Fucking Fuckity Fuck!

[trinityvixen]

No, I'm not actually mad. I'm just enjoying my right to be profane. I feel like that stick figure in "Rejected" who watches the weird alien grow out of the other guy's face all calmly with a smile on his face and then just goes, "F---!" Only I can actually say "FUCK!"

Because the President can.

I've been meaning to post about this ruling for a while, not even regarding what joy I find in seeing Bush and Cheney held to the same standards as the rest of us plebes, just about the fact that the FCC totally got smacked down for being a bunch of hypocritical, fascist cocksuckers. Next up for similar disembowling (I would hope): the MPAA.

I've said it before--network TV could actually compete with cable and pay channels if there was an agreed upon watershed hour. Before that, you could have the all the revamped game shows and sitcoms that weren't too raunchy or whatever. After that, bring on the cusswords and nudity! If, as I've always said, we need to leave the TV-internet-movie-morality policing to parents, we can help them out a bit by giving them a time boundary. I am not at all opposed to that. And, if after that parents still complain, they'll look like even whinier babies for not meeting halfway. Genius!

Amanda's got a good riff on this, too.

*

Dear God, New York Times, why do I even have to explain this to you?

THIS IS SCIENCE REPORTING. As in, "Hi! This is what science guys are doing with their brains...right now! Isn't it neat?"

THIS IS... I don't even know what that is. Okay, wait, now I've taken another look--do you know what that is? It's the caption to a graphic that went with the SCIENCE part of this article. I am still a tad staggered as to why this was published as an article in its own right. I didn't see it as part of the actual SCIENCE article and I was like, "What? That's it? Where's the rest of this? Why doesn't it go anywhere? Why is it only like 'Hur hur people write about invisibility a lot!'?"

*

And can I pick another beef with the "Science" Times? I know it might just sound like I've no appreciation for form and function or at least that I am lacking a sense of humor, but tell me it's not a little "Okay, how much do you want babies, lady?" to have the author describe sperm as "fast and as cute as tadpoles"? Why my life, why?

"They have chubby teardrop heads and stylish, tapering tails, and they glide, slither, bumble and do figure-eights."

Someone shoot this person, please? Personification of sperm = the ick. This is like those birth-starts-at-conception idiots times three thousand--life, individuality and personality, apparently begin with those gosh-darn precocious little sperms. I might also point out that wow, sperms really have it tough and all, but what about the fucking uterus that has to host that goddamned kamikaze, drive-by impregnating force? You want a goddamned miracle of an "isn't it amazing we get a baby at all" nature? Look what the female body has to do to keep the stupid fucking thing alive! Compare attrition rates of zygotes to those of sperm, and you'll find them not too disimilar. God. Like the egg doesn't do shit make pregnancy happen. I know it's Father's Day coming up and all, but where was my article on ova at the beginning of May, fuckers?

::grumbles:: This is like that article about duck vaginas all over again. "Ducks have vaginas? You mean they don't just poop out eggs? This is worth studying? Are you sure we can't just focus on ducks and their regrowing phalli some more? Aren't those more important?"

Comments

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

This is like that article about duck vaginas all over again

I see I'm not the only who caught the "sexual arms race" article last month.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I just love the absolutely stupefied reaction that scientists have when they're like, "Look at the females of a species? WTF?!" Sigh.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Dammit! More bad legal reporting with an unnecessary slant against Bush. Not that it's unsurprising.

The 4th Circuit's opinion did not say, "Bush and Cheney say 'fuck' and 'asshole', so it's OK to broadcast on television." It said, "The words 'fuck' and 'asshole' don't necessarily refer to sexual organs or activities, and are not inherently obscene. For example, look at the way the president and VP used the words..." The difference is important--certainly as important legally as the distinctions in descriptions of genetics you were talking about in the Heroes thread.

That being said, I agree with the 4th Circuit. But the rules on indecency aren't, haven't been, and never will be, "if the President can say it, it can be aired on TV."

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Relax, the TIME article was using short-hand for legal speak in a satiric manner. The NYT article I read before this one was much more specific about the reason of the ruling. I think this is as much Op-Ed as anything else--someone gleefully tittering to themselves.

The actual articles on this made very clear that usage of the word "fuck" was meant in a non-sexual way. I just posted this article because I lost the link to the NYT one and I'm pretty sure it's behind their "pay us for access, bitches!" firewall now. In any case, I was well aware that the rule isn't "from Dubya's mouth to my TV set." I, too, was being satiric in my interpretation. My non-humorous griping about the FCC, however, I perfectly mean to be mean.

I also disagree with you about this being an "unnecessary slant against Bush." I think if he's going to paint himself as a moral crusader, preach about moral values and protecting children (and have the FCC under his tenure as president come down harder than ever on anyone who doesn't go along with his wishes no matter how accidental), then he's gonna bear the brunt of being exposed as something of a hypocrite. And, yes, he IS a hypocrite if he spouts off invectives even if he swears he didn't know anyone would hear or in the heat of passion. His morality brigades make no distinction between a "fuck" slipping out of a celebrity mouth by accident or on purpose to provoke, so why should the president get a pass? Cheney either (who, it could be argued, meant his bit of swearing very MUCH on purpose)?

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

and have the FCC under his tenure as president come down harder than ever on anyone who doesn't go along with his wishes no matter how accidental

Contrary to popular belief, the president does not have iron-fisted control over administrative agencies. Heck, Bush can barely keep State, Defense, and Justice under anything resembling control, and they matter! To think that Bush or Cheney had a significant hand in the FCC's recent decisions takes a bit of a leap. Also, the FCC hasn't gotten significantly more or less strict under the Bush administration; they've just tried to (incorrectly) apply the "7 words" standard to live TV.

As a matter of First Amendment law, the decision's very important. But as a matter of politics, it doesn't do much for either side, and doesn't say much for Bush or his detractors.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Right, because clearly Bush has no influence over an FCC chair like, oh, Colin Powell's son. And the FCC didn't impose extravagant punishment fines on Howard Stern for doing the same thing he's been doing for years.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Personification of sperm = the ick

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate..."

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That whole thing was both ridiculous and genius. Especially since the kids had no idea what they were singing about...

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

That whole thing was both ridiculous and genius

And that sentance sums up the complete works of Monty Python.