Texsox

Bob, Part of this is how you define the Church. The Church is people like Queen Prawn and myself. Does a dozen artists taint the entire artistic community? Besides pedophiles that may dislike hearing a message that abuse is wrong, how does it hurt anyone? Should Americans stop doing anything about torture around the world because we tortured prisoners? Walk me through this. Artist creates work. The public is outraged and it is decided that that work clearly crossed a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. Another artist is working in the same area, is it wrong to speak out before she starts or do we wait again for that work? As far as not knowing, it will depend on the media being used. A film maker better have a pretty good idea before starting, someone who creates in the digital world would not. It's not there because the artist says it isn't there? Are you telling me that the only interpretation that is valid is the artists? Isn't part of art how it captures and influences individual people. If I laugh and someone else cries at a painting, is one person wrong?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) It's not a generic bulls*** answer, it's yet another specific example of the bias. BTW, Balta's post pretty much hit it right on. Anytime a Dem isn't front page for a possible misdeed or a GOP isn't front page for a possible good deal, you get all outraged and mention media bias. What this is is a specific instance of it not being front page. I'm not certain why you would want to bump 4 soldiers being executed in cold blood off the front page. The front page is what sells newspapers. If there is a chance that a who's who of political figures could be indicted on ethics stuff you know it will be played out over and over again. BTW, Here's the Santa Rosa Press Democrats front page today Connecticut Post LA Times They didn't mention Bush is a R but the article was positive. Arkansas Democrat Gazette Scanning the front pages at http://www.newseum.org/ it seems that Bush, the recent deaths in Iraq, and local news is getting most of the play. How does that show specific instances of media bias?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group It is a broad spectrum of political affiliations to be sure, but since you all seem to know the ones associated with a R, some associated with the D are: - George Soros - billionaire and very liberal political backer - William Kennard, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle's Managing Director in the Telecommunications & Media Group from 2001 to the present. - Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2001 to the present - Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2003 to the present - Arthur Levitt - former Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (A clinton asppointee) And this little tidbit sure to go unnoticed by many, Former President George H.W. Bush retired from Carlyle in October 2003. George W. Bush served on the Board of Directors of early Carlyle acquisition Caterair. Bush left the board in 1992 to run for Governor of Texas. Of course when there is money to be made, politics takes a back seat. Bush resigned and Feinstein was never involved, yet here we are discussing it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) It will NEVER happen. And to me, that's the biggest problem with our government today. I don't listen to those s***bags you're talking about Tex. Nuke found it, not sure where he heard about it, but the media goes after ® people like flies on s*** when stuff like this comes up. I love your generic recanned bulls*** when this media stuff gets brought up. And I love your generic recanned bulls*** when this media stuff gets brought up. And I still love you Kap.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 12:08 PM) You miss the point, Tex. The general masses might only watch a small amout of news in any given day, and it usually comes from the big 3, not Fox, etc. Or they read the major newspapers. If the story isn't mentioned there, how do they know about it? What she is doing appears to be similar to what Hastert did here, but how many average joes in Kansas know what she did? Did they hear about it on the ABC news? Nope. But they sure heard Hastert's name mentioned on national broadcast. Reporting DOES have a say in public perceptions of people, parties and our government as a whole. Both sides can br crooked as hell, but if the general public only hears about one side being bad, it tends to skewer public opinion in a rather slanted way. Well we all heard about it. I know a lot more people that parrot what they have heard from Rush, but not too many people parrot the evening newscast. The GOP has insulated themselves from criticism by always shouting media bias when they screw up and it gets reported. They also try and gain traction on any story by screaming media bias when it is a Dem. The end result is they will not have to be accountable. And that is bad for this country.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 11:17 AM) It's different because if she had a ® behind her name, it would be on the front page of the NY Slimes and the top story on every Sunday morning TV show in America. She may not have done anything wrong, we don't know yet, but again, if she had an ® instead of a (d), it would be enough to run full throttle on this story. Don't worry I'm certain Rush, Hannity, O'Really, Colson, Fox News, Dobson, Ingram, and the Wall Street Slime will be all over it. Of course the coverage is far more important to GOPerheads than what actually happens. If GOP wrong doing can be excused as media bias and Dem non stories can be blown up by rallying the troops against media bias, all is right in the world.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Ummm, hell yeah this should be investigated. Did these companies that Feinstein had "ins" with get no-bid contracts? Or did they go through the bidding process? That's my big question... Because if they had to go through a bidding process, there may not be much to investigate there. The story seems to show some smoke. If there's fire, I'm all good for removing her chairmanships and kicking her out of the Senate leadership. I'm with you there. If the Dems did not learn from the billions in no bid contracts that Chaney's cronies received, they should be kicked out on their asses for doing the same thing. Damn right I'm indigent as should every American who is paying to destroy and rebuild Iraq. I'm not certain why Kap believes this is somehow different, it sounds the same to me if true. If he's won fairly and squarely as the low bidder in a competitive situation, I don't see a problem. I am also certain if there isn't a problem, the GOPerheads on the board will give us a chorus of media bias trying to dig up dirt on the Speaker.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) I was referring to the times when the Catholic Church had so much power as to kill or jail anyone that tried to publish (galileo, descartes always started out with an appeasement to the church) and such. Silence before publishing is wrong, and IMO, this is just them trying to reassert their authority. OK, I'll agree that centuries ago there was that abuse of power. But this is even more egregious than those who wish the US to pay for damages to the decedents of slaves for what they went through. Those events happened centuries ago and are not happening today. Explain how to silence after it has been produced. Then it's too late. I don't see a problem with seeing the path we are on and speaking out about further events down that path. Wouldn't it be unfair to after the fact say, we saw this coming, and have had a response planned for months or years? To stand up today and say that producing films for profit that depict children being abuse should be carefully monitored and in many cases are wrong? They are calling their followers to action. Just like those who believe that society and the pedophiles should be spared the lecture that child abuse is wrong are trying to assert their authority. Why is your assertion more valid than people like myself and Queen Prawn who are Catholic? (Not to draw her into the debate, but putting faces on "The Catholic Church").

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) i think we can all agree that when the Catholic Church set the limits on morals it wasn't exactly good for the gander. They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard? What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that? By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question? The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution.

This morning a Gary, Indiana kindergarten teacher explains to her class that she is an Indianapolis Colts fan. She asks her students to raise their hands if they are Colts fans, too. Not really knowing what a Colts fan was, but wanting to be liked by their teacher, their hands flew into the air. There is, however, one exception. Susie has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a Colts fan" she reports. "Then," asks the teacher, "what are you?" "I'm a Chicago Bears fan," boasts the little girl. The teacher asks Susie why she is a Bears fan. "Well, my Dad and Mom are Bears fans, so I'm a Bears fan, too" she responds. "That's no reason," the teacher says. "What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was an idiot. What would you be then?" Susie smiles and says, "Then I'd be a Colts fan." Go Bears!!!

I believe there are plans for reconstructive surgery. The iguana will be undergoing an adadictome later this week.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 08:58 PM) Off the top of my head, the limit is when people get hurt. Sure you might say, "THIS MOVIE HURTS THE KIDS WHO SEE IT!" Sure, but then again, kids aren't supposed to see R rated movies, and it's the parents job to set them straight after they see it. And if it's an adult that is offended, as an artist, here's my response: "Sorry, pal. Don't check out my next exibit (or film, or album, or painting, or book or whatever) then. I'm sorry you were offended by it, but that's not my problem. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my work." So I say the limit is when people are phsyically hurt. And the people who decide the limits are the public. That's pretty well understood among artists. We create work so we can get criticized and praised alike. "And the people who decide the limits are the public" How does the public decide the limits? When a group complains, like in this case, they are told to STFU, it's art, and art has to push beyond the limits. We're are the spot on the spot where a circular argument begins. The debate doesn't start until *after* the work has been created, at that point it is too late. And our society has determined that it is, in many cases, our responsibility to not be offensive. So it is your problem. We restrict obscenities, racist remarks, etc. You can't stand on a street corner and offend people as they pass by. We have enacted laws to stop people from being a nuisance. Again, highly subjective and arbitrary, but the intent is clearly to protect society from being offended in some cases. So to say as an artist you are above the law, would be poor hubris, and I doubt you would. But we should recognize that you do have that restriction. Perhaps that is the central tenant of my belief that one can not justify any behavior as "it's art" and protected. And who determines when someone is harmed? We both know that is highly subjective. Even experts in the field will debate at what point anything becomes harmful. If the limit is physical harm, you are rejecting any psychological harm. That would leave the door wide open for a wide range of indecent, immoral, works. For example, paintings of child pornography would not create any physical harm, yet are clearly something our society has ruled as too offensive to produce. Again something that I am certain you wouldn't defend, but it is the crack that allows psychological harm to creep into the debate. And finally, the slippery slope of interpretation is another land mine in all this. Whose interpretation is valid? A majority? The Artist? A Panel of experts? The most vocal? The most influential? And we could debate forever the role of the artist in interpretation. Is the artist's opinion of his own works important? Do we really need to know anything about the artist to understand the work? I've always felt the artist should be allowed the freedom to break out of himself. I believe the artist / author should remain a mystery and allow the work to stand on it's own merit. Others believe to know the work, one must know the producer.

I am certain it mattered to the kid.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) Yeah, they should shut their traps and get their own house in order. Who benefits when they shut their traps? Who are you defending here? Sorry if someone preaching that abusing kids, or simulating the abuse of children, is a bad thing. One of the mistakes the Catholic Church committed was not being public, not speaking out, Now they are and you're complaining. Again I ask, who benefits when an organization with over one billion members worldwide is told to shut their traps and not speak about this? Shouldn't they be telling their members? Who is it hurting when they speak out against this? Bob, setting this particular movie aside. Is there a point when the limit can't be tested anymore? Is there a point when people say, we are not going that far? And who is to decide? The lowest common denominator?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) So let me get this straight, any Catholic or Catholic-based organization should not ever speak out against rape, under-aged rape, or even the depiction of rape because it's too "ironic" and "hypocritical" for many of you?? Right they should "do something" as long as it isn't being critical of anyone. QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) Tex, you have to take art in context. The movie is more than just the rape. It's a story. The rape is only a part of it. The characters will develop, grow and learn in some way from it. It'll also propose more questions once you actually see the story instead of judging it before hand. For instance, in Taxi Driver, DeNiro's character had to kill people to get the 14 year old prostitute back home. Is that heroic? Is it not? And so on. The boundry isn't just depicting rape...it's putting it out there so other artists can use it in different ways so they can put some other amount of awareness out there. So they can pose more questions for the general public about the atrocity in child rape. This is why breaking boundries in art is important. The point I was poorly making is if one buys into the breaking down barriers argument, there is some goal, something that the artist or audience is heading to. So what is the goal in this? What couldn't be shown in 1990 that is being shown here? And, more importantly, what will be shown in 2020 because of this? I understand the testing of limits, but only if there actually are limits and when they are reached, they are kept.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) All snakes and almost all lizards have two penises, technically referred to as hemepenes. The alternate between them during successive mating events. The very primitive and highly endangered New Zealand tuatara, the last surviving member of the relict sphenodontid family of lizards, is the exception to the two penis rule. It has no penis, instead using a muscular cloacal opening as a primitive intromittant organ. Boy lizard junk is strang stuff. Not as strange as boy marsupial junk. In marsupials the testes are posiyioned anterior to the penis in all living representatives except the bandicoot. In laymans terms that means that the marsupial nutsack is teabagging the penis during copulation. This has been another exciting edition of Ask Mr. Animal Sex. I was actually following all that

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:13 PM) I believe that parole should be a process that exists, and I do believe in rehabilitation the idea, but I can't understand how anyone can believe that a man who slit a five year old's throat can be "rehabilated" or deserves a "second chance." There's just a certain evil inherent in killing a defenseless person that makes denial of parole and life in prison a no-brainer. Exactly (with edit) It just sickens me that anyone could harm a child.

I never really stopped to consider that. I assume most cities are like that. This is what really interested me:

I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge?

It is not hypocritical for someone, or some organization, to make a mistake, learn from it, and speak out against it. A drunk driver who later joins MADD and speaks about the dangers of drunk driving is not a hypocrite. The person who has abused drugs who now speaks to kids about their dangers, should not be labeled a hypocrite. The Catholic Church is over ONE BILLION people world wide. Of that over one billion, at least a billion did not abuse nor cover up child abuse. To call today's Catholics hypocrites for speaking out against something that should be universally despise, because of the acts of a few, is wrong. Part of my job is teaching youth protection to non-profit youth serving agencies. The Catholic Church has adopted some of the most stringent guidelines of any youth serving agency. They have learned from their mistakes and continue to be diligent it never happens again. But as we all know, no system is fool proof. Banks get robbed, identities get stolen, and sadly kids are abused. If there was a way to stop crimes, we wouldn't be building prisons. Pedophiles are attracted to kids and will join those activities that place them in close contact with children. They will coach sports, join the Church youth group, be Scout leaders, 4H leaders, a Big Brother or Big Sister, become teachers, day care workers, etc. They are probably heterosexual with a family and children of their own. They go anywhere they think they can find their next victim. When a child is abused, everyone in that organization feels the pain and outrage. Everyone. If in that outrage and pain, they speak out, loudly, against it, they aren't being hypocrites, they are being good, decent people. At some point the entertainment industry hits limits, or at least should. Talk about barriers coming down, what is the goal? How much of this do you want to see? If striking down barriers is a good thing, think about how much graphic violence, graphic sexual assaults our grandchildren will get to see. Maybe a four year old prostitute getting gang raped by prison guards. Whoo Whoo that's art! That's pushing boundaries. That's where our society needs to go. At some point we need to say enough is enough. You've pushed the boundaries as far as you need to.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) This is crap. I deserve to be a primadonna that is mentioned on Forbes. God damn it, thats it, I'm closing the site. Maybe with the site gone, they'll realize just how well known I was. They must not have known about the Rally Crede magic you unleashed . . .

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) Thanks for mischaracterizing my comments completely and absolutely. Let's re-read: I sure did mention teachers, and doctors, policemen and politicians, and I sure did forbid them from commenting on the matter. (Green green, above.) Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Let's go to you now, and we'll come right back to me: First off, I never said they shouldn't take a stand. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the Church' criticism of this film. By all means, if they want to speak out, the Church should, but I'd prefer to see real moves within their organization to stop their priests from touching altar boys before they take the moral highground they don't have against a film that they likely haven't seen and wouldn't understand if they did. Which is a reference to the often-times archaeic nature of the Church. What if I said I think you're standing up for pedophiles? I mean, simply making that allegation without textual support makes it true, right? Really now. I've had issues with interpretations, and other people's comments to me, plenty of times on this board, but I've never been accused of supporting pedophilia and "making it easy" on pedophiles. Makes me glad we had this discussion. Who benefits when you silence the Church on this issue? The Church is people like me. Why would you silence me on this issue? Teachers have abused children, still do. Shall educators be called hypocrits for speaking out? Tell schools to clean up themselves before speaking. Political leaders have abused, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out? Non church goers have abused children, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out? What actions do you want to see? The Catholic Churches are requring and doing background and criminal checks on everyone who comes in contact with youth. They have installed protection guidelines and are teaching the youth, parents, and Clergy to spot abuse and to report. Perhaps your Church isn't being that proactive, volunteer for the committee. QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) Tex, if I recall correctly, we've had arguments about art before. You've said you don't understand the arts. So how can you possibly justify "to say it's art is wrong"? I agree that if the only interest is money, it's wrong. But with a lot of art, you have to test the limits. You have to go out on a limb and you have to accept people's reactions. Art is a debate, it's a grey area. It's not mathematics where there are proven answers. This subject may be "new" to art, but it's certainly not the only time somebody has pushed the limitations further than people were ready for. The Graduate showed nipples. Truman Capote back stabbed a murderer in the name of his book In Cold Blood. Hell, there's even a movie out at the same Sundance Festival called Zoo about beastiality. Art is about taking risks. It's not about making sure nobody is offended in the process or with the final project. If there were no risks involved, it'd never progress. Test the limits? OK I totally agree with that. But too many people, and it seems you are in that camp, are not ok with testing the limits. By agreeing to test the limits, one has to agree there are limits. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. Some are accepting that the simulation of raping a child is within the limits. Some are not. Where in "testing the limits" is the understanding that the limit has been reached and needs to be reeled back in?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) Go stop the pedophiles in your church before you talk about a big work of total fiction. So teachers can't talk about abuse. Doctors can't talk about abuse. Police and politicans can't talk about abuse. So kids have no advocates in your world. How sad. Nice of you to stick up for pedophiles by stopping those who talk against them. We wouldn't want anyone to mention how abuse of children is wrong. That would be a terrible idea. The good people in every organization need to stand up for what is right. If the good people in the Church, those that didn't abuse children or cover it up can't f***ing talk about it being wrong, how f***ed up is the situation? Since some pervert abused a kid in 1952 I can't speak out against child abuse. f*** you all. By telling the Catholic Church not to take a stand against Child Abuse, you make it a little nicer for pedophiles, how nice and charitable. Who does it hurt when the Church takes this stand and speaks out? I can't believe people here are sick enough to side with pedophiles and against anyone who speaks out against them. We have to protect pedophiles from the Catholic Church.

He's even mentioned here Same here, I only recorgnized a couple sites.