Be careful what you advertise.

This is an old story but I have had it on my to do list for some time so no time like the present. ABC News had a story from 14 February 2008 that went something like this:

Country singer Billy Ray Cyrus apologized on Wednesday for being filmed in the back seat of a car with his daughter Miley, who plays Hannah Montana in the hit Disney series, without wearing seat belts.

Cyrus had to apologize (had to?) because his faux pas was reported by Consumer Reports also noted in the ABC News story:

Consumer Reports said Cyrus and his 15-year-old daughter were filmed riding in a Range Rover on the way to rehearsal for the concert tour and neither was wearing a seat belt.

The magazine said in a blog posting that movie and TV shows did influence how children and adults acted in daily life.

"Simply put, not wearing seat belts while riding in the rear seat of a vehicle is dangerous," said the blog posting.

Ok, fair enough. I find it hard to get my head around a magazine that has time to note the most minute infractions of a star's life but ok. What's next, setting up unofficial speed traps to report which stars from Hollywood are speeding and what a bad example they are setting for the youth of today.

Continuing with ABC News, in their health section on 28 Feb 2008 there was a blow up (no pun intended) about the energy drink entitled "Blow". The story explains the controversy this way:

Worried that Blow and similar products are glorifying drug use, the Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to the makers of the energy drink mix last month, threatening legal action if the company does not rehab its image.

Named after the well-known street name for cocaine, Blow comes under scrutiny for being packaged and marketed as an alternative to cocaine, as well as for not complying with federal drug laws.

Again, ok I got this. The FDA is concerned with drug use being glorified. I guess (is this a stretch) if you portray something as glamorous or "cool" that is harmful to the body or person, the FDA (Government) or some watchdog magazine (Consumer Reports) jumps in and gives the offender (Country Star or stupid energy drink) a whack upside the head. Disney made a similar decision last year to to ban depictions of smoking in Disney-branded films. Ron Meyer, president and chief operating officer of Universal Studios stated that "We feel it's important to use our influence to help stem a serious health problem in the United States and around the world".

So there you have it. The culture police are out there ensuring everyone has a seatbelt on, no one sees anyone smoking and dangerous behavior is not encouraged, especially from products that are "Disney Branded". One final note on this discussion. Yahoo has an interesting story that falls into this "topic". Entitled "Study finds 1 in 4 US teens has a STD" the article has some pretty scary facts (besides the obvious one from the title):

The overall STD rate among the 838 girls in the study was 26 percent, which translates to more than 3 million girls nationwide, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. They released the results Tuesday at an STD prevention conference in Chicago.

Also the story quotes the president of Planned Parenthood as blaming abstinence only education. Yeah right, the problem with all the STDs is that the United States is promoting abstinence. Why don't we apply the same line of reasoning as we did to smoking in movies or calling energy drinks by slang terms for cocaine? Does anyone think that the sewer that is the current state of our media (TV and Movies) which has an incredible saturation of all kinds of sexual imagery and visual depictions is to blame for any of this? When we show kids having sex and having no responsibility the "day after", advertise the "be young, be free" message that carries with it no moral code, highlight the stars having all kinds of sex and being cool does send a message to the youth of today. The message is just as if these same stars are not using their seat belt or taking a drag from their Marlboro's. But we won't attack the sex in movies as that would make us appear to be prudes and not hip like the Hollywood in crowd. But let's make national news about a country singer not wearing a seat belt?

What about violence in the movies - should we be at least as worried about the kill count in some of these movies with their horrible depictions of violence as we would if Brad Pitt lights up a cigarette? Case in point a movie called Hostel which has a scene were a European business man pays for the pleasure of torturing and murdering a young American, all graphically shown in the theatrical release. Should we be as worried about depictions of torture and murder and its potential impact to the viewing public at least as the name of a drink that is loaded with caffeine?

Where the hell are our priorities? The problem with this crap is the minute you cast a discerning eye on the actual filth that Hollywood is putting out you are called all kinds of names, the fascists that support this "art" cry censorship and the director and/or writer are seen as martyrs to the all powerful 1st Amendment.

At least everyone will wear their seatbelt or get a nasty blog mention in Consumer Reports. This country has lost its balls and the inmates are apparently in charge.

OS

More on the Second Amendment Supreme Court Decision

I wrote yesterday on the potential Supreme Court ruling to support an American's right to own firearms and I got some additional resources as a forward from the friend of a friend (thanks E!).

http://www.nraila.org/heller/
http://www.shootingwire.com/

OS

The Right to Bear Arms is a Right

The Financial Times website is reporting a story which states in part:

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.
...
By the end of Tuesday’s session, it appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms.

I have to admit having this turned over to the Supreme Court didn't give me the warm fuzzies but it looks like the right ruling will come out of the Men in Black (not including Ginsberg) but I am more or less a Second Amendment absolutist (why do we accept limitations on the 2nd Amendment but not the 1st...? Why is one more sacrosanct than the other) but will be following this story and post an update when the ruling comes.

OS

No Pants, No Service

Yahoo News (my favorite news source - although why their have the Huffington Post as part of their Op Ed section is a mystery to me) has a great story today that brings us all back from the brink after discussing politics, hookers (Gov Spitzer) and the mundane.

Apparently John Greco had the munchies and wanted a quick bite to eat at the local Dunkin' Donuts. No real story right? Well the story takes a strange turn:

...a Dunkin' Donuts worker saw John Greco's exposed genitals in the Feb. 27 stunt and then noted the make of his car and his license plate number.

Police say the 46-year-old Croton-on-Hudson resident was arrested last week and has been charged with misdemeanor public lewdness. He's due in court March 27.

Police released a statement Thursday saying it was "unknown how Mr. Greco took his coffee that day."

Story here. I wonder if he was worried that he would get burned? Hopefully he checked the lid.

OS

Blogged with the Flock Browser

You just can't make this stuff up..Spitzer fallout continues

Ann Coulter blasts away at the Spitzer free fall on her website here. Although to do it justice would be to quote the entire column, I will instead focus on a part of her column. Coulter states:

It's absurd to talk about "alpha males" and political power -- an alpha male does not bring his family shame and disaster. Who was more alpha than Ronald Reagan? Think he ever had a "whore problem"? This is more like a dog who wee-wees on your leg.

She is spot on (as usual) and what I don't understand is why the dems turn the other cheek when it comes to one of their own, sending out people like Alan Dershowitz to crow about how prostitution is a victim less crime:

But he also said he had been surprised when Mr. Spitzer prosecuted a prostitution ring in 2004. “I always thought he was somebody who would come down on crimes with real victims,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “Prostitutes aren’t victims — they’re getting paid a thousand dollars an hour, and the johns aren’t victims.

Really - no victims? Has everyone seen Spitzer's wife up on the podium with him and how haggard and worn she looked? What about Spitzer's daughters - I wonder how they feel right now (probably laughing their father's problems off in Dershowitz la la land)? But it gets better.

Yahoo is reporting that "the popular activist website www.democrats.com has launched a Save Spitzer campaign." Now I tried to get to this website and I think it has been taken down but the Yahoo story notes some of the text of the petition for the Save Spitzer group. It starts out with this salvo:

Dear Governor Spitzer,

Don't let the Republicans and the rightwing media drive you out of office!

You made a lot of powerful enemies in your career because you took on the most powerful crooks on Wall Street. Now your enemies are trying to get even by destroying your career and your life. Don't let them!

Did you get that? The Republicans and that all powerful right wing media are behind this. The same wast right wing conspiracy that planted Lewinsky in the Clinton White house, right Hillary? Another thing to note is how the petition concludes:

Governor Spitzer, please stand and fight against this outrageous and naked partisan Republican assault. We support you!

George Bush is behind it all - he arranged for this stellar family man to get caught up in a sting operation as payback for not supporting Bush's policies and of course changed bank records to reflect that Spitzer paid some hooker 100k for trysts but really sent the money to fund Halliburton funneled through Fox News.

Look your brain dead morons. This isn't a right wing plant. This is an arrogant jerk face (Spitzer) who decided that the rules didn't apply to him and a little (or a lot of?) self destructive behavior was in order. The guy was a sleazebag...why is that so hard to accept? Are you Dems so unable to see the wrong in your own or are you so convinced that there are no standards that you should hold your own to (Republicans not withstanding)? Anyone?

OS

Additional info on Spitzer's party affiliation

I am a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh and have tuned in since college in the 1990's. I recall him saying that when he got famous, he gained an additional name or caveat whenever he was mentioned in the media - Rush Limbaugh "Conservative" or "Conservative Commentator" Rush Limbaugh. Everyone knew his political leanings when he had the problems with painkiller abuse and doctor shopping allegations.

I already posted today on the lack of the "D" (for democrat) assigned to disgraced Governor Spitzer but everyone is picking this up and I read another great Essay on Newsbusters that I thought was worth noting.

Entitled "Eliot Spitzer - A Man Without A Party" it states in part:

On Monday afternoon, the Big Three Networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) and the Associated Press led the charge of the wall-to-wall coverage of the breaking news that Spitzer was involved with an interstate prostitution ring. And with near unanimity they failed to mention that Spitzer is a Democrat.

The author (Seton Motley) is dead on. Read the rest of the post here.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Fall of a Governor whose party affiliation is unknown.

As a transplanted New Yorker I have always been interested in the political happenings in Albany. This crap with Eliot Spitzer's resignation does show a self-destructive tendency in a politician, an arrogance of power and a potential security leak as Spitzer exhibited morally corruptible that would expose him to potential blackmail. He has apparently a loving family and I can only wonder what his wife and children feel as his image is forever tarnished. He was by accounts tough on crime like prostitution while engaging in the behavior that his public personae seemed so tough on.

But, did you know he was a Democrat? I just got the AP News story about his resignation (can be found here) and there is not one mention of his party affiliation. The story states:

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned from office Wednesday, succumbing to threats of impeachment and mounting media pressure over his involvement in a career-ending prostitution scandal.

Speaking to reporters in New York, where he had been holed up since news of his involvement with a high-end call girl ring emerged on Monday, Spitzer said he had failed to live up to the standards expected of public officials.

"Over the course of my public life I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct," Spitzer told reporters in New York, flanked by his wife.

"I can and will ask no less of myself. For his reason I am resigning from the office of governor," effective from Monday, an ashen-faced Spitzer said

"I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people's work," he added. Spitzer, the one-time "Sheriff of Wall Street," would on Monday formally hand over to Lieutenant Governor David Paterson, who would become the state's first black governor and the first blind governor in US history.

All good news, all tragic and compelling but where was the mention of his party affiliation. Why did we all know Larry Craig's party affiliation? As a matter of fact, even in a blog at the Washington Post, the writer actually goes out of his way to not mention Spitzer is a Democrat. The blog post goes something like this:

While the political world is riveted by the Eliot Spitzer drama and the question of whether he will resign his governorship, similarly scandal-tarred Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho.) is still in Congress, still doing his work and still fighting to overturn his guilty plea.

Larry Craig who was involved in a "similar scandal" (i.e. involving sex) was a Republican. Did you all know that? Spitzer - who knows, who cares. Sex scandals only happen to those Republican hypocrites right?

Wrong. Remember Bill Clinton???

OS

Update - Newsbusters has posted a great transcript/video of Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center taking on the media who decided no one needed to know Spitzer was a Dem. Do I dare say great minds think alike?

Excerpt from Newsbusters:

BOZELL: ABC and then NBC "Nightly News" two days ago, not once mentioned that he was a Democrat. "Good Morning America," not once mentioned that he was a Democrat. ABC nightly news, not once mentioned that he was a Democrat. CBS, one mention on the nightly news, no mention on the morning news. AP did a three-paragraph breaking story, never mentioned that he was a Democrat, then they came out with a full story, never mentioned that he was a Democrat. Last night, NBC, never mentioned he was a Democrat. Last night, ABC never mentioned that he was a Democrat. It is unbelievable.

Note that although my post was completely original, Bozell is on target!! H/T to Newsbusters.

OS