Last night I watched the Steelers Game and the bills game I was fliping back and forth. Losman looked good but I think the bills can get better. On NFL network they had coverage on a few games and I got to see a few minutes of the Raiders. I wanted to watch the 49ers at 10 pm but don't remember seeing any of it. My great plan was to watch it till 11 then watch Bill Maher and This comedy show and the show about hooker and Cathouse but I was sleeping. this morning I went to the bank then to the movies but I missread something cause wedding crashers wasn't on until 1:50 i thought it said 11:30 and there warn't any other movies at that time or close to the time for me to wait for. I then went to Target and bought Sin City and The Punisher on DVD and a few other things, then got the bus to the elmwood festival of the arts and went there for a nice strole. Some amazing ladies there, wow, smokin'. The loaded baked potatoe was amazing and filling. Hopefully tonight I will be able to stay up for what I feal like watching.
Metalpeter's Journal
My Podcast Link
08/27/2005 16:06 #28157
Recap08/25/2005 19:53 #28155
Product PlacementCategory: advertising
I know one of the newest ways of advertising is through Product placement. There is a great joke about it in one of the mike myers movies I can't remember wich one I think it was in one of those spy ones. He is covered with ads for all kinds of stuff. It has been used in all kinds of movies. Take for example superman and that famous Marlboro truck I think it is, what ever the brand that truck dosn't exist in real life they made it for the movie (I forget the brand just remebers he picks it up). I know I noticed it in a motorcycle movie a saw there ways a wall under a bridge with a Mountain dew add and other places it was more suttle like what they where drinking. I know for a fact they do product placement in some reality shows. If someone ones a fridge door on cribs and you see all the brand names of everything there is a chance that some of that is placed there. MTV has been known to edit shirts and hats if they have a brand name so that implies if tehy arn't edited they have either got permision to show it with out having to pay for it or it is product placement. I think product placement is fine as long as it isn't used to alter the story or what you are watching. I have heard and now know for a fact that MTV uses product placement in there reality shows. The company I work for has one of there product lines advertised on MTV and has sent some product to the real world. Will it be shown being used I have no idea. I think it was laguna beach they had a bag of doritos in the back seat and no body ever touched it, it was kinda funny. I was wondering what people think of it and also would Paul ever think of using it as a way to generate funds. Maybe one of the phone companies would give him free service for 2 years and money for the site if all the pictures he posted had there logo on it, of course there would be a clause written in that paul or anyone else could still bash them if they wanted. I'm not saying it is a good idea. I like that there are no ads here. I like that if or anyone talks about a product that it isn't becasue they are getting paid to. Does anyone remember consummer reports they had no adds to make sure all there tests where acurate and unbiased. Don't know if they still are. But if you where going to buy anything they where the magazine to buy. I don't know how they are know or if they are still around.[bgcolor]#fbe5c8[/bgcolor]
alison - 08/25/05 19:03
middlesex is, indeed, where you believe- however, i live on the far end, between delaware and amherst, and i cannot cut through the park because of the darkness. having to go around, it's about a 40-45 minute walk which would be enjoyable if not for the early darkness which has been springing up on us as of late. i do not carry mase.
middlesex is, indeed, where you believe- however, i live on the far end, between delaware and amherst, and i cannot cut through the park because of the darkness. having to go around, it's about a 40-45 minute walk which would be enjoyable if not for the early darkness which has been springing up on us as of late. i do not carry mase.
metalpeter - 08/25/05 18:55
P.S.
Wait maybe it was Wayne's World. And they say something about not selling out and the next scene is all kinds of adds, i wish I where sure.
P.S.
Wait maybe it was Wayne's World. And they say something about not selling out and the next scene is all kinds of adds, i wish I where sure.
08/24/2005 20:03 #28153
TrainsearchsCategory: freedom
I heard on the news today that in New York City they are adding a bunch of camaras to the subways and trains. It sounded like it is going to cost a lot of money. I think that is a good idea it should have been long ago. But what I dissaprove of is the random bag checks. The reason is that they are basicly illegal searchs. Yeah people are flipping out because of the london bombing but that is no reason to impead on peoples rights. What if you have your weed in there on your way to your buddies house are they going to arrest you? What about if vibrator or other sex toys do you really want everyone on the subway to see that. What about your illegaly downloaded or bootleg movies and music can they arrest you for that. Or is it only items that would be considered terrorist like a mask and whips and chains or would that BE S&M. Explosives can be trigered by cell phones so wouldn't they have the right to take those if you look suspicious. Granted some of the things I mentioned might not get you arrested but I'm sure the guy checking the bag can make up a story to make it sound like you did something wrong to make the search fall under probable cause. If you have drugs they can take all your money and say you where selling and that is drug money. I think that the random searchs are a violation of peoples civil rights and right to privacy. Every totolarian society started by people giving up there rights for there saftey. If we arn't carefull we will wind up like China. We will become the place that belives the rights of the whole are more important then the rights of the individual.
metalpeter - 08/25/05 17:19
I think that there may be a happy middle in there somewhere. The problem is that in this country we are taught fear from our friends, enemies, news media, movies and our general inviroment. That fear will lead to abuse of the system. I think that we have to be very carefull not to give our rights away. See once we have less rights then the terorists have all ready won. There has to be someway that bombs can be checked for or explosive materials with out impinging on our rights. I'm sure there is the technology to do it. That way only people who might have materials that could be used as a bomb would be searched. Maybe sniffing dogs trained for that only.
I think that there may be a happy middle in there somewhere. The problem is that in this country we are taught fear from our friends, enemies, news media, movies and our general inviroment. That fear will lead to abuse of the system. I think that we have to be very carefull not to give our rights away. See once we have less rights then the terorists have all ready won. There has to be someway that bombs can be checked for or explosive materials with out impinging on our rights. I'm sure there is the technology to do it. That way only people who might have materials that could be used as a bomb would be searched. Maybe sniffing dogs trained for that only.
jason - 08/24/05 21:44
You know, I agree with much of what you wrote. I think it's bad to open ourselves up to abuse of a system meant to protect us. A lot of people dislike the USA Patriot Act for the same reason. At the same time suppose a bomb does explode in the NYC subway - the same people who moan about lost rights will complain that we didn't do enough to protect the citizenry. It is of utmost importance to protect ourselves, and it is crucial to have a common sense system in place that gives us as much protection as humanly possible. We CAN be safe and keep our rights intact. Don't you think that it is definitely possible to do both at the same time?
You know, I agree with much of what you wrote. I think it's bad to open ourselves up to abuse of a system meant to protect us. A lot of people dislike the USA Patriot Act for the same reason. At the same time suppose a bomb does explode in the NYC subway - the same people who moan about lost rights will complain that we didn't do enough to protect the citizenry. It is of utmost importance to protect ourselves, and it is crucial to have a common sense system in place that gives us as much protection as humanly possible. We CAN be safe and keep our rights intact. Don't you think that it is definitely possible to do both at the same time?
08/26/2005 19:18 #28156
Cig addsCategory: advertising
This was an interesting article in The Buffalo News about cig adds at stores. I know when I worked at wilson farms they had lighted adds behind the counter where they kept them all. From what I heard the cigarette companies might have been marlboro pays a good amount of money for those. Before they where covered with shields if you looked to see if the store was open and they where closed you would see the adds. I don't know about in other magazines but in playboy they have some really cool looking cig adds. I do remember seeing a show or documentary where they showed how the adds where at eyelevel for kids. The lady smoking is always single and hot and sexy and caters to what ever neighboorhood the store is in. The same can be said about the alchool ads also.
FOCUS: CIGARETTE CONTROVERSY
No sale, city says, to ads near schools touting tobacco
Anti-smoking activists applaud crackdown to enforce prohibition on books for many years
By BRIAN MEYER
News Staff Reporter
8/26/2005
Click to view larger picture
Dennis C. Enser/Buffalo News
This ad for Newport cigarettes, on a deli at Amherst and Peter streets, violates city law because the store is near a school, shown in the background. The owner promises to remove it.
Cigarette ads are plastered across the outside of a grocery store on East Ferry Street, just a block from School 53. One sign for Newport urges passers-by to "Pocket the Pleasure." Another promises "Pleasure to Go."
At an Amherst Street delicatessen, posters in the window advertise Kool and Virginia Slims, while a sign on its door touts Newport. Our Lady of Black Rock School is only a block away.
"Cigarettes" is painted in bold red letters on the side of a Hampshire Street grocery store, a block from the Bilingual Education Center.
No one accuses these stores of selling cigarettes to children. Nonetheless, they are breaking a city law that forbids posting outdoor tobacco signs within 1,000 feet of schools, youth centers, playgrounds and day care centers. The law has been on the books for a long time, but the city didn't start enforcing it until this summer.
City officials visited more than 40 food stores on the West Side this month and found every business violating the tobacco ad restrictions.
"In most cases, all the signs were down the same day," said Niagara Council Member Dominic J. Bonifacio Jr., who spearheaded the effort.
Others were given more time to remove cigarette ads that were painted on their buildings.
But the ads can be found in all corners of the city.
20% smoke in high school
The crackdown is winning praise in some arenas.
"They hang these huge cigarette signs outside. It's sometimes just so in-your-face," said Donna Grace of the Supporting and Initiating Community Action Coalition, a group that fights drug and alcohol abuse. "And kids are very observant. Some might look at these signs and say "that's a cool thing to do.' "
City enforcers should "get an award" for the crackdown, said Terry Alford, coordinator of the Erie Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition.
He predicted the enforcement effort would pay long-term health dividends.
"Studies show that the average smoker tries the first cigarette at the age of 141/2," said Alford, who heads a group based at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.
According to the coalition, one in five high school students in the state smokes. At the middle school level, 7.2 percent of boys and 5.6 percent of girls smoke.
Alford says he is convinced that the $11.2 billion tobacco companies spend on advertising each year affects "impressionable" youngsters.
Arafat Rizek, who owns the Black Rock Food Center at Amherst and Peter streets, said he recently removed cigarette ads placed on his facade by a tobacco distributor and plans on removing other ads. Rizek said he has no problem with the city's new enforcement effort.
Rizek and other deli owners also noted that some cigarette ads inside their stores recently have been taken down.
Anti-smoking activists have been pushing for enforcement of a 1998 agreement aimed at restricting cigarette advertising. They have been targeting tobacco ads that are placed at eye level for youngsters.
Incentives from distributors
Cigarette sales account for more than a third of all sales in many delis. Bonifacio said some tobacco distributors also provide incentives to stores that display signs touting their products.
Still, some grocery store owners said they understand the reasoning behind the city's crackdown.
"I have five kids of my own," Rizek said.
Grace, an anti-drug activist, called City Hall recently to complain about tobacco ads outside a West Side deli near a school.
"Nobody is trying to hurt people's businesses. It's better to have a thriving business than a boarded-up building," said Grace. "But these (store) owners have to follow proper procedures."
Removing tobacco ads shouldn't hurt sales, according to North Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr.
"People know they can buy cigarettes in delis," he said. "You don't need gaudy, ugly posters to tell people there are cigarettes inside."
Golombek submitted legislation this week that aims to close an enforcement loophole. While the law has been on city books for years, Buffalo never established specific fines for the offense. Golombek hopes to change that when lawmakers return from summer break. His resolution calls for imposing $200 fines for first offenses and $350 fines for repeat violations.
Bonifacio, meanwhile, wants to broaden the ban to include liquor advertisements. He also is asking city lawyers to determine whether the city can add churches to the restricted areas.
Tobacco advertising outside delis was widespread in the Niagara District until the recent crackdown, Bonifacio said. Of the 61 food stores in his district, Bonifacio said, all but two are prohibited from displaying cigarette signs outside their establishments.
More stringent licensing rules
When city officials visited delis earlier this month, they also cited some for building code violations, checked fire extinguishers and made sure all stores had proper licenses.
Over the past two years, the city has imposed more stringent procedures for reviewing food store license applications. The actions followed repeated complaints about loitering, unclean conditions and other problems in and around some of the corner stores.
Golombek described enforcing tobacco ad restrictions as another step in the city's effort to improve quality of life in neighborhoods.
e-mail: bmeyer@buffnews.com
FOCUS: CIGARETTE CONTROVERSY
No sale, city says, to ads near schools touting tobacco
Anti-smoking activists applaud crackdown to enforce prohibition on books for many years
By BRIAN MEYER
News Staff Reporter
8/26/2005
Click to view larger picture
Dennis C. Enser/Buffalo News
This ad for Newport cigarettes, on a deli at Amherst and Peter streets, violates city law because the store is near a school, shown in the background. The owner promises to remove it.
Cigarette ads are plastered across the outside of a grocery store on East Ferry Street, just a block from School 53. One sign for Newport urges passers-by to "Pocket the Pleasure." Another promises "Pleasure to Go."
At an Amherst Street delicatessen, posters in the window advertise Kool and Virginia Slims, while a sign on its door touts Newport. Our Lady of Black Rock School is only a block away.
"Cigarettes" is painted in bold red letters on the side of a Hampshire Street grocery store, a block from the Bilingual Education Center.
No one accuses these stores of selling cigarettes to children. Nonetheless, they are breaking a city law that forbids posting outdoor tobacco signs within 1,000 feet of schools, youth centers, playgrounds and day care centers. The law has been on the books for a long time, but the city didn't start enforcing it until this summer.
City officials visited more than 40 food stores on the West Side this month and found every business violating the tobacco ad restrictions.
"In most cases, all the signs were down the same day," said Niagara Council Member Dominic J. Bonifacio Jr., who spearheaded the effort.
Others were given more time to remove cigarette ads that were painted on their buildings.
But the ads can be found in all corners of the city.
20% smoke in high school
The crackdown is winning praise in some arenas.
"They hang these huge cigarette signs outside. It's sometimes just so in-your-face," said Donna Grace of the Supporting and Initiating Community Action Coalition, a group that fights drug and alcohol abuse. "And kids are very observant. Some might look at these signs and say "that's a cool thing to do.' "
City enforcers should "get an award" for the crackdown, said Terry Alford, coordinator of the Erie Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition.
He predicted the enforcement effort would pay long-term health dividends.
"Studies show that the average smoker tries the first cigarette at the age of 141/2," said Alford, who heads a group based at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.
According to the coalition, one in five high school students in the state smokes. At the middle school level, 7.2 percent of boys and 5.6 percent of girls smoke.
Alford says he is convinced that the $11.2 billion tobacco companies spend on advertising each year affects "impressionable" youngsters.
Arafat Rizek, who owns the Black Rock Food Center at Amherst and Peter streets, said he recently removed cigarette ads placed on his facade by a tobacco distributor and plans on removing other ads. Rizek said he has no problem with the city's new enforcement effort.
Rizek and other deli owners also noted that some cigarette ads inside their stores recently have been taken down.
Anti-smoking activists have been pushing for enforcement of a 1998 agreement aimed at restricting cigarette advertising. They have been targeting tobacco ads that are placed at eye level for youngsters.
Incentives from distributors
Cigarette sales account for more than a third of all sales in many delis. Bonifacio said some tobacco distributors also provide incentives to stores that display signs touting their products.
Still, some grocery store owners said they understand the reasoning behind the city's crackdown.
"I have five kids of my own," Rizek said.
Grace, an anti-drug activist, called City Hall recently to complain about tobacco ads outside a West Side deli near a school.
"Nobody is trying to hurt people's businesses. It's better to have a thriving business than a boarded-up building," said Grace. "But these (store) owners have to follow proper procedures."
Removing tobacco ads shouldn't hurt sales, according to North Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr.
"People know they can buy cigarettes in delis," he said. "You don't need gaudy, ugly posters to tell people there are cigarettes inside."
Golombek submitted legislation this week that aims to close an enforcement loophole. While the law has been on city books for years, Buffalo never established specific fines for the offense. Golombek hopes to change that when lawmakers return from summer break. His resolution calls for imposing $200 fines for first offenses and $350 fines for repeat violations.
Bonifacio, meanwhile, wants to broaden the ban to include liquor advertisements. He also is asking city lawyers to determine whether the city can add churches to the restricted areas.
Tobacco advertising outside delis was widespread in the Niagara District until the recent crackdown, Bonifacio said. Of the 61 food stores in his district, Bonifacio said, all but two are prohibited from displaying cigarette signs outside their establishments.
More stringent licensing rules
When city officials visited delis earlier this month, they also cited some for building code violations, checked fire extinguishers and made sure all stores had proper licenses.
Over the past two years, the city has imposed more stringent procedures for reviewing food store license applications. The actions followed repeated complaints about loitering, unclean conditions and other problems in and around some of the corner stores.
Golombek described enforcing tobacco ad restrictions as another step in the city's effort to improve quality of life in neighborhoods.
e-mail: bmeyer@buffnews.com
alison - 08/26/05 19:13
people are stupid. i've been buying my own smokes since i was 14. granted, i look at least 7 years older than i actually am, but still.
people are stupid. i've been buying my own smokes since i was 14. granted, i look at least 7 years older than i actually am, but still.
08/25/2005 19:24 #28154
watchdogs articleCategory: tv
I think that parents should controll what there kids watch if they think a show is offensive. But I think it is up to the parents. They can't use a TV as a babysitter then get mad when there kids get messages and images that they don't aprove of. One good point that the article does make is the packaging of stations. That you should be able to only have ths stations you want. I belive that is how it worked in the old days of cable. I think it is possible to do. But each station might cost differant amounts and it would make cable bills very a lot. I'm sure the cable companies and stations don't want that(more work and more complicated). There would be no guarnte of how many homes a station would go into. I think it is a good idea but think it might really hurt cable and hurt a lot of weaker stations. For example LOGO if your not gay you probably wouldn't order it (ibelive a MTV or some major company owns it) But with less viewers then it would get less revunue and less ads from fewer presumed views. However the upside would be that each station would know how many people watch it. If every channel was picked you wouldn't pic a station you had to payfor if you warn't going to watch it. But this might hurt good stations that you don't watch that often. A good example of that is Comedy Central. I love South Park and Drawn togather but if that is the only thing I watch on there then I might decide it isn't worth the money for two shows. Sometimes you learn of interesting programs by watching other shows on the same net work. That happens a lot with football and WWE if you watch either of them then you see adds for that networks or stations shows that you may not have known about. In any event I think it is an interesting article.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Battle of the network watchdogs
The Parents Television Council has emerged as an aggressive advocate of family-friendly programming. But Hollywood is finding a new way to fight back.
By COLLEEN MCCAIN NELSON
Dallas Morning News
8/25/2005
Click to view larger picture
Fox's "The O.C." is one of the many programs targeted by Parents Television Council.
DALLAS - "The O.C." is out when it comes to family-friendly TV shows. And don't even get started on what's wrong with MTV.
"If MTV isn't vulgar, then Colorado doesn't have mountains, and the pope isn't Catholic," says L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, a million-member organization that takes aim at indecency in the media. He calls MTV an "innocence-nuking spectacle for the pre-teen audience."
But now, with the fall TV season approaching, Hollywood and the networks are fighting back. Three major media companies - NBC Universal, Viacom and News Corp. - have launched TV Watch to advocate parental controls and oppose government intervention. This newly minted group, which has brought together an unusual mix of corporations, creative types and conservative, free market proponents, is emerging as the council's adversary in a growing battle over what's appropriate for the airwaves. "The discussion had turned into a very one-sided debate," said TV Watch executive director Jim Dyke. "Our group was formed to balance out the debate and provide some reason."
The Parents Television Council was founded 10 years ago but became more visible after Janet Jackson bared her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
Now, the privately funded nonpartisan organization is signing up new members and starting local chapters. Their goal: Compel the FCC to crack down on programming the group believes crosses the line. But critics say the parents' council represents the minority view.
"They have a heckler's veto over speech and content," said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank that studies the digital revolution and supports limited government. He notes the council's list of worst TV programs includes many of the most popular, including "CSI" and "Will & Grace."
Opponents of the Parents Television Council have dubbed the group an automated complaint factory. The group's Web site does make it easy to express your outrage. You can sign up for alerts detailing sex, violence and profanity in the media. You can study the council's assessments of almost every TV show. And you can add your name to a form letter and submit a complaint to the FCC.
And the council leaves little doubt about where it stands.
" "Nip/Tuck' is not just a show that's completely inappropriate for impressionable children to watch," the group says of the edgy FX network drama about plastic surgery. "It's a show adults should be convincing other adults not to support. The sanity of our popular culture depends on our objections."
But TV Watch says that parents already possess the antidote to all things offensive. Nearly all televisions now have V-chips (electronic circuits that can be used to block programming), and cable and satellite systems offer an array of other parental controls, said Dyke, the coalition's executive director.
The problem? Most people don't use them. "People are still a little bit leery of programming their TV," Dyke said. "They want to watch it. They don't want to build it."
So, TV Watch is launching new advertising trying to get the word out, telling parents how to use the V-chip and other controls and explaining the TV ratings system, he said. TV Watch is nonpartisan, and though the seed money came from media companies, the coalition includes groups from opposite ends of the political spectrum, including the Creative Coalition and Americans for Tax Reform.
Dyke, a former communications director for the Republican National Committee, said his group aims to stop the Parents Television Council from using the government to decide what constitutes quality television.
"The government as parent has not typically been a successful model," he said.
But the council complains that parents are thwarted at almost every juncture when they try to stem the flow of objectionable television into their homes. Cable companies, they note, bundle channels such as MTV into all-or-nothing packages, forcing viewers who want to order Nickelodeon to pay for other programming that may not appeal to them. Bozell said that channels should be offered a la carte.
The parents' council dismisses suggestions that the V-chip and other controls are sufficient to protect children. Bozell called the argument "hokum," adding that "Hollywood needs to clean up its act instead of lecturing parents about what they need to do."
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Battle of the network watchdogs
The Parents Television Council has emerged as an aggressive advocate of family-friendly programming. But Hollywood is finding a new way to fight back.
By COLLEEN MCCAIN NELSON
Dallas Morning News
8/25/2005
Click to view larger picture
Fox's "The O.C." is one of the many programs targeted by Parents Television Council.
DALLAS - "The O.C." is out when it comes to family-friendly TV shows. And don't even get started on what's wrong with MTV.
"If MTV isn't vulgar, then Colorado doesn't have mountains, and the pope isn't Catholic," says L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, a million-member organization that takes aim at indecency in the media. He calls MTV an "innocence-nuking spectacle for the pre-teen audience."
But now, with the fall TV season approaching, Hollywood and the networks are fighting back. Three major media companies - NBC Universal, Viacom and News Corp. - have launched TV Watch to advocate parental controls and oppose government intervention. This newly minted group, which has brought together an unusual mix of corporations, creative types and conservative, free market proponents, is emerging as the council's adversary in a growing battle over what's appropriate for the airwaves. "The discussion had turned into a very one-sided debate," said TV Watch executive director Jim Dyke. "Our group was formed to balance out the debate and provide some reason."
The Parents Television Council was founded 10 years ago but became more visible after Janet Jackson bared her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
Now, the privately funded nonpartisan organization is signing up new members and starting local chapters. Their goal: Compel the FCC to crack down on programming the group believes crosses the line. But critics say the parents' council represents the minority view.
"They have a heckler's veto over speech and content," said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank that studies the digital revolution and supports limited government. He notes the council's list of worst TV programs includes many of the most popular, including "CSI" and "Will & Grace."
Opponents of the Parents Television Council have dubbed the group an automated complaint factory. The group's Web site does make it easy to express your outrage. You can sign up for alerts detailing sex, violence and profanity in the media. You can study the council's assessments of almost every TV show. And you can add your name to a form letter and submit a complaint to the FCC.
And the council leaves little doubt about where it stands.
" "Nip/Tuck' is not just a show that's completely inappropriate for impressionable children to watch," the group says of the edgy FX network drama about plastic surgery. "It's a show adults should be convincing other adults not to support. The sanity of our popular culture depends on our objections."
But TV Watch says that parents already possess the antidote to all things offensive. Nearly all televisions now have V-chips (electronic circuits that can be used to block programming), and cable and satellite systems offer an array of other parental controls, said Dyke, the coalition's executive director.
The problem? Most people don't use them. "People are still a little bit leery of programming their TV," Dyke said. "They want to watch it. They don't want to build it."
So, TV Watch is launching new advertising trying to get the word out, telling parents how to use the V-chip and other controls and explaining the TV ratings system, he said. TV Watch is nonpartisan, and though the seed money came from media companies, the coalition includes groups from opposite ends of the political spectrum, including the Creative Coalition and Americans for Tax Reform.
Dyke, a former communications director for the Republican National Committee, said his group aims to stop the Parents Television Council from using the government to decide what constitutes quality television.
"The government as parent has not typically been a successful model," he said.
But the council complains that parents are thwarted at almost every juncture when they try to stem the flow of objectionable television into their homes. Cable companies, they note, bundle channels such as MTV into all-or-nothing packages, forcing viewers who want to order Nickelodeon to pay for other programming that may not appeal to them. Bozell said that channels should be offered a la carte.
The parents' council dismisses suggestions that the V-chip and other controls are sufficient to protect children. Bozell called the argument "hokum," adding that "Hollywood needs to clean up its act instead of lecturing parents about what they need to do."
You missed the craziest elmwood party ever last night. There were plenty of almost totally naked smokin' ladies.