The Biology of Sexual Orientation

It's not really news.

I don't live my life by what religious conservatives say... and I'm glad I don't have to.

Now if only religious conservatives would butt-out of things like the FCC.

Michael, Some sects do object to the temptation - the enemy not being adultury, for example, but the lust that feeds it. I've always thought it weird. One can control what they do, but controling what one thinks or how one feels - while not impossible - is much more difficult.

Mark, when networks and whatnot stop trying to use the "shock factor," social conservative intervention in the FCC will no longer be necessary.

RA: It's not necessary now. The only way the FCC would have a need to intervene is if there were no choices in television and radio programming. There are plenty of choices. There are also plenty of ways for parents to block programming they don't want their kids to watch, especially on television. Can kids get around them, sure... but action by the government isn't the answer. It's not the government's job to dictate what there can and cannot be on TV/radio.

Of course it is. The government assigns the frequencies and due to the limited number of frequencies, the government has every right to carry certain expectations of those they give access of a pretty scarce resource to.

Now, as far as cable and satellite go, where resources are only as scarce as the marketplace, I completely agree.

RA: "the government has every right to carry certain expectations of those they give access of a pretty scarce resource to."

That's bullshit. I'm appalled at the fines they levelled against a broadcasting company because of Howard Stern's program. If someone's offended by a radio station, CHANGE THE STATION! Unpopular programs are pulled from radio just like they are on TV... and if enough people want to listen to or watch something on radio or TV, the government... consisting of elected representatives... should allow access to it.

It's outrageous that Clear Channel had to suck up to the FCC and dump a very profitable program.

Would you say that substantively there is no difference between Howard Stern's show and NPR? Would you go further to say that society as a whole has no interest as to whether people listen to the former or the latter?

Clarification: by 'substantial' I mean qualitative. Of course the two are different, but can they be considered just as worthy as one another, the difference being purely a matter of taste with no impact on the what the consumer gains or loses by consuming it. My apologies for the poor choice of words above.

I'm sure many of the same people who have a problem with Howard Stern's show also have a problem with NPR.. claiming it's too liberal, etc.

There are many programs on both TV and the radio that I don't like or that I find offensive. Do I go whining to the FCC about it and demand that they impose my standards upon everyone by curbing their choices? No... I just change the channel or station and watch or listen to something else.

Typiucally Stern's fines are levied against Infinity Boradcasting a subsidiary of Viacom which is his parent company. Clear Channel dumping him was not a direct result of FCC action (some make the arguement it was Super Bowl fallout) and was under taken at the same time when they dumped Bubba the Love Sponge. Stern claims it was because he didn't support Bush. You may also want to consider the fact that Michael Copps who was the major advocate and voice of higher fines and more decency laws is in fact a Democrat, but of course its still those 'right wingers'.

Also because the radio stations are licensed by the FCC they are subject to the rules of the FCC. They may complain about the FCC, but they'd be ath the FCCs door if someone stated broadcasting on their frequency in their town. If they want their airway rights protected they nee to play ball. Also considering the public airways are a public resource, its perfectly resonable for the elected representatives to regulate the public airways in a means consistant with the views of those who voted for them. Want it changed vote in someone else (unless you are in California where the Legislature makes it impossible for an incumbant to lose).

Yes NPR leans left, but I'm against it because tis a waste fo tax payer dollars. Now its not as wild eyed leftist as Pacifica Radio (which start opposing America fighting in World War 2), but it still leans that way.

Mark,

So you maintain that the difference between Stern and NPR (or that of Survivor against the Discovery Channel) is merely one of taste and that society would be no better or worse off if people spent more time watching/listening to one over the other? Or do you maintain that even though society would be better or worse off watching/listening to more of one and less of the other, it would be wrong for the government to intervene because of personal choice and whatnot?

I'm not sure how to respond until I know precisely what your point of view is.

I'm somewhat neutral on the content itself. I haven't watched broadcast television or listened to the radio regularly in years. I think that by-and-large the FCC crackdown is missing the forest for the trees (the warped ideas about romance and relationships presented in mass media is considerably more harmful than a stray breast). But ultimately I believe that a government that determines who can and cannot run a television or radio station can also create standards of content. This is not even a particularly conservative belief. I believe the same mandate allows the government to prevent certain conglomerates (such as ClearChannel) from owning too many competing stations. Both intrusions on the marketplace are justifiable, in my view, by virtue of the government's responsibility to assign a limited number of frequencies (which, again, is why this justification does not hold for satellite)

tP: You may also want to consider the fact that Ted Stevens, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation... a Republican from Alaska... also proposed extending decency laws and higher fines.

RA: "Or do you maintain that even though society would be better or worse off watching/listening to more of one and less of the other, it would be wrong for the government to intervene because of personal choice and whatnot?"

^ That's what I'm talking about.

I'm all for preventing monopolies... but when it comes to decency laws, I wholly reject the notion that the government should decide what's "decent" for us all.

Ted Stevens, the Republican Senator from Alaska that I spoke of earlier, wants to extend decency laws to cable and satellite. Look here for the details.

It's particularly interesting that he talks about pushing decency rules on cable and satellite TV/radio... but then talks out of the other side of his mouth by saying "no one wants censorship." Sorry, Teddy... that's exactly what you're proposing.

tP: One more thing... Michael Copps is obviously a conservative Democrat (on this issue at least)... and I don't support socially conservative Democrats anymore than I support socially conservative Republicans.

Mark, regulating consolidation and regulating material are two sides of the same coin, in my view. If you don't like ClearChannel, then don't listen to ClearChannel's radio stations. Sounds so simple, doesn't it? It just ignores the scarcity of frequencies for stations and that the government, because it is in charge of assigning its frequencies, is enabling CC's dubious practices. The same is true, in my view, of lewd culture-coarsening material. Because the government manages the scarcity, it has a mandate to manage it wisely and in accordance with the standards of the general public. The public generally supports the FCCs recent actions. I actually don't agree too much with the public or the censors, but that's why I watch things other than broadcast TV.

As for Senator Stevens, I'm aware of his proposal and I am passionately against it.

RA: Then it's clear that we disagree. Regulating consolidation and regulating material are two different things entirely, in my opinion.