New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 18, 2005

Hilary Clinton "repositions" herself in the center by proving she can freak out over popular media with as much demented fervor as any Republican. Jacob Sullum punctures the panic.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← "You Are Still Among Us" | Main | I Want My ONDCP TV →

See all 57 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|3.18.05 @ 3:13PM|#

"Multi-tasking is a growing phenomenon in media use," says Kaiser President Drew Altman, "and we don't know whether it's good or bad or both." Clinton does. "Exposing our children to so much of this unchecked media," she said, "is a kind of contagion," a "silent epidemic" that threatens "long-term public health damage to many, many children and therefore to society."

Multi-tasking is something that Clinton seems to know something about: She's able to have her head up her ass, and speak ignorantly about a topic at the same time.

|3.18.05 @ 3:16PM|#

whoooo boy!! Hillary in the mainstream. The only way she could be in a mainstream is if her boat floated into an oxbow that was overflowing!

As disgruntled as I am with the neo-right of the Bush crowd I would still vote for them rather than Hillary. The only difference between her and Kerry is her plumbing.

|3.18.05 @ 3:23PM|#

She has indoor plumbing in New York. You must have been thinking of the Arkansan homestead.

|3.18.05 @ 3:31PM|#

I'm sure Hillary's different. I mean, unlike those Republican poseurs, who are just pitching for votes, I just know she really cares ABOUT THE CHILDREN.

|3.18.05 @ 3:39PM|#

No comment.

|3.18.05 @ 3:44PM|#

Is this really a "repositioning"? I don't recall Hillary Clinton exactly being a fervent free-speech activist at any point in the last 12 years at least.

|3.18.05 @ 4:11PM|#

Hilary Clinton "repositions" herself in the center...

To quote Family Guy's Stewie, "God, why does that turn me on?"

|3.18.05 @ 4:14PM|#

SPD, I can't tell you how many times I've heard anti-Hillary rants turn into kinky sex fantasies.

I just don't get it.

|3.18.05 @ 4:22PM|#

joe: consider it the santorum effect.

|3.18.05 @ 4:24PM|#

Hillary's gibberish illustrates a sad truth about the current state of politics, and American logic.

"Never let the facts get in the way of what you believe."

|3.18.05 @ 4:27PM|#

dhex, in relation to Hillary Clinton? Pass.

|3.18.05 @ 4:40PM|#

joe, believe me, I wish I hadn't thought of that, but this is what you can expect from someone with the maturity of an eight-year-old (like me).

|3.18.05 @ 4:46PM|#

"dhex, in relation to Hillary Clinton? Pass."

well, i was talking about the reflex to put mansex into the construct of dog humping, but to each their own.

Larry A|3.18.05 @ 4:56PM|#

[Clinton wants to "find ways to re-empower parents" who are not using the power they have.]

To me it sounds more like she wants to empower the government to force parents to exercise the power the government gives them in ways the government approves. Too bad she doesn't realize that's the problem, not the solution.

|3.18.05 @ 5:10PM|#

I don't know... I'm no fan of the Clintons, to be sure, but since the Republicans have been in power we have seen that all their "limited government" talk was just so much political bullshit. At this point, how much damage could she Hilary do? I am actually rather looking forward to a Hilary presidency for the sheer entertainment value of seeing Bill become the country's first "First Gentleman" or whatever he'd be called. Will he be doing the Christmas special giving Barbara Walters a tour of the White House and talking about the ornaments on the tree? Will he be doing cute little puff-piece interviews about his redecorating style? Will the press discuss what he wears to the inauguration? Just the thought of this master politician who so loves to expound on almost any issue, (and does it so well, despite my policy disagreements) having to stand by her side smiling politely as a good political spouse, while Hilary gets all the attention, is going to be worth what ever trouble she causes.

And, as a libertarian there is no one with a realistic shot at being president who I would rather see win in 2008. You think I'm nuts (don't answer that)? Think of it - the Republicans will almost certainly retain Congress and who could be a more polarizing figure to them than Hilary? You can bet they will be falling all over themselves to thwart her at every opportunity - there is simply no better hope for gridlock than a Hilary presidency. And for libertarians with no hope of getting any real power, bitter political battles between the White House and Congress is our best hope.

|3.18.05 @ 5:23PM|#

As a resident of the Global Village, let me say that I want no part of raising a child; that's why I never had any of my own.

|3.18.05 @ 5:26PM|#

Jennifer

You're being very unmutual. :)

|3.18.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Feh, Isaac. That same village it takes to raise a child can easily come down with a case of mutual madness and decide to burn a witch instead. Of course, they'd do it for The Children.

|3.18.05 @ 6:31PM|#

Unless, of course, it WAS the children (of the corn, that is).

|3.18.05 @ 6:33PM|#

Sexual fantasies about Hill? Jeeezz. That's sick! But, whatever floats the boat.

|3.18.05 @ 7:20PM|#

Brian,

I have always thought a great stategy to multi-party government would be Democrats in the Executive, Repubs in the Congress, and a libertarian Judicary striking down just about everything the other two branches of government do.

Larry A|3.18.05 @ 7:37PM|#

[I am actually rather looking forward to a Hilary presidency for the sheer entertainment value of seeing Bill become the country's first "First Gentleman" or whatever he'd be called.]

"First Philanderer?"

|3.18.05 @ 8:22PM|#

I was thinking about that "divided govt." thesis the other day - the Dems DON'T control either house, or the White House, and because they don't ...they're gonna shut down the Senate! Thoreau and Sanchez should be ecstatic, right?

|3.19.05 @ 2:19AM|#

Andrew-

Are you saying you want the Senate to pass more laws?

I'm no fan of the Senate Democrats, and I doubt that they'll prioritize their fights the way I would, but I'm hardly upset if the GOP doesn't get to enjoy unchecked power.

|3.19.05 @ 2:42AM|#

As a resident of the Global Village

Which one of the Village People are you? The Native American? The construction worker?

|3.19.05 @ 3:23AM|#

She was the teacher in the bikini, with the oversize horn-rim glasses.

She wasn't in the original group, they brought her in after sales started to slide -- looking for a new demographic, you might say.

|3.19.05 @ 6:31AM|#

re: hilary being an idiot

yes

but i think fred reed made a good point about her in 2008: she will do all the stupid things a democrat is predictably gong to do - but - its hard to imagine her walking to the podium one tuesday and announcing that she just got a message from God about another land war. stupid politicians are preferable to crazy ones, if we should be so lucky as to ever get that choice again (the stupid ones are always so dull, it makes them hard to sell).

R C Dean|3.19.05 @ 9:21AM|#

its hard to imagine her walking to the podium one tuesday and announcing that she just got a message from God about another land war.

I'm having a hard time imagining W doing that either. Especially since he never has, despite the fevered imaginings and willful misconceptions of the people who hate him.

|3.19.05 @ 9:50AM|#

Leif,

You're absolutely right, I could never see Hilary doing that. The only supernatural being she listens to is Eleanor Roosevelt.

|3.19.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Hillary Clinton sounded like a slightly updated version of Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man character from Saturday Night Live.

I was thinking more along the lines of the late Phil Hartman's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer sketches:

"I'm not an expert on these things. Your magical modern technology confuses and frightens me. But I do know one thing: we have to protect our children!"

|3.19.05 @ 9:58AM|#

She used to be First Lady,
Now she is a Senator,

Unfrozen First Lady Senator!

|3.19.05 @ 11:24AM|#

|3.19.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Joe-
I'm childless, as I've stated many times before, but do I have to spawn before I earn the right to say "Kids should be raised by their parents, not society?"

How much of a role do you think "society" should play in the raising of someone else's children? Do you think the purpose of human civilization is to set a good example for kids? For that matter, who gets to decide what constitutes a "good example?" If I had kids, I'd give them books talking about the virtues of secular humanism and the evils that organized religion/fanaticism have spawned in soceity; however, I have a feeling that devoutly Catholic parents would be pretty pissed off if I told their kids all about witch hunts and the Inquisition. Which set of values do you think should be imposed upon the mass media?

|3.19.05 @ 1:07PM|#

When we're down to seriously debating Hillary for president, I have to start wondering: what is civilization all about?

I need a new leash, the old one has obviously worn through.

Hmm. It's 10:00. Do you know where your politician is?

|3.19.05 @ 1:52PM|#

'but do I have to spawn before I earn the right to say "Kids should be raised by their parents, not society?"'

No, but you might want to know what you're talking about before you assert that 1) parents have absolute control, or something vaguely close to it, over the media their children are exposed to, or 2) that parents who want there to be something other than themselves between their kids and crap media are lazy and incompetant.

"How much of a role do you think "society" should play in the raising of someone else's children?" Some? A little? Not "absolutely none?" BTW, "society," as in "other people" are already playing a considerable role in how "other people's children" are raised, especially via the media. You aren't arguing that "society" should have not impose itself on how children grow up; you're just arguing that the only deciding HOW society should so impose itself are those who own media outlets.

"Do you think the purpose of human civilization is to set a good example for kids?" Partly. Humans evolved as social creatures mainly to help ensure the propagation of the species.

"For that matter, who gets to decide what constitutes a "good example?"' If I had kids, I'd give them books talking about the virtues of secular humanism and the evils that organized religion/fanaticism have spawned in soceity; however, I have a feeling that devoutly Catholic parents would be pretty pissed off if I told their kids all about witch hunts and the Inquisition. Which set of values do you think should be imposed upon the mass media?"

Funny how the inability to achieve a guarenteed perfect outcome is dismissed by libertoids when the issue is the impact of market/private behavior, but is the main plank of their worldview when the issue is the impact of government behavior. The answer, like the answer to "how much force constitutes assault?" and "how much yelling constitutes disturbing the peace?" is not to throw up our hands and declare the question unanswerable, but to use common sense to muddle through to a widely-accepted common ground, and err on the side of less restriction.

|3.19.05 @ 1:55PM|#

BTW, "Jennifur," (remember that guy?),

Condescending habits like referring to raising children as "spawning" is part of the reason why libertarianism has achieved such earth-shaking clout in our politics.

LarryA|3.19.05 @ 2:12PM|#

Joe: [So, do any of the Reasonoids who condescendingly assert, on such a regular basis, that parents have a large amount of control over the media they're kids are exposed to, actually have any experience raising children?]

Well, let's see:
1. I raised two fiercely independent and polar opposite daughters. One is now running the backstage crew at the arena of the major university she graduated from, the other got her GED and she and her husband are bartenders at two clubs in Hawaii.
2. I worked for seven years at a residential care facility for emotionally damaged children. Prior to that I worked with family violence and sexual assault survivors.
3. I teach half a dozen Hunter Education classes per year, mostly to teenagers.
4. Last summer I spent twelve weeks teaching marksmanship to 9 to 15 year old boys at a Catholic summer camp.

IMO:
a. The average family rules. The average government agency sucks.
b. The main problem I see with today's mass media is that it isn't explicit and accurate enough. Farm-raised kids of the last century knew loads more about sex and violence than today's youth, and what they knew was true.
c. The idea that kids and their environments need to be constantly controlled is both recent and wrong.

|3.19.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Oh here we go again... so "society" (i.e. government - let's be clear) imposing it's will by coercing you under color of authority is the same thing as those exercising their free choice to offer "crap" you don't like to the public? Let's stop conflating private choices made by individuals that have some aggregate effect that irritates you, with the police power of the state. Those are fundamentally different things.

If someone did indeed say it was easy to control what media kids are exposed to, then fine, they're clearly wrong. I'm quite sure it is not. But I really don't care. It's not my responsibility to fund or be subjected to any kind of media control because some people choose to have kids. It's just not my business to tell you what your kid should be exposed to one way or the other, and it's certainly not your right to take money from me to assist you to that end.

Oh, and Jennifer, you know when joe starts accusing others of condescension we have reached a new level of the absurd on here...

|3.19.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Unfrozen First Lady Senator! - crimethink redux

Well, her Park Ridge IL H.S. "pals" did nickname her "Sister Frigidaire."

Hillary doesn't float my boat, but the idea that some guys heat up at the prospect of melting the.... *ahem*....heart.... of the ex-student government, Methodist Youth Grouper, teacher's pet, Goldwater Girl-turned 7 Sisters goo-goo from John Hughes country (suburban Cook County) does not surprise.

Kevin

|3.19.05 @ 2:27PM|#

joe, what is it that you would actually want? My guess is that anything big enough to be effective would be a violation of the 1st amendment. And anything innocuous enough to pass constitutional muster would be too modest to amount to much impact.

Prove me wrong. Otherwise this is mostly just a lot of hand wringing.

|3.19.05 @ 4:01PM|#

Joe-
You're also off the mark in referring to me as a "libertoid;" if you left, I'd probably be the most left-wing poster here. I've lost track of the number of posters who have condescendingly referred to me as a "statist."

Seriously, what exactly are you complainig about? When did I say parents had complete control over their children? And what exactly do you think should stand between kids and the media, besides their parents? If parents are upset that their young children are buying violent video games, well, where the hell did the kids get the money to buy them in the first place? If parents want more control over what their kids are watching, taking the TV set out of the kid's room might be a good place to start.

Also, Joe, I'd like to know which idea is the more condescending--my idea that parents can raise their own damned kids, or your idea that parents CAN'T raise their own kids without a set of stringent rules governing what can be said or shown over those wicked, wicked airwaves.

|3.19.05 @ 4:15PM|#

I'm also wondering what would happen if I knocked on my neighbor's apartment door and told her, "You can't raise your kids by yourself, but fear not! I, as a member of society, am here to fill in the gap. Allow me to instill in them some Values. And also tell you which songs and TV shows they need to avoid."

I think she and her three kids would gang up on me and totally kick my ass. And furthermore, I'd deserve it.

|3.19.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Excellent points, Jennifer.

|3.19.05 @ 5:19PM|#

We have to be parents to have a qualified opinion? I think the important qualification is that we were all children once, and most of us were probably raised by some kind of parents. I was exposed to all sorts of sex and violence in movies and on TV. I can remember whatching softcore porn on HBO when I was ten. I think I turned out just fine. The only time my parents tried to control my media content was in 95ish when my mom wouldn't let me buy a Nirvana CD because she didn't want me listening to someone "who killed himself by overdosing on drugs" (apparently the irony was lost on her that she grew up on Jimi Hendrix and The Doors). MY experience is that parents probably can control media content if they really want to, but most don't really make the effort, and for 99.99999% of the population, it doesn't really make one whit of difference what sort of media they are exposed to as kids.

|3.19.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Joe-
At the bottom of this post I have the link to a disturbing story in today's New York Times; IMAX theatres throughout the South are not showing various science films dealing with or even mentioning themes like evolution, geology or the Big Bang, for fear of offending fundamentalists. I find this disturbing, and I especially feel sorry for the children of the parents who would hate a movie for such reasons, but I take heart in the knowledge that there are still plenty of ways for kids--especially the older ones, and the ones with a sense of curiosity--to learn about such scientific topics, regardless of their parents' wishes. And I imagine that in Charleston, where the story mostly takes place, there are parents making your same basic arguments, only instead of violence they're talkig about shielding their kids from the wickedess of Science.

And that got me to thinking that your arguments, on their most basic level, seem to boil down to this: how easy or difficult should it be for children to be exposed to themes or ideas of which their parents disapprove? Are you in fact advocating a world where it is EXTREMELY difficult for children to learn about various aspects of life which their parents don't like?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html?

|3.19.05 @ 8:12PM|#

So, do any of the Reasonoids who condescendingly assert, on such a regular basis, that parents have a large amount of control over the media they're kids are exposed to, actually have any experience raising children?

Well, I don't have experience raising kids, but I do have experience being one. And when I was one, my parents had an amazing filtering program for offending media. It was called putting the TV/Computer in a well traveled, public area of the house. Shocking howe well simple solutions like putting time into supervising one's child can work.

|3.19.05 @ 8:24PM|#

Let's clear one thing up - if the government were to impose some sort of content restrictions on broadcasters, the my choice would not erode one whit. There would be exactly the same number of shows on TV, and I would have exactly the same capacity to tune them in or out, or to determine what the broadcasters are going to show.

Jennifer, it is more condescending to say that parents complaining about the effect of media on their kids and their inability to control that media are whiny idiots whose concerns don't deserve to be taken seriously, than to recognize that they have a point.

thoreau, I don't know. I have this bad habit of trying to undertand facts and implications first, and recommending policy second. It's certainly possible that there is nothing to be done at the level of government about the situation, but I"m not going to assume that without understanding the situation, out of some one-size-fits-all position.

Brina, "so "society" (i.e. government - let's be clear) imposing it's will by coercing you under color of authority is the same thing as those exercising their free choice to offer "crap" you don't like to the public?" It's the same in some ways, different in other ways. I have about as much control over what broadcasters send into my home as over the actions of the government.

|3.19.05 @ 8:37PM|#

thoreau, I don't know. I have this bad habit of trying to undertand facts and implications first, and recommending policy second. It's certainly possible that there is nothing to be done at the level of government about the situation, but I"m not going to assume that without understanding the situation, out of some one-size-fits-all position.

At the risk of dismissing a wait-and-see approach, it's not like there's a dearth of experience with government restrictions on entertainment. The tendency is usually to look back on such restrictions and wonder what people were thinking.

For instance, Macbeth was actually censored when it first came out because the special effects were too graphic (the actors got blood and guts from a butcher shop and spilled them all over the stage when their characters died), and the content was too sensitive (plays about killing kings weren't warmly received by kings). But most people nowadays would probably agree that censoring Macbeth was idiotic.

And the only reason I did a book report on Catcher in the Rye in 9th grade is that I'd read that somebody tried to ban it.

On a TV-related note, the FCC crusade against indecency has hardly done anything to elevate the level of entertainment in this country.

Now, what about information and tools for parental control? I seem to remember a big deal was made about the V chip 10 years ago. Whatever came of that? How many people use it?

Wait and see all you want, but this is one area where history offers few examples of regulations that were effective yet not draconian. The only proven method for controlling child behavior seems to be good parenting, and even that isn't 100% effective.

Anyway, if, when you're done waiting and seeing, you conclude that there's a way to address this via public policy that will make a significant impact (note that I didn't say 100% success) yet not be draconian and I'll reconsider my stances. For me, libertarianism is simply a policy that seems to work, not a religion. Bring me evidence to the contrary and I'll reconsider. But I'm not holding my breath.

|3.19.05 @ 9:11PM|#

Well said thoreau.

|3.19.05 @ 9:16PM|#

"I have about as much control over what broadcasters send into my home as over the actions of the government."

So? You also have about as much control over what Ford or Toyota offer you to drive. I can change the channel or turn off my TV if I don't like what's being offered, but I can't send the taxman away and I still can't accept an offer to rent a room out of my house because of the local land use "authorities." There is simply no comparison.

|3.19.05 @ 9:34PM|#

I have about as much control over what broadcasters send into my home as over the actions of the government. - joe

What twaddle! Among others, here are some of your options:

1.) Sell your TVs, or give them away.
2.) Keep any V-chipped models, and learn how to program the lockouts.
3.) Put your TV in a cabinet that locks, and only break it out for approved programs.
4.) Don't give your kids TVs of their own, and don't let them buy them.
5.) Don't subscribe to cable or a dish service, or just get the lifeline. If you want more than that, your provider can block channels you don't want.
6.) Make it known to your kids what materials are allowed in your home, and which ones aren't.
7.) If you let your kids have computers, don't let them keep them in their rooms. Like the TV, put the box(es) in a common area, where parents can observe them being used. You and/or your spouse should reserve administrator privileges for yourselves, and set appropriate security levels for your minor users.
8.) If you fear the kids will download feelthy videos, don't hook their computers up to broadband. Make them suffer along with dial-up.
9.) Build a tall tower beside your house, where you can lock up your daugh....well, you get the idea.
10.) Conspire with the parents of your kids' friends to restrict their media access, too. [Note: this is how society, rather than government, enforces mores.]

Parents who are into straighjacketing their kids' media experiences already know this stuff. Lazier ones whine that the government should step in and do their job for them.

My folks put all sorts of media off-limits for me and my siblings when I was a kid. They also has hideous practices such as making the whole crew sit at the dining room table and finish their homework before going out to play after school, not to mention walking into the living room on a Saturday or summer afternoon and shutting the tube off, and kicking us out of the house to get some exercise. We also walked to school and back, uphill both ways...

Kevin

|3.19.05 @ 10:48PM|#

So, according to the gub'mint and nosy parent groups everywhere, if I let my kid watch The Sopranos -- because, God forbid, I think the little one might be mature enough to know it's a freakin' TV show --, he or she will instantly turn into a foul-mouthed mafia hitman?

News flash for parents everywhere: Sooner or later your kid's going to find out about the f-word. Chances are good they know it already. Chances are better they heard you say it. So please, drop the sanctimonious crap and just make sure they do their schoolwork and get home on time.

|3.19.05 @ 10:49PM|#

It's the same in some ways, different in other ways. I have about as much control over what broadcasters send into my home as over the actions of the government.

If you've ever wondered why a lot of libertarians don't take views like yours seriously, Joe, that's why. Broadcasters do horrible things like...cancel shows you like to watch. They don't require your permission to do things that only involve you if you decide to interact with them. The government can...take away your house and put you in jail. It's pretty unilateral, there.

The pretense that there's no difference is one of the reasons I can't take most liberal and conservative "thought" very seriously.

|3.20.05 @ 10:28AM|#

"Let's clear one thing up - if the government were to impose some sort of content restrictions on broadcasters, the my choice would not erode one whit. There would be exactly the same number of shows on TV, and I would have exactly the same capacity to tune them in or out, or to determine what the broadcasters are going to show."

Are you insane, Joe? If the government imposes content restrictions then your choice DOES erode, because you can't choose to watch said content. Do you think censorship can only be boiled down to a numbers game? So if, in the future, it is illegal for TV shows to even hint at the existence of sex, violence, or a USA that has ever been anything less than a perfect beacon of morality, you'll say "Yes, but there are still over one hundred channels to choose from, so my freedom of choice hasn't been eroded?"

|3.20.05 @ 11:01AM|#

"I have no control over the crap the broadcasters send into my home" sounds eerily like "I have no control over the thoughts the CIA chooses to broadcast into my head via raygun." Right now there are a hundred channel's worth of crap being broadcast into my home, but I have perfect control over them, as I have not tured on the TV. If I DO turn on the TV, I can avoid the channels I dislike and settle for the ones I do. Have you not yet learned of these amazing techologies, Joe? Or are you insisting that you, as a parent, should never, ever have to consider the scary possibility that your kids might be exposed to somethig you personally find offensive?

|3.20.05 @ 12:41PM|#

A few dry husks tossed into the feeding frenzy, stained with chum to keep 'em tasty:

1) Raising kids of your own is not a requirement to be able to talk about raising kids, but it has a tendency to give your words more weight. Simply reproducing ('spawning') much less so, especially for males.
2) Raising of future generations is not the only important thing in life, but it is one of the most important. How so? No matter how brilliant your innovation, how telling your insight, how classic your art, etc., as far as we know if we don't keep spawning ;) they'll all be Ozymandias in less than 100 years.
3) Referring to parents as 'those who choose to have children' is a little comical, since the overwhemling majority of human beings have been in this set. Not inaccurate, not foolish, just a little comical. Many didn't 'choose' to have kids, at most they 'chose' to get laid, but if those choices are the same thing, be careful when you participate in some other debate sometime. That's all I'm sayin'.
4) "Freedom is the power and ability to obey your own free will and conscience rather than the free wills and consciences of others." -Judge Napolitano. Don't know anything about the guy beyond the recent article, but this point seems pretty strong. And apt. Having to follow Hilary's conscience isn't freedom for anyone but Hilary. Power and ability is present for all those who use the readily available technology, as others have pointed out above.
5) As a parent I assert that controlling your kids is very easy when done proactively, and systemically, very difficult when done reactively, and analytically*. Parents who have TV's in their kids' rooms, or in difficult-to-supervise areas, for example, are indeed "whiny" when they expect government and/or society to limit what is broadcast.
6) Controlling broadcasting at source is easier than controlling it at reception, exactly in the same way that controlling kids by systemic means is easier than analytic 'reaction'-based control. However, unlike with parents and children, where the primary value is, say, safety, security, or whatever similar thought, with government and broadcasters the primary value is/should be LIBERTY. Controls at reception are unavoidable, and even legislated, as with the V-chip. Controls at source are inimical to liberty.
7) Hilary is not sexy, no no no.
8) 'Public health', that shibboleth of current faux-caring nannyism, is not best served by 'source' control. Rather, it is best served by controls and countermeasures at reception. Inoculation is at reception; is there even any coherent 'source' measure that could be taken instead? I think not. Similarly non-medical 'public health' concerns must be met at the level of the individual, not at a societal level.
9) Hilary + sex fantasy? Kill me now. Please.
10) Libertoid I may be, but I suggest that in general controls at an individual level, self-administered as much as possible, will almost always be immeasurably superior in both efficacy and desirability of outcome viz a viz liberty to controls at a societal level. "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." Reagan's (possibly only?) insightful words point to this: individual cases are barely handle-able by government, legislation, and law enforcement. Societal mass habits and tastes? Not at all.
11) mmm, Hilary, don't stop-- D'OH! Influenced by media AGAIN!

*Using 'analytically' here in opposition to systemically. Anyone have a better word? I'd be delighted to get one.

Larry A|3.20.05 @ 7:51PM|#

Joe: [I have about as much control over what broadcasters send into my home as over the actions of the government.]

1. If you quit paying for the premium channels that Hillary is talking about, they quit sending them into your home. You have the ultimate choice: to opt out. Which is precisely what Hillary wants to take away from you.

2. Given the proliferation of channels you have far more choice today than you ever have. The result increasingly is specialization. Sci-Fi channel, sports, classic movies, family shows, religious programming, music, X-rated, cartoons, hunting and fishing, and almost anything else you can think up.

If you don't like what's on, just get on the internet, contact a quarter-million or so folks that want to watch what you do, and set up your own channel.

What could be more control than that?