Question 1: How do most Americans react when Janet Jackson's nipple is exposed on television or Howard Stern fills the morning airwaves with raunchy sex talk? Answer: "The government has to do something about this filth!"
That may be true. But this man is using the typical salesman technique of asking a question that you will agree to, so that you will be more likely to agree with further statements.
That's the kind of week it was in America, as our federal lawmakers voted down a bill that would allow consumers to sue restaurants (specifically fast-food restaurants) for making them fat. A day later, the same lawmakers voted for higher penalties for vulgarity on the airwaves. The mixed message: "The government can't help your bulging waistline, but we'll protect your offended eyes and ears."
Now I am going to have to do some explaining here.
I consider the environment, along with the airways, common property. The government has given property rights to Americans and it is also in charge of making sure that your right to that property is not infringed, or that the property is not damaged or stolen. That is why I believe the government does have a place in protecting the environment, and handing out sections of the airways for public use. The American people as a whole own the airwaves and the environment; the government represents the American people when it comes to these situations.
So the FCC's prime job is to divvy up the airways to individuals, corporations, or totally biased groups, and to protect each of the groups right to own the property and not damage it (in the case of the environment). It really can't be argued effectively that the cheeseburger that you eat is common property and the government should control how they are handed out.
Secondly, the government does not say what you can and can't say/show on the airways. They only say that you have to classify your material and that you can't go outside of those guidelines for you particular level of show. This is to protect the consumer so that the consumer knows what they are getting before they get it. You can show all the porn you want, as long as you label it as TV-MA.
Radio stations are different because they have been around longer (and therefore have had the chance to get regulated more, which is unfortunate). Radio stations should really push for a scheme much like TV's have. It could be made publicly known which stations are TV-MA (like the ones higher than 107.5 are all porn radio stations), but since they are not visual in nature. And that is the prime reason why radios stations can't be offensive, because the consumers can't know what they are getting until they have gotten it already.
The reason the government collects the information on the TV shows is to relate that information to the consumer. They do that with the food industry, and are looking to do that with the schools of American (thank god the graders are finally being graded. Someone must watch the watchers).
Truer words were never spoken by a Bush Administration official (except, perhaps, that time when the president admitted that he started the war with Saddam because "he tried to kill my daddy").
He never said that.
(Don't hold your breath for anything major here; whatever the scientists uncover will be cleansed of any anti-Big-Business recommendations before it reaches any policymaker's desk at the White House. Just ask the guys who did the EPA pollution studies that somehow absolved the power plant operators).
Absolved the power plant operators for what?
Most likely they were absolved for something they had not control over.
Thompson is talking the talk by linking obesity prevention to our nation's historic battle against smoking, but it would be nice if he had actually walked the walk: If we're really serious about treating high-fat, unhealthy foods the way we treated cigarettes, we need to bring back two major weapons in the public health arsenal: lawsuits and taxes.
Cigarette companies intentionally withheld information about their products. The evil fast food chains have done nothing of the sort. If a person ever thought that a 3,000 calorie meal is good for them, they hopefully will die before they have a chance to reproduce and spread their stupidity genes.
Okay, so you don't like the idea of the "fat tax" or government regulations? Fine. Get fat. But is it too much to ask that government do something simple like limiting the kinds of advertising your kids are seeing?
He just said if you don't like government regulations, would you consider these government regulations.
Where is the personal responsibility?
Who has a better chance of controlling what children eat the government, or the parents of the children?
Of course, the government does have the power to control what goes on under it's own house. Schools are a prime example of this. As a child I ate more meals at home than I did at school although, with some children that may not be the case. For those children the government should try to provide health meals, and if the kids don't eat them.... at least they are not fat.
All that said I do agree with this guy on these ideas....
Yet every time some legislator proposes a simple tax on high-fat or high-calorie foods,
Of course the money should be given according the sections of the health industry so that Americans irresponsibly would at least be paid for, and to groups that educate about how to make healthy foods. The government should keep very little of it (only enough to support the enforcement of the law). If you are going to tax a problem, make sure the maximum amount goes to problem, not to government.
Now she's pushing a bill that would require restaurants to provide nutritional information about the meals—
The consumer should know what we are getting before we buy.
Funny thing is, do you think this guy supports the grading and testing of schools.
I bet not. He supports the testing of the food your kids eat, just not what your children are learning. I support both.
The Cube has spoken.