Parents Television Council--A danger to liberty

I am no fan of the Osbourne family. I didn't like their show on MTV and I have no intention of watching their new show on Fox. They are fouled-mouthed celebrities with nothing better to do than to waste the time of those who do watch their shows.

That being said I had to roll my eyes today when I read that the Parents Television Council has sicced the dogs on Fox because of the Osbourne's new variety show. This is one of the groups that sit around watching a television show or a movie so that "you won't have to". People in groups like this either don't agree with people of free-will or they don't know about the channel or power buttons on their remote control.

Now it's one thing if a group of concerned parents ban together to help other like-minded parents to filter what their own children see. It's quite another thing when these groups are too lazy to turn the channel or better yet turn off the TV altogether. When the latter is the case these types of organizations tend to try to use the police powers of the government to force networks and stations to stop showing content that they find objectionable. The interesting thing about these kinds of groups is that there are similar groups on both sides of the political aisle. However, they are equally dangerous.

For every conservative group like the Parents Television Council, there are at least an equal number of liberal groups, like Newshounds ("We watch Fox [News] so you don't have to"), that pop up on the left. They are both dangerous to free-speech, especially when they try to force a network to pull a show using the government as a tool, or when they try to recreate the falsely named "Fairness Doctrine" to allegedly give equal time to opposing viewpoints. One tries to eliminate what they feel is objectionable programming outright. The other tries to manipulate the rules in such a fashion as to make it nearly impossible to air content due to oppressive regulation and the need to give all opposing views equal air time, whether or not sponsors will buy time for those views or not. Both are dangerous in a free society because they stifle free expression.

SOURCE: E! Online article

Al Sharpton causes a cold day in hell (new cartoon)

A possible future if Al Sharpton learns to not be offended by every little thing. Satan won't like it too much.

NY Post chimpanzee cartoon

I have seen the NY Post cartoon with the chimpanzee that was shot dead by capitol police. The caption reads, "They'll have to find someone else to right the next stimulus bill". Now there seems to be something of a stink surrounding the cartoon because some politicians and people who call themselves community leaders are upset. They claim that the image is a blatant, racist attack of President Obama.

As a cartoonist and a libertarian I want to yell "Freedom of speech!". However, as a discerning reader I want to say, "What in the name of all that is holy were you thinking?".

In this day and age when people get their knickers in a bunch any time someone looks at them funny, it seems to me that some self-censoring might have been in order. Though I know that the cartoonist was trying to play off of the recent incident of the rampaging chimpanzee by comparing the new stimulus bill as rampaging pork, his execution was tenuous at best. And what concerns me more is that the Post's editorial staff didn't vet the piece more carefully.

All that being said, the fact is that the people most vocally "outraged" over the cartoon, are always outraged about something. They have no moral high ground. They have been "calling wolf" for decades and people no longer really listen to them. These self-proclaimed "leaders" wouldn't have anything to do if it wasn't for complaining. They would shrivel up and die. So I'm calling BS on their moral outrage.

SOURCE: AP story