Who was the lone dissenter on that vote? I know it wasn't Kerry. Boy, wouldn't it be nice to have a presidential candidate who doesn't get all upset by entertainment (even Nader's a prude on this issue).

And who is going to decide what constitutes indecent?

99 to 1 is a really big margin for the senate. Is it possible that a lot of people just didn't like what was being done with their own airwaves?

99 to 1.

Ironic that during all this, the vice president tells a Senator to "go fuck yourself".

Crid, are you really that much of a moron to have made such a stupid remark?

You think a 99-1 vote in the Senate is representative of anything?

Well, if the Senate votes with a big majority like that, it must be okay to just blindly go along with it. Yep, duh, works for me.

The Senate also passed the so-called Patriot Act with a big majority, too. So I guess we should all quietly go along with that, huh?

Since when do you think the people own the airwaves? Congress sold them to big corporate interests long ago.

Do you really think "the people" put shit like Survivor and Falcon Crest on the air by popular acclimation?

Ironic that during all this, the vice president tells a Senator to "go fuck yourself"

Eric -- I missed that news story, though I did hear the end of a radio interview with Cheney making excuses for his potty mouth. It brings to mind the "major asshole" comments that he and Bush made about some journalist on the campaign trail in 2000. Could you fill us in a little bit more about what happened? I love the irony too. I'd bet money that Ashcroft's got a mouth like a streetwalker. Lena

Hi Lena!

Cheney sugggested this to Senator Leahy of Vermont the same day the Senate passed the "Defense of Decency Act". Leahy has been very vocal and critical of Haliburton, whom we know has ties to Cheney. What Cheney and company see as "accounting errors" Leahy and company see as defrauding the government and wartime profiteering. Now Cheney can't remember if he actually said it, but admitted "I probably did".

In addition to the incident you remembered reagarding Bush and Cheney calling a reporter "a major asshole" (which he may very well have been) I was reminded of all the poor offended people who got on their soapboxes and publicly wept over how the White House was forever defiled because Bill got a hummer. Who really cares- they shampooed the carpet.

Wouldn't it be great if Cheney was levied a $3million fine? Surely the Senate is as hallowed as the half-time show!

99 to 1. So who's the extremist? Who's out of touch?

Crid: Better question -- who's trolling for votes in an election year? Who's hoping to get parents to vote by taking a superficial stand against bad words?

I wonder if that one vote was independent Jim Jeffords. It would certainly make sense.

The lone dissenter was Democratic Senator John Breaux of Louisiana.

> ...who's trolling for votes in an election year?

LYT, is "trolling" ever aka "serving?"

> ...hoping to get parents to vote by taking a
> superficial stand...

The beauty of our system is that sincerity --always a premium in human exchanges-- is irrelevant. For our taxpayers, a shallow, insincere vote in a senate resolution is as good as deep and principled one. The vagaries and tempests of the interior life do not apply.

I wish people who are cranked about this would reflect on two points:

1st, when you're on the other side of majorities like this (99 to 1 in the senate last week, 391-22 vote in the House on March 11), you are almost by definition an EXTREMIST.

2nd, the sorts of expression under fire here are wholly unworthy of your most extreme stance. With vulgarity available in purer and more diverse forms than ever before, why should you be bothered that the huge majority of Americans don't won't to be bothered with Jackson's plastic nippery ON THEIR OWN AIRWAVES? Nobody cares what you get in wrapped magazines, or cable TV, or the internet. But the people who own the commons have some ideas about what's going to be tolerated there. As they ought, EVEN IF THEY'RE WRONG.

Reynolds describes a Stern broadcast this year where careful thought was given to whether or not your fingers smell like watermelon after you have sex with a black woman. Do I have to be a black woman to be offended that he makes money on my airwaves with this? Do I have to be a woman, or a Christian or conservative or anything else?

99 to 1 ain't trolling. The people have spoken... If only about broadcast media, and not about "bad words."

What kind of person do you have to be to be offended by bald-faced lies and gross distortions -- rampant on right-wing radio? Rampant in the work of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore? If Rush is allowed to broadcast, all the rest should be -- to the nation and the troops, for that matter. Where you go wrong, Crid, is where the people who tried to stop the Nazis from marching in Skokie did, a few decades back. You don't foster right-thinking by pushing wrong thinking under the rug. You air it and discuss it. You're free to go on the air or write in a blog or the papers that you think Howard Stern is wrong, racist, and vulgar. Or that O'Reilly is a phony populist and a liar.

> ...bald-faced lies and gross distortions...

Irrelevant to this discussion, and besides, you meant bold-faced.

> ...rampant on right-wing radio?

Sez you. Some of us aren't so impressed with NPR. And our annoyance is compounded by the knowledge that we're compelled not only to offer our spectrum to it, but to *finance* it (at gunpoint).

> ...the Nazis from marching in Skokie...

The Illinois Nazis did not meaningfully advance American understanding of this issue, except for their comical portrayal in Blues Brothers. Well, there was also a TV movie-of-the-week that showed how infantile the ACLU can be.

> ...that O'Reilly...

Amy, he's on CABLE. You don't have to watch, do you? Not only is he working outside your portion of the electromagnetic spectrum... Neither are you compelled to pay for his distribution, as you are with that conniving bitch Linda Wertheimer.

People who pretend this is important are making two mistakes:

- They're mistaking snottiness for courage. There are plenty of worthwhile recipients for your concern about the first amendment. Stern (as demonstrated above) and Jackson aren't it! If her tits are such a casual matter, why are you so precious about them?

- They're not acknowledging that one purpose of free expression is to consider things, judge them, and MOVE FORWARD.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if little old ladies fellated teenage boys every Tuesday at noon on the courthouse lawn. And if the boys then walked to the curb to take shit, I'd probably learn to get over that, too. Society doesn't forbid these activities, it just says there's a preferred context, and the commons ain't it. Same with Janet's rack and Howard's fingers.