Constitution Club

“EW, Canada!”

Posted in Uncategorized by hairybeast on April 24th, 2008

This public safety ad (h/t Mark Steyn at The Corner) must have sent Canadian kids to bed with nightmares by the tens of thousands.  Another milestone in Canada’s continuing cultural collapse.

Tagged with:

105 Responses to '“EW, Canada!”'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to '“EW, Canada!”'.

  1. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:31 am

    How the hell is this “cultural collapse”.

    These things happen, they are not pretty, and it is better to have your feelings hurt by a fake ad than something real. So yes, when you are a grownup you will remember to clean the grease “there”. You will get a nightmare or two, but after a night or two, you might grow some guts and not be afraid by fake stuff on the TV.

    Or you might grow into a nanny state conservatism thinking that if stations don’t show “nice pictures”, it’s all a culture war.

  2. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:38 am

    Traumatizing people with images of terrible horror should be kept where it belongs: Driver’s Ed videos and the local Multiplex under an “R” rating to protect children.

  3. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:42 am

    “Protect”, is a verb I would usually associate with some “danger”.

    How are photons (what images are composed off) harming children again? Is it the radiation or something?

    Nanny state conservatism. Children once used to skin their own rabbits.

  4. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:47 am

    Do you have children, “V”? They are easily traumatized and they can’t separate manufactured images from reality. The beast pups were scared of dinosaurs in the back yard after watching Jurassic park. Allow them at least a little time for innocence. Also consider the poor parent who has to stay up all night at the bedside comforting the poor tot as it wakes repeatedly from dreams of being consumed in flames.

    BTW the beast kids live on a farm and they have on many occasions seen the odd chicken bisected and helped pluck the feathers.

  5. GunRunner said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:47 am

    “Nanny state conservatism” V? Isn’t that just as oxymoronic as “liberal education”?

    Regarding the ad, its pretty terrible. I can’t believe its something that would be shown on the airwaves; it looks like something out of a horror movie.

    But to quote South Park, “What to you expect? They’re Canadian.”

  6. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:52 am

    Yep GunRunner - The Beast would argue that this ad is a manifestation OF the nanny state. Do you think food workers aren’t trained (especially one so experienced as to be in line for head chef) to handle substances safely? This is the same nanny state that mandates “Warning - Do Not Consume” labels on antifreeze jugs. We sheeple are too stupid to figure that out for ourselves, I guess.

    So why freak out an entire nation with graphic ads? Did it have to be so over-the-top creepy? This is a PSA Snuff flick.

  7. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 6:54 am

    I don’t, but I happened to be a kid you know. Except, given that I wasnt really believing that the stuff in the TV was real since, say, after 5?6?, clearly I must have had big brass ones.

    Does this saw that I wasn’t “innocent”? Excuse me, how do we define innocence here? Retardation?
    It’s not as if the fact that I knew that a fake thing was fake, made be run drug networks or not play with legos.

    If you child is not able to take it, clearly it shouldn’t be near a TV in the first place. There are things called movies with guns (shooting, people usually) in them you know, and even cartoons often contain comic situations like jumping from high places, or being crashed with heavy objects, that if repeated in reality they would be deadly.

  8. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:03 am

    Hence the “Cultural Collapse’ argument. When you can’t allow your kids near the tube for fear that your own government might traumatize them, something is wrong. Forget blocking out HBO - this stuff appears on channels that should be “Safe”.

    This is Roman Coliseum coarseness - and we all know how that worked out.

  9. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:07 am

    If your kid’s can’t separate something fake from reality, it is going to be very private channels and gravity that traumatizes them after they see superman and they happen to be in a high rise building. Such ad could be paid for and playd by any private organisation, to a private organisation, in which case, preventing it is of course an act of Nanny State Conservatism.

    The Tube, is a tool. A machinery, that has the ability to decode radiowaves, nobody said it was supposed to be a toy for children, maybe you should given them a ball instead. Or, buy the toy version one.

  10. Wes said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am

    Really? I saw this awhile ago and thought it was actually so horrible it was funny. There are a whole series of those things.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwCyVku1HvI

  11. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am

    Canadian parents should not have to eschew TV because their government has poor taste and runs terrible, violent screeching ads in the name of “Safety”. These ads make no one safe, they add nothing to any debate about safety and they achieve nothing that couldn’t be done just as well with less repugnant images.

    When you grow up you’ll understand.

    BTW - “V for Vendetta” was a truly dreadful movie - a Wackoffsi Brothers polemic diatribe that original author Alan Moore condemned thusly:

    “[The movie] has been “turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… It’s a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England.”

    Find a better movie to name yourself after, kid. Perhaps “Stuart Little”?

  12. Wes said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am

    But then, I don’t have kids. And I definitely think that these things are unfit to be run on television. They work rather well as viral videos, though! Man, I used to be scared by the police drawings they showed on Unsolved Mysteries. Dunno what I would have done if I saw one of THESE.

    As for Alan Moore, I’m hoping that The Watchmen movie turns out better. Also one in which liberal fascism is the villain.

  13. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:32 am

    Agreed, Wes. They are kind of funny in a mocking-way, for those of us who have built up multiple layers of emotional callus over decades. But this is also another reason why the ad fails: unintentional humor is the death of an anything that is supposed to be taken seriously. The Beast himself has choked back lots of jokes like:

    The Cook Cooks.

    But that would be in poor taste, no?

  14. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am

    As for Alan Moore, I’m hoping that The Watchmen movie turns out better. Also one in which liberal fascism is the villain.

    Good news Wes! The Beast is not much for graphic novels (for one thing they are expensive) and prefers his reading material without pictures, although he loved Frank Miller’s seminal “Dark Night” series when it first came out. But isn’t it interesting that pretty much all futuristic dystopias in film and literature are modeled on right wingers taking over? Just for the sake of variety one would think some author’d do a liberal fascism story sooner or later.

  15. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 8:24 am

    As PG, Jeff and myself more or less agreed on the mostly unrelated thread dealing with flag desecration with free speech comes responsibility and this is just irresponsible. Not only that but it’s pretty pointless and the cartoonish gruesomeness does only serve to turn it into a joke. It’s just shocking for the sake of shock value.

    Frickin Canadians.

  16. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 8:31 am

    Exactly, Thom.

    The Canadians should stick to producing the things they do best: Maple Syrup, Expatriate Comics and High-Quality Strippers.

  17. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am

    The fact remains, that you advocate Nanny State Conservatism and cencorship, because you believe that what your TV receives ought to conform to you, rather than you not using it if it doesn’t. All the rest of the tough talk, in nullified in front of the fact that we have a gun here who because he can’t take the sight of some ACTORS talks about cultural collapse etc. Thanks for not answering the private organsation bit.

    As I said. TV are tools. They were not supposed to be babysitters. And if some can’t stand a fake ad, (because it will cause “nightmares” or something boo hoo) I’d hate to see what it is supposed to happen to the internet (which is of course just another tool and not a long ebook either)

    Next: The Shock Value is Exactly The Point. I am amazed that this is supposed to be a point actually. Its like someone holding up an ipod and saying “this thing plays music” as an argument against it.
    It’s an AD, that it is talked about, already makes it succeful. If it was just a guy talking a bunch of statistic again, or “describing” an accident, it would be just another boring ad people sleepishy wait to finish.

    The V comment is so internet trollish, it’s not even worth concidering what was the purpose of it. “Hurt my feelings”? Another fish on the hook.

  18. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 11:51 am

    LOL

  19. E the Wise said, on April 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    The V comment is so internet trollish, it’s not even worth concidering what was the purpose of it. “Hurt my feelings”? Another fish on the hook.

    That is funny. He got you there Beast.

    V, being a Canadian lib it sounds like you are upset that people are shocked by the sight of your governments propaganda. . .er. . .commercial. Pretty big stance for someone who probably advocates the prosecution of Mark Steyn.

  20. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    This thing has absolutely nothing to do with government in my view of what this *really* is about, I want to know what if a private organisation has aired it.

  21. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    I’m not sure what exactly you’re asking but if you’re asking if I would react the same way if this commercial was aired by a private organisation the answer is yes. You can ask anyone on this site and they will tell you that I am a huge free speech supporter but there is a giant difference between what one should be allowed to view in the privacy of one’s own home and what is aired publicly.

  22. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    The fact remains, that you advocate Nanny State Conservatism and cencorship, because you believe that what your TV receives ought to conform to you, rather than you not using it if it doesn’t. All the rest of the tough talk, in nullified in front of the fact that we have a gun here who because he can’t take the sight of some ACTORS talks about cultural collapse etc. Thanks for not answering the private organsation bit.

    What does this paragraph mean? How does the government “censorship” itself? How does… Ugh, my brain hurts!

    As I said. TV are tools. They were not supposed to be babysitters. And if some can’t stand a fake ad, (because it will cause “nightmares” or something boo hoo) I’d hate to see what it is supposed to happen to the internet (which is of course just another tool and not a long ebook either)

    What does this have to do with running a graphic ad at inappropriate times?

    Next: The Shock Value is Exactly The Point. I am amazed that this is supposed to be a point actually. Its like someone holding up an ipod and saying “this thing plays music” as an argument against it.
    It’s an AD, that it is talked about, already makes it succeful. If it was just a guy talking a bunch of statistic again, or “describing” an accident, it would be just another boring ad people sleepishy wait to finish.

    Ahhh the utility of the shock value to children is the point.

    I really would like to get into the meat of your argument V, sadly there isn’t any. Just some buzz words randomly flung around as accusations. You are energetic; I will give you that.

    I do have to say that it is a bit silly to talk about cultural collapse regarding Canada. As far as I can tell they have no culture. I say they can’t handle TV and take that “tool” away from them. Shoot their satellites down and cut their cable lines. When they grow up we might talk about letting them have it back.

    V is right about kids too when you think about. Let the little buggers watch hard core porn! :)

    Keep commenting V!

  23. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Ja ja, control the station, not the knobs.
    (which knobs btw are in your home, and last time I was out, couldn’t see the radiowaves in the air due to some secular facts having to do with which frequencies the human eye is sensitive at)

    I am also *not* asking anyone “on this site” ‘cuz Science works on evidence, not reference letters babeh. I didn’t particularly asked you either come to think about it since that would presume that I thought the thing as debatable in the first place.

    Oh well, I guess Canada will have to live with the Terrible Destructive Ultra Damage of kids who will gets some nightmares for a week, and then learn to get over it for the rest of their life. As well as parents who will learn to see the TV as a tool and not a toy.

  24. Jeff said, on April 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    …and they show pics of Freddy Kruger (sp?) looking like the chic in the commercial on TV and nobody screams foul. You show a killing on TV, rape, arson and buildings getting knocked down by planes….on and on and kids seem to just get desensitized to the viloence

    Turn the damn things off. I haven’t watched TV in 7 years. I have chosen to feed my brain with books, music, DVD movies of my choice(without commercials) and creating art.

    TV has it’s high points, but the majority of it is CRAP. The general public, especially children would be better if TV was not the main focus of entertainment in the house.

    TV is the mass opiate. PG will tell you…. drugs are bad. Just say no like Nancy does.

  25. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Congratulations :pg - your humble messanger: from an anti self ownership leech / Nanny State Conservative, because your desires are not satisfied you have now advocated vandalism, massive private property destruction and generally the use of force as other life leeches (muggers, communists, terrorists… and of cource nanny state conservatives) typically often do. You even started talking with “we” and “us” as a proper collectivist.

    Clearly cutting power cables is less damaging that that ad above.

  26. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Jeff said- Turn the damn things off. I haven’t watched TV in 7 years.

    I think you’ve got the right idea my man. Although there is some great stuff on discovery, the history channel etc.

    As for your other references to TV violence you know when Nightmare on Elm street is coming on and you can keep your kids from watching it but commercials just pop up unanounced. That’s my issue with this.

  27. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Imagine if they popped up and said “Boo” as well.

    Good lord, the bodies would be pilling on the streets.

  28. Wes said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Ugh. I don’t understand people who say all TV is garbage. TV today is better than it’s ever been. The comedies are smarter, the dramas are more complex, the production is better… It’s not inferior to other media anymore. I’m not saying that Lost is better than No Country For Old Men, but when you get deeper into the top 10 of 2007, it definitely eclipses a few. And The Wire or The Sopranos are easily on par with anything that has been made in the last 10 years. In fact, a story like the one on The Wire could never be made as a film. It’s just too complex.

    Jeff, tell me you at least watch tv shows when they’re out on DVD.

    That said, I think you’re absolutely right about kids and TV. There’s plenty of studies that demonstrate the damage too much TV can do to kids. Even video games are better. I fear I’m a result of that mistake myself.

  29. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    LOL

    This is silly. V is going on a cute little rant though.

    Hey Jeff - da point is you got junior sitting watching SpongeBob or whatever and this comes on. The point isn’t what you do, or if you watch TV. Thank god for that. We are in trouble if the point is ever what you do. Saying no to drugs is for other people BYW. That bus left your station a long time ago. Like what is the point now? :)

    I know this stuff is real hard to comprehend and all. Try and make it about censorship if you will.

    It is really about what is appropriate. V being the twit that he is thinks it is about important principles. I guess when you spend all your time getting stoned, getting high on paint and acetone fumes, or frying your brain playing WoW for 72 hours straight everything appears monumental.

    I can’t tell where V’s ala mode style leaves off and his stupidity begins. I do think the vandalism thing a bit silly. Darn, the shinny newness of V’s penny has already worn off.

    Your drugs, your toys, your internet, your porn: who cares?

    Cheers :)

  30. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    I think V is Steve Horner’s kid.

    I do like the idea of these kids of all ages being so certain about raising them when they have none. Don’t tell me you are entitled cause you aren’t.

  31. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    V said - Imagine if they popped up and said “Boo” as well.

    Good lord, the bodies would be pilling on the streets.

    Now you’re just being ridiculous.

    Hell PG you may be right. He’s got that Horneresque tone to his little rants. They swerve way off topic and don’t seem to be governed by any logic or reason.

    Wes- Although you named a couple of good ones I think TV as a whole has gone downhill recently. I’m not saying it’s 100% garbage, hell the Wire may be the best thing I’ve ever seen on television but the “reality” TV craze has gotten out of control and soured me for TV in general. That being said I must admit that I probably still watch too much TV.

  32. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    thom what are you talking about? Wes is right about TV quality (God that hurt!). What you want to bring back The Six Million Dollar Man or The Dukes of Hazard?

  33. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    I didn’t mean it. I was just setting you up to say that Wes is right :)

    Like I said there’s a handful of shows that I think are very good but on the whole I think it’s not as good. Perhaps it is because there is such a preponderance of garbage on TV that it outweighs the good. For every Wire or Sopranos there’s 10 World’s Wildest Police Chases, and Flavor of Love. And yes I freely admit I am a total hypocrite on this one. I go home from work and the feet go up on the coffee table and the TV goes on so don’t take me too seriously.

    They did bring back the Bionic Woman no?

  34. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Looks like the only thing Nanny State Conservatives against poor, are ad hominems. Woo, V is stupid. Woo V is that, Woo I “can’t even begin” to tell so, BY SHEER COINCIDENCE I can write that sentence and not *actually* say something. Its pathetic, they even have to come up with various scenarios and then attack them. It’s almost as if they wish they had something to attack.

    And smashing satellites is not Vandalism? Ha! You’d wish.

    Someday, you might learn to take your hands out of other peoples lives, learn not to want to regulate everything and close the fucking TV if you are too gutless to take or deal with it. The rest of us WILL survive, and at any age I assure you.

  35. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Gotta run folks. Momma is turning 60 on Saturday and I’ve got to go get her a present.

    I’ll check in later.

  36. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Oh look, it’s a self supporting group therapy circle now.

  37. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    (You know the fun part? I don’t even *have* a TV. Not for old style streaming channels that is)

    It’s a media center, a game console display screen, a screen to control Music, Video, Pictures, Radio or see any TV show, Documentary I have *download*
    At will,
    When I want
    Through what is actually *this century* the main electronic entertainment machine. (hint: Computer)

    So the fun fact is that not only I am the guy who doesn’t give a shit if some get too scared being told that someone could slip and have a bucket of oil fall on them if they are not careful, but I am also the guy who could assure (unless they can crack passwords when still in the single digits) can have all the cartoons and documentaries they want (and at any time they want and fits the family) without the ad for Chainsaw wrestling comes up.

    But all this requires personal ability and effort I know…

  38. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    How is that mini-skirt banning in Iran going btw? You know, that is inappropriate because children might see it…

  39. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Fantastic! How wonderfully childish. LOL. Bragging and all, how cute! What a delite! V is Coach Steve’s kid.

  40. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Back from the lake - hooked two salmon and lost them both.

    Had to look up “Internet Troll”. The Beast assumed by the tenor of V’s comments and his statements of age that he took his name from that movie. It does fit. Just as a few years ago a ton of kids all named themselves “Neo”. Perhaps it stands for “Vincent” but the inference seemed pretty clear at time.

    As for parents using the tube for babysitting - that’s a straw man argument. TV watching can be a heartening family activity, but even if it’s not, the government has no business airing such foulness in the guise of public safety. One may and can guard against this kind of content on the usual channels but how does one guard against PSA’s that can pop up anywhere? And why should we have to give up TV for our kids?

  41. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Ah, as to how. CAPITALISM grasshopper. You don’t like it, you petition the channel *not* to place them. If you are any important economically demographic for the channel, it won’t. Otherwise suck it down because guess what, it’s not “your tv”, it is “the channel’s broadcast”.

  42. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Oh, for culture’s shake.

    It’s “that comic” not “that movie”.

    You have hurt me now… deeply.

  43. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    But it’s your government and since you paid for those PSA’s your opinion counts.

  44. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Right, but V - your comments have more in common with the Movie than the comic.

  45. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Except, that as I said, I am more interested of what if a private organisation pays for them.
    Remember, its the content you are *supposed* to have a problem with and its control on other people’s channels. So don’t try to become all teary eyed about government expenditures. I am sure you are of the ilk who is giving enough already for people to sit on their ass and watch emails.

  46. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    So “V” does stand for “V For Vendetta” then?

  47. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    :::Right, but V - your comments have more in common with the Movie than the comic.:::

    Do they? And what do I care?

    You think I am supposed to stay within someone else’s expectations of a character. I just filled V in the Name(required) section and you can’t take your eyes from it. From that point and after -I- do the rest.

  48. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Ok so it doesn’t?

  49. V said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Depends on the occasion.

    Sometimes it stands for down elevator buttons.

  50. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Not enough love for this child.

  51. hairybeast said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    You’re being evasive. The Beast rests his case.

  52. Jeff said, on April 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    Yes, Wes, I have all of those shows you mentioned on DVD. I also download shows like a maniac from iTunes. I love well written and performed visual entertainment, especially after burning one…I threw that one in for you PG :)

    The point is TV is used as the great pacifier, not only for children, but just as much for adults. It’s far to easy to walk in from work and flip on the tube and numb out, just like an opiate. Some people have difficulty not having a TV on while their at home and awake.

    SOME parents use the TV set not only as a baby sitter, but a way to avoid the parental duty of mentoring their offspring. Most kids know TV plot lines better than their family history. It’s sad.

    I have hippie friends who never watched TV and for years I could not understand why. Then I had my cable turned off during our house renovation. I realized I didn’t miss it much. I did miss my History channel, Discovery, Travel Channel, in other words the educational stuff kids should be watching, but beyond that, nothing. It actually amazed me to the point I started encouraging friends to do the same, just like my hippie buddies did to me. Some did and thanked me.

    Some TV programming is great, the majority is not. The news is horrible, very little in depth reporting. It’s all sound bites manipulated to the station and network owners views, left and right.

    When in Europe I noticed how much the news focused on a world view. Of course, there was regional and national news for said country, but the general focus was very international. The news here focuses on American issues almost entirely unless it’s the Middle East or some other disaster related incident.

    I actually had to see news of the “surge” in Europe to get a non-biased glimpse of what was really happening. Some of it was good, other parts bad, but at least it encompassed a full view, not a sound bite. It was intelligent reporting, not some barbie reading a teleprompter while I stared at her cleavage.

    The production quality of American TV far surpasses their international brethren, but the content often leaves something to be desired.

    Did you know you can go to CBS.com and watch the entire original series of Hawaii 5-O? I love me some internet.

  53. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Greenie Hippie Trite, It is thoughtful Greenie Hippie Trite, but trite none the less, so judgmental. I truly admire your life choice bro, truly do.

    Jeff, if you throw out drug crap because you think it yanks my chain save yourself the time. I really could care less. Drugs are central to the crap you do and your life. I never think of them.

  54. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    I am happy you like Europe Jeff. Believe it or not some of us crank up the old station wagon, drive to the airport and fly to places out of the country too! Whod a thunk it? But its not like your condescension rankles or anything. :)

    Hell I even been ta Missouri once.

    Turn off the TV; turn on your mind through drugs and travel. Darn, what have I been thinking?

  55. thompaine said, on April 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    OMG he’s got that psychotic narcisism and everything. I do believe this is Horner’s kid!

  56. E the Wise said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    V calls us “nanny state conservatives.” By doing so he demonstrates that 1) he has failed to read anything other than the last two posts on this site and 2) he is fairly smitten with his discovery that conservatives might advocate minor unobtrusive government interventions in society. Wow! Shock!

    I have little doubt that point for point, V would advocate a much larger role of government in society and yet in this thread he has consistently stuck to the dogmatic bullshit that we are nanny statists. Perhaps he should support his claims with the extensive evidence we have left on this site?

  57. Jeff said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Greenie Hippie trite? Ha! LOL… Wrong Guy. But, You would be amazed at how those “Greenie Hippies” interact with their kids and how well adjusted those kids grow up. An open, curious mind uncluttered with nonsensical and violent TV imagery is a wonderful thing to pass on to your children. They will have plenty of time to experience TV’s nonsense and violence as adults.

    PG, I’m not being condescending. Judgmental about American TV? Maybe. I don’t think I ever implied any of you guys don’t go out of the country. I’d be disappointed if you haven’t. Andre just go back from Israel, right? Hell, I figured most of you have traveled quite a bit.. I just stated that the news is different internationally. In my best vintage Sat Night Live impersonation.Exxxxxccccuuuusssseeee Me :)

    and on the drug issue….Drugs or should I say cannabis and entheogens, are a part of my life history, one I’m able to laugh and talk about from an experienced point of view, not someone looking in from the outside. I also don’t regret at all my use of those substances. And yes, in fact they have many times aided me in what I do, but they are not crutches or destructive vices in my life, just something that expanded my consciousness a bit and made me look at the world a little differently. I won’t even go into he spiritual influences they have had on me. I’ll save that for another time.

    Now back on subject, I still think most of what is on the tube is C-R-A-P, especially for children. I wished a lot of Americans would turn off the TV more and tune into their kids. This country and society in general would be a much better place for it.

    I gotta go draw some crap…Goodnight to all. :)

  58. E the Wise said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Draw us something that we can decorate our humble blog with. That would be cool.

    Seriously.

  59. Jeff said, on April 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    A drawering? That would be cool.

    I got few hoops to jump through the next couple of weeks and another trip out of town for Jazzfest.

    I’ll see what I can do when I get back in.

    Hmmmm, this could be fun.

  60. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 24th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Does anybody remember “V” the miniseries (1983)? Wasn’t V (for Vendetta) a comic book before it was the movie? And do we actually have any intrusive, nanny state, conservatives on the site? I rant and rave against the nanny state and the ideology that spawned it all the time. Let’s just say the womb to the tomb socialist nanny state concept doesn’t originate on the Right.

  61. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 24th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    That’s actually kind of a frightening ad. Great, now how will I ever get to sleep tonight?

    Can somebody hold me?

  62. Wes said, on April 24th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Jeff, I have TiVo, so I can relate somewhat. I can’t remember the last time I just watched TV to see what was on. I record the shows I want to see, and that’s it. There’s still filler sometimes, but I’ve never had the inclination to watch celebrities dancing just because it was on.

  63. DFV the Scribe said, on April 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    V, V, V, don’t go……!!

    I demur from my colleagues on this one. AND, I find V’s comments to be almost precisely on the mark!

    To pan the Canadian ads is okay, but to suggest that they are some sort of danger to “children” is absurd, which V quite effectively conveys. Contrary to various arguments proffered, there are both nanny-state conservatives and nanny-state liberals, and I wish a scourge upon both their houses.

    Wes’s link to all five of the “Prevent-It” clips proved just how innocuous and lightly useful the ads are.

    DFV says: “The quickest way to dissolve a man’s logic is to involve his children. Then, he melts into uselessness.”

  64. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 24th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    I agree with the Beast comment #4. Children don’t need to see that. What’s amazing is that when “conservatives” (read those who advocate a bit of common sense and decency) insist on the most minimal standards of basic decency and responsible behavior in schools or on television we are labeled “nanny state”. Instead we are the last great defenders of civilized and common sense behavior and values.

  65. hairybeast said, on April 25th, 2008 at 8:08 am

    DFV we know that references to children and the invoking of special insight about them based on parenthood gets your back up. Fair enough. The beast referenced kids because they were the first to come to mind. Any parent who sees an ad like this asks himself “How would my kids react to this?”

    The Beast’s 12 year old son would probably laugh his butt off now. When he was six he’d have freaked. Same with the two Beast-daughters.

    But it’s not just children. A canadian forum has been conducting a parallel conversation on this topic. One commenter, Darcy said this:

    “I hate this ad so much. I don’t watch much CBC anymore because of it. ”

    It’s true that many of us have thick enough skin to see this ad without being too freaked out by it, but it is also true that many of us don’t. Why should they be made to suffer so the Ad people at CBC can slap each other on the back? That ad series drove this woman away from CBC!

    Now, if this ad was set to run only after 11pm or something, perhaps a case could be made for it. But according to master-Wii on the same forum:

    “The problem I have with it is, it’s been known to pop up randomly at any time throughout the day. Woe unto the poor tots that might be looking at the commercials when it happens to air.”

    It pops up randomly throughout the day!

    Children are often misused as vehicles for mommy and daddy’s agenda. They look so cute on tv and they are willing to parrot whatever line they are given. Granted. Unscrupulous pols often cloak repressive policies as being “for the children”. Granted. But that doesn’t mean all criticism based on child-welfare is automatically corrupt or incorrect. That ad is patently callous and tasteless and most likely causes more damage to people than it prevents.

    Oh, BTW, the Beast actually did the whoopsie shown on the ad with 2 gallons of fully boiling chicken soup. He was wearing shorts as he lifted the pot off the burner, splashed a little on his leg, swiped at it with one hand and fell backwards on the linoleum, dumping it all in his lap. Second degree burns from the waist down. Had he seen that ad weeks before his accident he is certain that the accident still would have happened. So what has it really acheivd apart from coarsening TV just a bit more. Isn’t there enough violence, pain and horror on the tube now?

  66. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 8:23 am

    All I said was the ad was inappropriate. V is a twit who made it about censorship, nobody else did. So how could the infant be right DFV? He made up crap and tried to tear it down. It was his straw man. I think he is one of your students maybe? Naw - your kids have to be smarter than that. To quote Wes “end of story”.

    Oh Scribe - pray answer me this? How can a government censor itself? The concept of self censorship is absurd I think.

    The Beast is right. How correct your quote might be Scribe is outside your frame of reference. I won’t back down on this! :)

  67. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 8:23 am

    What, did you join the Templars Dave? St. George is cool guy. He was Catholic and so were the Templars. If you feel motivated to convert let me know. I can hook you up with a spiritual advisor up there! Tony Blair and now Dave! Saints be praised!

  68. hairybeast said, on April 25th, 2008 at 8:30 am

    PG agreed- V specialized in lining up the straw men so he could knock them down. As for Dave’s new Icon, the Beast likes it. The previous pic (apart from being tough to see) was a bit too sybaritic for Dave. It had a sort of “Wash, shave and perfume the Wenches then bring them to my tent.” quality.

  69. thompaine said, on April 25th, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Ouch Beast. I actually pulled a real genius move the night before last. I was chopping up some onions barefoot (I don’t know why) and I knicked the big old chef’s knife off the counter and it landed on my big toe point down. My toe is all sorts of pretty colors right now.

    PG- how will this work at Dave’s age? Will we have to send him to CCD for a couple of years before we can have him confirmed?

  70. thompaine said, on April 25th, 2008 at 9:43 am

    As for the whole nanny state conservative thing there is a certain segment of the right who are the nanny state type when it comes to censorship. I wouldn’t put anyone on this particular forum in that catagory but they are out there. Generally they are the religious types who side with the Repubs when it comes to abortion, gay marriage etc. but take a more leftish approach when it comes to censorship. Again I’m not pointing the finger at anyone here

    Not that it really pertains to this discussion. This whole thing took a sharp turn off course when V brought up censorship.

  71. Wes said, on April 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am

    The ads are remarkably ineffective. By being SO graphic, it’s turned its cause into a joke. It’s like they decided to steal the marketing guy for PETA. It accomplishes something in the short term, but doesn’t really accomplish as much as ensuring actual safety inspections on a more regular basis.

    Thom, the people you mentioned are one of the very first reasons I started to become more liberal.

  72. thompaine said, on April 25th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    I could see that Wes. Both sides drive me nuts sometimes. One of the reasons why I really like this site is that wee don’t get much of the stereotypical idiocy from either side that unfortunately I see all too much of. You know like the Bill O’reilly spoof on South Park with the pissed off white trash redneck conservative vs the aging hippie liberal douche.

  73. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Get over it already Wes. You do not have to be a “religious type” to be conservative. Get over it. The meanies don’t want Wesie to get his sexual joy-joy on.

  74. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    If little impressionable Wesie got fear put in tahim in church can ya imagine what Wright’s victims are going to be like! Oh yeah - according to Wes he loves gays so its cool.

  75. Jeff said, on April 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Now, now PG.

  76. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    What are you talkin about Jeff? I am concerned for him. He continually gives the Liberal view that conservatives are mean spirited. Our feelings are in the wrong place. Just tryn to help and show my brand of humor don’t ya know. :)

  77. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Generally they are the religious types who side with the Repubs when it comes to abortion, gay marriage etc. but take a more leftish approach when it comes to censorship.

    Sorry thom but this shows an ignorant view of the subject.

  78. thompaine said, on April 25th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    I don’t think so. Obviously. Look I’m not trying to make a sweeping generalisation here and forgive me if that’s how it came accross. I have no problem with the so-called “religious right,” and I certainly wouldn’t lump them all into the above mentioned catagory but the above quote does describe a certain type of Republican voter.

  79. thompaine said, on April 25th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    You know I should not have responded without first asking

    Sorry thom but this shows an ignorant view of the subject

    How do you mean?

    I’ve got to go down to my mom’s for her birthday so I won’t read your response until tomorrow. Looking forward to it. Have a good night all.

  80. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    It is simple - it is wrong to believe that free speech somehow belongs in the realm of the left. It does not, and never has. In fact the opposite is true.

  81. Wes said, on April 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    PG, obviously I didn’t mean you were mean-spirited. You’re like the Snuggle Bear.

    I suspect you’re just having some fun with me if you’re suggesting that I’m being unfair in saying that the people who believe in strict government control over issues of morality are mostly religious conservatives. That’s all I meant to say.

    We aren’t really talking about labeling ideology, we’re talking about the labels that people attach to themselves who believe in these principles. Most people who think freedom of expression or speech should be controlled are on the right. In the US anyway.

  82. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    I’ve been experimenting with some different pics. I liked the old one alot, but you couldn’t see it very well. Plus I guess it was just time for a change. More on the Templar/Catholic thing later. By the time you read this message it will probably have changed again.

  83. thompaine said, on April 26th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    PG said- It is simple - it is wrong to believe that free speech somehow belongs in the realm of the left. It does not, and never has. In fact the opposite is true.

    That is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I should have used the old quote marks ie nanny state “conservative.” What I meant by a more leftish approach to censorship was that they were FOR censorship. The type of person I spoke of does tend to vote Republican but is not (at least in the purest sense) conservative although they would argue that they are. I consider Republican and conservative two distinctly diffent things. One being an ideology and the other an organization.

    I agree with you but perhaps I articulated it poorly.

  84. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    I was speaking in general terms of right and left thom, not of party. I think the same is true of party as well. Perhaps an example from you would be helpful.

    Oh yeah thom – I do think I would want to assist the bishop with Dave and deliver the confirmation “slap” myself. Alas they don’t do it that way anymore. I also think we reject Paul’s teaching and insist on circumcision.

  85. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    You understood me Wes. I was having fun with you too as you suggested. A Snuggle Bear huh? Thanks, my wife says it fits. That is if my shots are kept up to date. :)

  86. hairybeast said, on April 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Catholics are amusing.

  87. Jeff said, on April 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Agreed, Beast.

  88. thompaine said, on April 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    I think I see where the mixup is here PG. I’m talking in terms of voter more than politician. My brother would be an example of this type God love him. Of course that is absolutely no help to you since you don’t know the man.

    This PC is exttemely slow today but I’ll see if I can dig up an actual person in office. I wss going to try and look up that panel that Tipper Gore put together in the early 90s. wonder if there was a repub or two on there? But there’s an xample of censorship on he left.

    I say we go old school Catholic with the Sage. The slap, Latin mass, no meat on Fridays. He’s got some catching up to do.

  89. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    I am a firm follower of Martin Luther (or at least of the reforms he advocated) and the chances of me EVER becoming a Catholic are far less than me becoming old style Polygamist. (: Ain’t gonna happen.

  90. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Martin Luther - oh you broke you vows, married a nun, appropriated church land and money for yourself, advocated banning books from the bible, worried about getting hairy palms (and going to hell for it) and generally are devoid of a sense of humor. That Martin Luther? No problem, drop the cross then.

  91. hairybeast said, on April 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Aren’t 90 comments on one thread enough?

    Oops…

    Aren’t 91 comments on one thread enough?

  92. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Was there alot of fighting going on where you grew up Beast?

  93. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Because this form of communication is limiting I can not tell if the insufferableness exists with self-awareness. Hard to believe it doesn’t, especially when inoffensive humor provokes it.

    Of late the concept of “fanatisme” comes to mind. If I may be so French! :)

  94. hairybeast said, on April 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Pg far be it for the Beast to try to kill off one of his own posts - especially when it has attracted such vigorous debate. By all means, continue to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of yawn.

  95. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 26th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    I’m going for 100, we’re almost there Beast. And yes, that Martin Luther… his 95 thesis changed the world. But I still have a soft spot in my heart for my conservative Catholic friends. Actually, many of the men I have admired in my life at one time or another were Catholic. Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, Judge Scalia, Cal Thomas, my own former congressman Bob Schaffer and the list goes on and on. If I insisted that my friends share my viewpoints, ideology and religious beliefs to a tee, I’d have none to speak of.

    I used to have a webpage dedicated to the writings, hymns and teachings of Martin Luther but a little dispute with the free hosting service of tripod successfully ended that particulary endeavor (that was many years ago.) Protestantism has splintered time and time again since that time of Luther and the early attempts by many to print and distribute the Holy Bible despite persecution from the authorities of the Catholic church. I love to tease my various Mormon and Jehovah Witness friends that they owe their existence in effect to a formerly Catholic monk named Martin Luther. They give me the strangest of looks but history and the facts don’t lie.

  96. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    I am thinking about going with a Crusader cross of some sort. By the way kudos to those who actually figured out that was a Templar emblem. Vary savvy. I am, after all some sort of kafir/infidel, so a Crusader identifying symbol might be appropriate. I’ll see what I can find. That’s 96 THB.

  97. Jeff said, on April 27th, 2008 at 9:06 am

    “let loose the dogs of yawn”–LOL

    I think we have another classic line.

  98. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    This post is just here so on #100 I can say…

  99. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Something very direct…

  100. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Piss Off Beast!

    I have to quit holding things against Dave. He is oblivious apparently.

  101. hairybeast said, on April 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    So is this a record?

  102. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Life is far to short to worry about holding things against people, and worrying about those who may be doing so. Onward I say, onward!.

  103. pg - your humble messenger said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I agree Dave. Terribly mature way of looking at it old chap. Some of us just can’t help it that we are dogmatists. It is not like it matters or anything.

    Heroes, which for the triumph of their prejudices, are ready to sacrifice your life.
    Albert Brie

    Pardon the rough translation. You know you sure can save on crayons by only buying bold primary colors.

    Since I am feeling magnanimous others can have the last word, and the Beast can have his thread back.

  104. Dave the Infidel Sage said, on April 27th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    Plus I like the various inmates of the Conclub institution, and the various instances of ‘treading on toes’ is usually not intentional nor meant to overly offend.

  105. DFV the Scribe said, on May 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    I have absolutely nothing noteworthy to add to this, but damned if I’m gonna be shut out of a three-figure-comment thread.

Leave a Reply