your abuse (you have admitted it is your intention to do abuse me).
I would ask today’s LP editor to consider suspending Anna if this continues.
I don’t know anyone who regrets the sex they had as teenagers, horny buggers! I know a whole bunch who regret not having any, though…
Hilarious comparison, btw.
So… USA = heavily censored, repressive laws preventing full & frank discussion of sexual matters. Unlike us enlightened, rationalist secularists in Howard’s Australia. OTOH, USA = has marvellous Bill of Rights which ACLU can use to force reactionary Reagan/ Bush judges to concede that the all-male white slaveowning powdered-wigs crowd in 1789 foresaw the need to protect the right to send CGI child-porn over the Internet. Unlike us benighted, censored serfs in Howard’s Australia.
Anna, the relevance of CL bringing up the Nalliah case is that every time someone on the Left calls for the smelling salts over the sedition laws, without saying a word about Victoria’s re-enactment of blasphemy bans, they undermine their credibility still further. Has it occurred to you guys there may be a reason why you haven’t been able to lay a glove on Little Johnny at the ballot box?
PS: CL, why aren’t you posting entries and faux-engraving JPEGs on your own blog instead of lurking around the Bahnisch posse’s comboxes?
Not at all delicate, FF.
Maybe before making such an odious insinuation, you should do the research yourself. Let us know if it turns out that niggers and wetbacks are ruining it for decent white folk, will you?
“how do those figures control for… ah, how do I say this delicately… different, ah, ethnic groups within the United States?”
This would be the darkies who have uncontrollable sexual urges.
Since they make up only 10% of the population, they are unlikely to affect the teenage pregnancy rate in any way that will make much difference to the figures for the US as a whole. The high US teenage pregnancy rate is much more likely to be down to the kinds of poor white people who appear on the Jerry Springer show.
Frederick, no-one who blogs at LP supports the sedtition laws, as far as I’m aware. Quite a few of us have denounced them and CL knows that.
He also can’t defend any of his own people so has to resort to pointing out that someone else is worse. What he is doing is not offering up comparisons for debate, he’s using the same, tired comparison every bloody time, despite the fact that he never gets anyone here trying to defend it.
CL is becoming a troll.
Sorry, I meant the “blasphemy” laws, rather than sedition laws. I oppose both, for what it’s worth.
C.L., there is no “today’s LP editor”. I am the author of this post and prime moderator for the thread, although other Lpers can step in as they see fit.
I reread all Anna’s posts to this thread and, just as I remembered, there was no abuse. Lots of questions and challenges to your thread-hijack attempts, but no abuse, and certainly no admission that her intent is to abuse you – cite?
There’s a difference between thread drift and thread hijacking, CL, and you step over the line all the time IMO. Anna’s responses were attempting to herd you back on topic, and you weren’t listening. I’m much more inclined to suspend you.
CL’s not the only one moving from drift into hijack territory. Can we get back to the weirdnesses of wowsers and the sex/violence disparities, please?
> “This would be the darkies who have uncontrollable sexual urges.”
> “Let us know if it turns out that niggers and wetbacks are ruining it for decent white folk, will you”
[Sigh] How easy it must be, to simply throw around imputations of racism. Someone, step up and accuse me of wanting to kill Arabs too? Go on, complete the trifecta. It’s so much easier than actually diagnosing the problem with a view to assisting the people concerned. It also lets you preen with self-satisfaction in your own progressiveness.
The fact that many African-American leaders (including Jesse Jackson, IIRC) have themselves made statements along the lines of “Three things to do before you have a baby: [1] Get a high-school diploma. [2] Get married. [3] Turn 21″ is, of course, irrelevant. As is the fact that no one is warning that the Redneck-American Community (aren’t you glad that Jerry Springer gives Correct Thinking People one group, at least, they can sneer at with a clear conscience?) is facing devastation and poverty because of broken families.
Just keep repeating “Four legs good, two legs bad” a few dozen times as you sip your latte in the student bistro, and you can keep the real world at bay for a few more years.
I’m with Patrickg, I don’t know anyone who regrets their teenaged sexual exploits.
And what’s with assuming, with no proof other than one’s own moralistic viewpoint, that more teenage sex=bad and less teenage sex=good?
I can see Katz’s argument that less teenage pregnancy=good (I think there would be few who would argue with that, particularly as it probably means less teenage STIs as well), but less teenage sex=good? Only if you’re a moralistic old fuddy-duddy who wants to ruin everyone else’s good time (possibly because you’re not getting any yourself).
Anna, I know that LPs and other people on the Left don’t support the sedition laws. Quite the opposite. All sorts of dire warnings about poets and painters being arrested by Tha Joonta. Meanwhile, a Christian pastor, a former Muslim, an immigrant, is hauled into caught for reading the Koran with as much disrespect as Phillip Adams or David Marr gives the Bible, and the silence from the “civil libertarians” (apart from a couple like Terry Lane and Pamela Bone) is deafening.
NB sp “fried rich”
I made no mention of anyone’s attitude to the Victorian laws – other than my own. I made sure to affirm my support for tigtog’s reading of the AFA story and made no comment on what her attitude to the Victorian legislation was.
Read the comment.
On party politics, the only contributions I’ve made recently at LP have been critical of the Queensland Opposition – for which I don’t vote.
I again ask that consideration be given to suspending Anna from commenting. She has stated plainly that it is her intention to abuse me and she is actually doing it with impunity.
> “I don’t know anyone who regrets their teenaged sexual exploits.”
Uh-huh. Yeah. Right.
k…on topic.
There is a well known Evangelical writer and sociologist called Tony Campolo who was well known for some of his more progressive and left ( in the context of baptist evangelicalism that is) views in the 80′s and 90′s. I think he became Clintons ‘spiritual advisor’ what ever that is/was too…
Anyway, for a while their controversy boiled around his controversial sermon that included the quote :
“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night”
I actually remember seeing him give this sermon in a Baptist CHurch in Brisbane as a teenager too, and the rather moderate and mostly sensible debate that ensued.
(i just checked the Wik and have pasted in the exact quote).
Yeah, CL, you gave one line to say you agreed with me about the wowsers and then launched off for several paragraphs in all sorts of off-topic directions, including gun-control in the USA, in response to a one-liner from QuietStorm which led into some totally on-topic questions about remnant Puritan mindsets.
That’s not engaging with the thread, that’s hijacking it. If you have a totally tangential point to make, why not post it over at your place and then post a quick comment here with a pointer to it, and make your other comments in this thread on-topic? If people are interested in your tangent, they’ll follow the link over to your place.
You have offered no cite for Anna’s “intention to abuse” you. She is challenging you, not abusing you, in this thread. There is rather a large difference.
I apologise for allowing the thread to become all about CL again.
That’s a great quote, SC.
Friedrich Foresight wrote: “> âI donât know anyone who regrets their teenaged sexual exploits.â?
Uh-huh. Yeah. Right.”
Are you calling me (and Patrickg) a liar? Them’s fightin’ words.
You may have a bunch of friends who were slaves to their hormones as teenagers and as guilt-ridden adults regret their carefree exploits; I obviously have friends who made better choices, are less moralistic and guilt-ridden now, and have no regrets about having sex as a teenager.
I myself greatly enjoyed my teenaged sexual exploits, and absolutely don’t regret a single one of them.
Super bowl. Bare boob. National Uproar. Now, that was weird.
But it also gave us one of the best phrases ever:
Wardrobe Malfunction.
You have offered no cite for Annaâs âintention to abuseâ? you.
Anna: “Not everyone, CL. Just you.”
My comment responded to earlier points, affirmed tigtog’s reading of the story, made a local comparison on a free speech subject, made a civilly worded comparison to another American free speech case, made a comparison with the Second Amendement (which is relevant to the question of constitutional interpretation according to era). It finished with a strong condemnation of the AFA – which was intended to underline my support for tigtog.
For this, Anna attacked me with sarcasm, invited me not to participate, implied I had called into question others’ attitude to the Victorian legislation (I didn’t) and called me a “troll.”
Tigtog’s response in a free speech thread: she said she’s inclined to suspend ME!
Adios, then.
I have no idea how Rebekka infers this gloss of my attitudes to, or deep and frequent satisfaction through, sex.
I was merely demonstrating how FF’s own desire to repress what he regards as regrettable sex may well be stymied by the very policy he espouses.
In formal terms, I was suggesting that FF was utilising a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, which in my humble opinion is a much bigger no-no than great heaving mounds of enthusiastic shagging.
FF, why on earth need one control for *ahem* “ethnicity*? Either people are encouraged to be sexually active by media example, or they are not. Do we need to control for handedness too. Are left-handers hair-triggered shagging machines?
Let’s try to disentangle two things which are often confused by both the Left and the Right:
(a) swear words, which I absolutely do not give a fucking shit about.
(b) a non-stop diet of movies and TV shows that promote the message “If you meet someone, and are immediately attracted to them, and have sex straight away, everything will work out fine. The only exception is if the other person’s a certifiable bunny-boiling nutcase. If they’re not that, then it’s completely harmless.”
Rebekka and Patrick, you may have been lucky. I was lucky. I dodged some bullets. I would not want my children to take some of the risks I took. (Out of curiosity, do either of you have children of your own?)
Some people drive drunk and get home safely. Doesn’t make drink-driving a rational policy for society as whole.
Think, for example, of domestic violence, or simply of emotionally abusive relationships. Even apart from cases where the woman is locked in by lack of her own resources, or by fear he’ll pursue, or by children (and what produces children?), how often do women put up with abusive partners? What keeps them in the relationship? Women will put up with violence (and other crap) from a man they’ve bonded to, after mnonths or years of sleeping with him, that they would never put up with from a stranger who tried to chat them in a bar. “Think and wait before you screw” would be excellent advice in almost every case.
Yes, absolutely. And the best way to learn that lesson is to never see or hear about sex.
Brilliant!
> FF, why on earth need one control for *ahem* “ethnicity*?
One African-American writer once wrote or said along the lines of, “For most kids growing up Black in America, your future presents two most likely options. (1) You spend years in jail, you do menial jobs, and you die young. Or else (2) you get amazingly rich and successful in your early 20s via either sport, acting or music. The one possibility that doesn’t seem likely for many is that you work hard for years in a solid job and get modestly wealthy that way.”
(quoting from memory)
Suppose, just suppose, that the most visible and successful role models for young Redneck-Americans (or young Yobbo-Australians, for that matter) were gangsta rappers who continually referred to woman as “bitches” and “hos” and put out music that valued them primarily as “booty”. Remember, aside from sportsmen and actors these are pretty much your only role models. These are people who look like you, they’re millionaires, and the only other likely fate for people who look like you is getting busted in jail for petty drugs crimes.
It’s not the genes, it’s not the skin colour. It’s the culture, and the tribe, and what people are encouraged to identify with.
Whoops, Katz, I wasn’t inferring anything about your sexual attitudes, I was agreeing with you regarding your take on teenage pregnancy, and FF’s desire to repress what he sees as regrettable sex.
Sorry if that was unclear and you thought my comments regarding more teenage sex=bad were directed at you – they were directed at FF.
FF -
(b) a non-stop diet of movies and TV shows that promote the message âIf you meet someone, and are immediately attracted to them, and have sex straight away, everything will work out fine. The only exception is if the other personâs a certifiable bunny-boiling nutcase. If theyâre not that, then itâs completely harmless.â?
You have not demonstrated that it’s harmful.
Rebekka and Patrick, you may have been lucky. I was lucky. I dodged some bullets. I would not want my children to take some of the risks I took.
Are you suggesting teenage sex is MORE risky than sex once you’ve reached the magic age of 20?
Why?
As for equating having sex with driving drunk – that’s just ridiculous. While I can see an analogy between perhaps not using a condom and not wearing a seatbelt, suggesting that the risks of sex (at any age) are equivalent to driving drunk is hyperbole.
Think, for example, of domestic violence, or simply of emotionally abusive relationships. Even apart from cases where the woman is locked in by lack of her own resources, or by fear heâll pursue, or by children (and what produces children?), how often do women put up with abusive partners? What keeps them in the relationship? Women will put up with violence (and other crap) from a man theyâve bonded to, after mnonths or years of sleeping with him, that they would never put up with from a stranger who tried to chat them in a bar. âThink and wait before you screwâ? would be excellent advice in almost every case.
Well, you’re free to take your own advice, of course. But I have never put up with an emotionally abusive relationship, let alone violence, and I’ve never waited if I wanted to sleep with someone straight away either. That’s a matter of being a good judge of people, and having healthy self-esteem, and has nothing to do with waiting.
It boils down to you see sex as something immoral. I see sex as something natural and not having much to do with morality at all.
Which is fine – you don’t have to do it. And can try to stop your kids doing it (good luck with that).
But to suggest that watching it is more harmful than becoming desensitised to violence by watching graphically violent TV/movies is indicative only of your moral position – not of any evidence that it’s harmful.
FF, the statistics I’ve seen indicate that fertility rates in the US are highest for people of Hispanic origin, and that those for both African Americans and Americans of white northern European origin are about the same, and similar to those of other Anglosphere countries and Scandinavian countries. However they were not disaggregated for age, which is what we’re interested in.
Sublime Cowgirl perhaps you should take some time to actually find out what evangelical thought is.
When you do this then you will find out Tony Campolo is most certainly not evangelical.
He says that almost anywhere he is invited to speak.
Can I ask why CL is the constant person who gets abused here at LP?
But FF, those cultural differences (if they indeed exist) will persist despite what people watch on TV etc.
Afro-Americans had higher rates of illegitimacy than Whites long before gangsta rap was heard of. Indeed, illegitimacy was impressed upon Black female slaves by their white masters during the 300 years of the existence of slavery.
These cultural traits are products of oppression and poverty that have little to do with rap, or any other manifestation of contemporary popular culture.
It only looks like abuse because he’s unable to hold up his comments to scrutiny and so he acts out when people challenge them.
And a witty Richard Thompson tune so indeed some good did come out of the brouhaha.
Haven’t noticed any abuse Homer, but I tend to avoid reading CL’s comments because I’ve learnt they’re seldom on topic and generally about his obsessions.
I must agree with you Rebekka – there’s several sexual encounters in my twenties that I definitely do regret, but I don’t regret my teenage sexual encounters one little bit. They were with young men I’d gone to school with (or their brothers/cousins) who’d grown into hawtness, and those relationships were very intense and rather sweet.
I imagine that since the PM set up a group of Muslim ‘advisors’ he was approached or felt obligated to at least have a meeting with Christian leaders, since they represent a greater number of Australians, which is fair enough. I don’t get the impression that John Howard is the type of leader who is told by others how to run the country, but is more likely outline his own policies, explain why he thinks they’re valid, and at least hears other points of view, even if he doesn’t heed them, but do you really think he’s asking them how to run the country? No, I think he’s cleverly recognising the importance of the Christian vote, as are the Labor party. We should actually be glad he is consultative, not critical or suspicious.
On the profanity thing, I think the AFA cause in this case is silly, since the people were reacting out of their shock and awe experience, so it’s not a good example to attack, but we do need to keep a sound check on the over-exploitation of hyper-expressive expletives in the public domain. The yanks’ constant use of the word ‘shit’ to describe just about everything is positively imbecilic, and in danger of spreading even into Aussie, which is colourful, but generally spiced with humour rather than deadly serious, bland, unoriginal, and foul profanities designed to revolt the hearer rather than illustrate a point.
America has a much lower abortion rate than the other countries mentioned too, since they are the only one with such a powerful anti-abortion lobby.
The real test would be teenage pregnancies rather than teenage births to control for this factor.
And yes, you should also control for ethnicity, because the US is unique among the countries mentioned because of its high Hispanic population, who are not only mostly recently removed from third-world conditions, but also all devout Catholics, which is obviously going to make a big difference to birth rates.
FaceLift, you make a good point about the PM making a display of evenhandedness having met with Muslim leaders. (Wot a rotter, interrupting the Howard hating!)
“America has a much lower abortion rate than the other countries mentioned”
Not according to this source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html
Ron’s source is, in turn, based on this source.
Paul, your link above is broken.
I agree, Ron – I don’t know where Yobbo got the idea that the US has a low abortion rate.
Despite all the difficulties placed in their way by anti-abortion legislators and communities which intimidate abortion providers (to the point of murdering doctors and clinic workers) so that some states have only one or two providers, American women still end up seeking out abortions at a very high rate. One of the reasons they have to do so is that access to reliable contraception is unaffordable for those without health insurance, even assuming that their town has a pharmacist who’s not too religious to fill the prescription.
Yobbo:
One country “mentioned”:
Point of information: “Hispanic” means “Spanish”.
BBEP – Define Evangelical?
Campolo actually self-defines himself as such, and (according to Wikipedia he is known in the states as a proponent of the Evangelical Left ) going so far as establishing the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education.
Where would you place someone like Ron Sider? Just curious btw.
Just got home and read this thread with interest and mounting disbelief. As yoiu may (or may not) be aware, I made a post to it early in the day. I have read with mounting disbelief the further exchanges, particularly those from C.L., who appears determined to use fora like this to merely push his own barrow – regardless of the actual arguments that are being mounted. Anyway. I am hoping beyond hope that in the future arguments, comments that are posted do to any thread on this site actually bear some relationship to the original topic…
Cheers…
Tanya – sublime cowgirl – whatever moniker you like to be known as….
IMHO evangelical refers to the ability to promote, proselytise, advertise your religion. I know there are some religions that are described as ‘evangalical’, and it does seem to be associated with the christian right, but my understanding is that it is all about vigorously, aggressively promoting your own religion – whatever it happens to be. The only exception to this would probably be those religions that argue that you have to be born into it in order to be a true believer…
Anyway. That’s my two cents worth.
Cheers….
I don’t mind some thread-drift Mick, but yes, it certainly has gone into some strange places, although it has now been vaguely wrenched back to wowsers and sexual attitudes.
I would prefer that personal comments about other posters such as CL are not made, thanks. That’s both a general principle and a particular request for this thread. I placed CL briefly into moderation today to stop this thread becoming dominated by tit-for-tat spat comments, and following a full and frank exchange of views he has agreed to withdraw from this thread. He is not currently in moderation but when he has agreed to not post here, then it is not fair to make such comments when he cannot respond.
I don’t want my threads dominated by back and forths between a handful of people. I will moderate anyone I think is throttling input from other commentors, and will discuss the decision in email.
As you were.
I agree that choosing a show that has people responding to a time of extreme emotional distress to try and censor is an unusual one. However, it is interesting to note that the response of choice is swearing. I do it myself I have just realised, although on a daily basis I try not to swear because I have found that toddlers can repeat swear words perfectly after hearing them once. Why is it that a really good swear word can express feelings so much better than ‘Goodness!’? Do we swear more now, or do we just use different words to those our parents and grandparents used?
Mick – as a recovering baptist I am just a tad familiar with the concept. Sorry I should have made it clear i was responding to Bring Back EP who claimed that Campolo was not a capital E Evangelical , as well as evangelical in practice, when he (Campolo) clearly fits the criteria somewhat, and self-defines as such.
(name change for pragmatic work related reasons btw.
sc aka tj
Mindy, I have a grandson who rapidly learnt the ‘F’ word after being a passenger in my car for a relatively short period of time. (I am a very impatient driver who believes that when driving people should concentrate on the task at hand). We now, instead of using the ‘F’ word, say ‘Goodness gracious me’.
My Mother who is now ninety-one, still chides me when I say ‘bloody’.
Personally, there is no particular word that upsets me, but I think the ‘c’ word is still unacceptable in most situations.
But to respond to your question. The ‘F’ word is usually said with much more passion than ‘goodness’; for goodness/F sake! Funny, how the little kids/bastards can sense the difference.
Another one of these groups has Helen Mirren in their sights:
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/09/02/family_watchdog_group_attacks_helen_mirr
Oh and as usual with BBEP he is the one true church all by himself and the only arbiter of what people’s religious beliefs are. God forbid that someone might be considered an evangelical by BBEP if they consider themselves to be one!
Mick, an evangelical is a preacher of the gospel (good news). It’s a Greek word meaning something like ‘messenger of good tidings’. Words change as they go along, and become identified with certain groups, but basically an evangelical would be a Christian who believes in the integrity of the Bible, and speaks about it freely.
My profuse apologies if I have erred tigtog. If I have, then it was in ignorance of the courtesies that I would certainly ask are applied all round. And I agree about the desirability of these threads not becoming a tit for tat forum. I always thought the idea was to engage with the issues, topics and events that were posted….
Anyway…
Cheers…
You’re fine, Mick. How were you to know about the particular in this instance? Your previous comment only just nudged up against the general principle and I used it as a jumpoff point.
Can you only be an evangelical christian, or could you be an evangelical buddhist, or atheist or whatever. Or is evangelical inherently christian?
The word derives from Early Christian recruitment practices, the preaching of the “good news” (evangelos) and enthusiastic proselytising (adopting new believers into the faith).
However, Christianity is not the only faith that spreads the good news of their faith. Islam always has been evangelical. Most religious faiths are proselytisers, but some wish for seekers to search them out rather than for them to go in search of potential proselytes.
Although Judaism is not an evangelical faith it still does accept proselytes who ultimately become converts. However, it used to be an evangelical faith in ancient pre-Christian times. Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, there had been for a century or more a few groups of Jews who were active proselytisers of Gentiles all over the Mediteranean basin.
These ancient Judaising activities are where we derive the term “god-fearer” – it was the first stage of becoming a Jewish proselyte, proclaiming oneself a believer in the wrath and power of the one true God. As one moved further into Talmudic and Torah instruction, one moved through several proselyte stages (ultimately for men, circumcision), although many Jews believed that Gentiles could never be fully Jewish, which came through the blood alone. It was a gradual process, designed to ensure that the proselyte was fully removed from their past idolatry and would not taint the synagogue with any reversions to pagan practices.
The new Jewish cult of Christianity ended up deciding that Gentiles could be fully received into the body of the church, even without circumcision, and many of the groups of Judaised proselytes were attracted to its teachings for that reason. The famous letters of the Apostles to various churches were, as I understand it, mostly to well established (several generations) groups of Judaisers and their ex-pagan proselytes, persuading them that the Way of Christ offered a better way to know God than the older Judaising traditions, and responding to more traditional Judaisers’ charge that Paul was misleading Gentiles regarding the effectiveness of baptism without circumcision. It was a highly political time.
Sublime Cowgirl,
Tony fights with Evangelicals!!
As I said do some homework.
A hint does he believe the bible is the word of God?
BBEP – I used to fight with my sister , but that didn’t mean we weren’t family.
Did you go to his website?
I’m assuming that you are at odds with him because he expresses doubt about literal 6 24hr day creationism, or because he identifies as part of the evangelical left?
(btw i’d prefer this not become a creation debate, because i’m not interested in arguing over that issue – i’m just wondering if thats your objection to him?)
BBEP appears to have adopted the recent labelling shift by American fundamentalists to describe themselves as Evangelicals as if their literalist brand of Christianity is the only possibly way to evangelise.
Evangelism is preaching the Gospel of Christ to the “unsaved”, surely? There are a lot of Christians who are not biblical literalists who nonetheless do missionary and witnessing work, and there always have been.
sublime cowgirl,
Creationism is not biblical! Evangelicals do not support creationism!
do some homework for heaven’s sake ( pun intended). perhaps try reading Christianity today.
the rubbish you are spurting is akin to saying Milton Friedman is a Keynesian!
tigtog a belief the bible is the word of god and is inerrant is fundamental ( pun again) to being an evangelical!
BBEP, one can believe that the Bible is the record of God’s revelation to humanity without necessarily accepting the doctrines of Inspiration and Illumination which are a necessary foundation for the doctrine of Inerrancy.
As I wrote long ago in an FAQ for alt.bible.errancy:
It is perfectly possible and indeed quite common to believe that the Bible is inspired revelation and authoritative teaching without accepting that it has been divinely kept free of human error over the millennia. Many people who hold such beliefs are committed to mission work and witnessing for their faith, so they are definitely evangelists.
BBEP – “Creationism is not biblical!” ????
Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The very first line of the Bible. How is it exactly that you claim creationism’s not Biblical?
I see quite a bit of “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good” and not much “And the single-celled organisms divided and multiplied, and evolved into more complex organisms” in the first book of the Bible. I don’t think there’s really any wriggle-room on this one – creationism is certainly Biblical.
Rebekka,
God tells us why he created the Earth and for whom but he dooesn’t tell us why except it was through the word which is why creationism is not biblical.
tigtog,
you are confusing the term evangelism, something that any person with faith can do, with the term evangelical which is used to define a belief in christianity.
Evanglicals believe the bible is inspired and innerrant.
So it’s coming down to capital distinctions such as Liberal vs liberal, and Catholic vs catholic?
For a long time evangelical has simply meant someone who practises evangelism. Traditionally it certainly has not meant a commitment to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I’m sure that are many Christians who consider themselves just as evangelical as your Evangelicals who resent the fundamentalist appropriation of the term.
I’m sure it won’t stop you Evangelicals claiming the term for yourselves, but I’m equally sure it won’t stop old-school non-inerrantist Evangelicals refusing to leave their church, nor the evangelicals counterclaiming it either.
We’re in danger of derailing and dominating the thread here – I think the points on creationism and evangelism have been made, we can leave it agreeing to disagree and see if anyone else has some comments on differing aspects of the faith v.secularism culture wars to make.
“God tells us why he created the Earth and for whom but he dooesn’t tell us why except it was through the word which is why creationism is not biblical.”
So the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, and yet you don’t call that a Biblical basis for creationism?
According to my dictionary, creationism is “the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.”
That’s exactly what’s outlined in Genesis, whether it tells us how (which I assume is what you meant to say the second time you say why) or not.
You really are tying yourself in knots with your arguments, aren’t you?
BBEP is correct about the accepted meaning of evangelical. There has to be at least one (nice) word to describe Christians who believe in the fundamental innerrancy of the Bible. The word ‘fundamental’ has been stripped from us and made to mean something else. Let us at least have ‘evangelical’.
Why not just “inerrantist”? Nobody else is using that term at the moment, and it’s objectively descriptive.
Yucky word! Not as flowing as ‘evangelical’, or ‘fundamental’.
OK, it looks as if the drift towards biblical nitpicking is just too strong. At least there’s four of us interested, not only two. Anyone else is welcome to join in!
FaceLift, Fundamentalist wasn’t “made to mean something else” in a vacuum. If your capital-Evangelical figureheads behave in the same intolerant, dogmatic and arrogant way as they did when they proudly called themselvelves Fundamentalists, making themselves and their theology easy targets for disdain, won’t your adoption of “evangelical” as your word end up doing the same thing?
That seems a bit unfair on the original European Protestant Evangelical label which they have proudly worn for centuries to emphasise that their teaching is based on the Gospel, and also the Church of England Evangelical movement with its emphasis on salvation by faith. Neither of these older Evangelical groups require adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy. For inerrantists to claim the label is disenfranchising these older Evangelical traditions.
Are we going to need to say Protestant Evangelical, Anglican Evangelical and Bible Evangelical (or Conservative Evangelical as I have heard in Sydney) in order to differentiate? It’s a lot of syllables.
I would be quite happy to be labelled a fundamentalist IF one was referring to the original term ie the fundamentals of the bible. However since that has now been taken I am happy with Evangelical.
Rebekka,
Creationism is usually referred to by people as believing Genesis 1 is the be all and end all of how the Earth was made.
What a lot of people fail to understnd is that when Origin of the Species came out such ‘fundamentalists’ as Benjamin Warfield saw no contradiction between that and the bible. Nor do I.
Genesis 1 simply does not carry enough information to tell us HOW God created the Earth but it isn’t important anyway.
BBEP, you’re describing the distinctions between Old Earth Creationists who accept science’s billions of years while still having faith that God created, and the Young Earth Creationists who don’t accept science, only Genesis.
All these words we need to add to distinguish between folks who insist on reusing labels with old established meanings! It’s all reminding me of the lumpers/splitters divide in ev-biol.
So, what word should we stick in front of Evangelical to properly distinguish you from the Lutheran Evangelicals and the Anglican Evangelicals?
ssems to me that is a tautology
Back to the original topic, I saw the BBC dramatisation of 9/11 on Channel 9 last night. It incorporated real footage of the attacks. As the plane flew into the second tower, two witnesses in the vicinity of the camera let fly with “holy fuck” and “Jesus fucking Christ”, some version of which I would certainly have uttered in the circumstances. The reaction of the people on the ground was a vital element and I felt that leaving those words in added considerably to the human impact of the moment. The words were, in fact, inadequate to the enormity of what was happening.
If you can’t hack the swearing, what are you doing watching real footage of jets hitting office buildings and desperate people jumping from the 106th floor?
Re: BBC footage.
It was indeed heartening to know that prior to the doctoring of audio, that people were actually hurling profanities in much the same way as I would have.
It felt cleaning to hear what seemed to be the real audio, but just slightly disturbing to be aware that even within hours of the event, the truth was being altered to suit network TV sensibilities.
Hey Bismarck and others..
I am a former fundie. Still consider my own sad self a bit of a believer.
The only words to say when you watch thousands die in one fell swoop are “Jesus Holy Christ! Do you know how many people died right now?”
I wonder if the fragmentation of audiences with Pay-TV over the past 20 years in the US, has also increased the power of the Fundos (concurrently with their long developed letter-writing campaigns and consumer boycotts).
This is a country, which on the one hand, produces popular TV shows like the Sopranos and Sex & the City for HBO, but on the other, Helen Mirren canât say âarse over titâ on free to air, without attracting flak, ironically on the very Awards show â which usually rewards shows that have âchallenging adult themesâ?.
You wonder why they Fundos were watching the Emmys in the first place – all the awards go to shows that they hate. Hoping for a wardrobe malfunction â âlook away childrenâ?.
The fact that so many ground breaking HBO/Comedy Channel etc programmes are shown here on free2air has 1) helped push our already more liberal free2air guidelines wider but 2) given us (me) the false view that US free2air is more like the rest of the developed world. Having not been to the US in 16 years, I didnât know that profanity regulation were still so v. strict.
Was Big Brother on US free2air?
The jumpers are the finest example of human bravery and desperation I can imagine or have ever seen.
They did it singly.
Some head down. Some flapped.
Some went in pairs, held hands and just fell.
Kids at the schools right there said, “Teacher! Birds are falling!”
Bless the selective eyes and protective minds of children.
And god damn to hell those who say anything bad about them, the ones who burned alive, were crushed or suffocated.
Or the pilots with slashed throats or anyone on board.
We saw the documentary on the Falling Man from the Twin Towers here last week, Another Kim. It was amazingly powerful. What a terrible choice to have to make.
Yet just like the profanity, so many people don’t want to hear about people who jumped.
I remember hearing a dancer who was watching them jump.
She said, “You could see personality in every jump. Everyone did it different.”
Vale, you anonymous air dancers.
You died so very courageously.
On the subject of that doco, Tigtog:
I watched the coverage of the WTC attack live.
I’m certain that a camera crew was in the plaza of the WTC, or some very nearby building.
The camera crew was transmitting pictures of people being tended for first aid.
I recall that there were several loud crashes off screen. Someone was heard to mention the fact that people were jumping. The stunned responses of the people on screen were clearly filmed.
The coverage cut away and never returned to that camera.
Soon after the first tower collapsed.
I wonder whether that camera crew escaped alive.
Those off screen thuds were stark evidence of the effects of jumping and may well have underscored some points made by “The Falling Man”.
But, as I say, I have never seen that footage again.
Is it perhaps more transgressive of a taboo than the footage taken from afar of people jumping but never being seen, or heard, to land?
Katz, many first responders were actually killed by falling jumpers.
You’ll never see it.
JPZ is a New Yorker. Maybe he’ll tell more.
The sounds of suicide could well be considered too transgressive, Katz.
I remember years ago my parents had a “Best of Life Magazine” coffe table book of photographs. One was of a beautiful young woman lying peacefully on top of a black sedan. It was only when one read the caption that one noticed that the roof of the sedan was crumpled underneath her – she had jumped from a skyscraper high above and was dead.
I hope the people who jumped on 9/11 felt that peace at the last, although I’m afraid that more realistically they were despairing over leaving loved ones. They weren’t truly suicidal, unlike that girl in the photo – they were just choosing not to be burnt to death.
I’d jump rather be part of a terrorist auto-de-fe.
Hard to know how one may react. Statistically, it seems that few victims did jump.
And for all the trapped unfortunates the WTC was just a burning building. The cause of the fire would appear to have been unimportant when making a decision whether or not to jump.
There is at least one historical parallel.
Relatively few jumped in the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.
I wonder whether the proportions of jumpers to non-jumpers was about equal in the two disasters.
Too damn bad the owners had locked all those doors when the ladies died that day. Greedy grubbing imperialist bastards.
Don’t ever make excuses for terrorists,either, Katz.
The reason they were died on 9/11 was Osama and terrorists.
Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists and everyone in between died because of terrorists. Fundamentalist Muslims.
Do not attempt to conflate the two incidents.
I don’t believe I was AK.
I was solely concerned with how many people decide to jump from a tall, burning building, regardless of the cause of the fire.
You said it was a burning building with a historical parallel.
No need to argue. It’s just a very touchy subject for me. Always will be.
You’re not being captious are you AK?
Yes. At another time in history another building burned, forcing people to decide whether to jump or to be burned to death.
The parallel is in the process of the fire, not in the cause of the fire, and not in the effects, consequences or significance of the fire.
In all other aspects, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and the collapse of the WTC towers don’t have many useful parallels at all. Conflation of the events would be pointless.
I said it was a parallel, not a perfect precursor.
Shaunna:
It was crushed underfoot as was habeus corpus, equality before the law, trial based on evidence, freedom of belief, ownership and enjoyment of one’s own private property, etc., etc.
CL:
You have to be kidding. Honduras, Dominican Rep., Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Guatamala, etc. for example – and in some cases more than once. This is not to say the U.S. was right or wrong in advancing and protecting its own economic and political interests ….. but you had better try telling that sad story of the U.S. as a reluctant warrior to the Marines.
Graham:
Despite being one of few commenters to contribute thoughts to this post’s
actual subject matter, I am not permitted to be involved.
However, as you’ve addressed me directly, I can reply briefly by suggesting that you don’t seem to be familiar with American foreign policy vis-a-vis most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
This could fairly be described as a significant oversight.
I didn’t speak – as you paraphrase me as having spoken – about a “sad story” of a “reluctant warrior…” I argued that American history “has often been the story of an isolationist country being dragged reluctantly into other people’s wars.”
Hemispheric interventionism, as you seem to acknowledge, arguably involved America pursuing its “own economic and political interests.” Post Missile Crisis, for example, Operation Power Pack may or may not have been imprudent but it wasn’t altogether illogical.
Ironically, in the 2000 US Presidential election, Al Gore said one of his priorities as President would be to selectively engage in regional conflicts. He mocked Governor George W. Bush as someone who would be likely to indulge in “partisan isolationism.”
Bush had been the first presidential candidate in years who had begun floating the possibility of a degree of global American withdrawal. September 11 changed that, just as Pearl Harbour ended FDR’s isolationism – which, as a strategic attitude, could be traced back to the worldview of Washington himself.
So no, I’m not kidding.
On the f*** word, I think Prof Roly Spiers (UQ) who is a whiz with language and has a gig on the local ABC here would say that it is a ‘filler’ or an ‘amplifier’ and in most cases devoid of semantic meaning as such.
As a filler it works to slow speech down so that the brain can keep up.
As an amplifier it acts to amplify the emotion or meaning of the phrase. I would see it in this sense in the 9/11 situation. To leave it out would be artificial.
Isn’t there also something New York about its use? I know you can’t judge a city by films, but I remember taking my older kids to a NY cop movie a couple of decades ago. My daughter wasn’t very interested and amused herself by counting the “f” words in the dialogue. She got to 79 before she fell asleep and that wasn’t all that far into the movie.
That was the one with Robert Redford in it, Brian, I think. Fort Apache, the Bronx?
And the UQ linguist is Roly Sussex, isn’t he?
Nice point on the filler Brian. It’s also one of the few ‘infixes’ in the English language, as in ‘absofuckinglutely’.
Michael Swan’s ‘Practical English Usage’ has a great piece on taboo words, where they get the analytical credit they deserve. They’re also usually very old words so I’m not sure when this golden age of gosh and gee whillickers was.
How about “absobloodylutely”?
That’s got tomato juice in it.
Worcestershire sauce as well?
And a honking great big stick of celery.
Not sure what’s in an absofuckinglutely though.
It probably comes in a shooter, though, or a test tube.
Like an IVF clinic you can drink.
Re the movie, Mark, possibly. I was only slightly more interested in it than your sister!
Yes, Roly Sussex! Roly Spiers used to be Director of Preschool Education here. It’s possibly early stages of Alzheimer’s or I usually blame slips like that on my heart operation!
I liked it, Brian!
It happens to me too, and I don’t have a heart operation to blame. I suspect it’s ageing and tiredness combined!
> “These cultural traits are products of oppression and poverty that have little to do with rap, or any other manifestation of contemporary popular culture.”
Aha. So I’m not a racist, then, for stating that there is a correlation. Apology accepted. Merely a racist for pointing to a three-decades-old factor, which now perpetuates the disparity, rather than a three-centuries-old factor, which originally caused the disparity. Probably because I believe in “fix the problem, not the blame” which iss why I have moved away from the Left as I get older.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/explorer/0307338231/2/ref=pd_lpo_ase/104-1701730-2241504?ie=UTF8
Still waiting for that apology.
Oh, well, I guess the John Howard Stolen Generation Principle of Progressive Thought applies here on this… very fine progressive blog: that you can demand someone to apologise for things done decades before they were born, but not for foolish things they themselves have done or said.
FF, I note with concern that you preface your demand for an apology with a quote from one of my posts.
1. This is the first time I’ve viewed this thread since before your second last post. I’d given up on it long ago.
2. I have never called you a racist. I therefore resent the implication that I have, for I do not believe that you are a racist.
I’d like an apology for that smear.
CL (on 7th Sept):
No, I was certainly not attacking you personally. And no, I am reasonably aware of America’s interventions and its isolations …. as needs be, sometimes one, sometimes the other.
The proverbial elephant-in-the-room is the strange failure of Emperor George I to intervene in Columbia and take out the Medellin cocaine cartel with a few well-directed and much-wanted airstrikes. After all, these guys were killing lots of U.S.citizens as well as corroding the whole U.S. economy. Oh well, just have to wait a couple of decades and see what the historians publish.
I have always said that had Al Gore been President when the 9/11 attacks happened, the response by the United States would have been much slower, much less flashy, infinitely more devastating and successful …. and the message would have echoed down the generations: never never never even think of trying to screw Americans ……