TEACHER: "So, little Maryann, what do YOU wanna be when you grow up?"

2nd GRADER: "I wanna be a SKANK!! Just like the cool moms on Desperate Hussies.....being a skank is cool."

TEACHER: "Does you mom know about this?"

2nd GRADER: "I dunno. She's in the storage shed with the gardener & the pool boy........go ask her yourself. What am I, a wannabe skank AND mom's Lojack Car Retrieval System? Geez. I'm a 2nd grader!!"

Just a couple more (as if I needed more) reasons to continue my policy of having no television hooked up. There are so many things that still have to be done to replace positive values in our society. I took George Bush's winning of the election to mean that folks wanted decency and strong moral values again for their families and I find it hard to accept that there are enough folks who don't to sway the programming toward the "debauchery and lawlessness." Do you suppose we'll get back to clothing and personal dignity in our lifetime? It sure can get discouraging...but I won't give up. I hope everyone else will keep on plugging away too. Let's work hard to eliminate...by not supporting the trash act that presently prevails and do all within our power to change that schematic to a more positive outcome. Our young folks need our strength to resist the indicriminate promiscuity afoot in our land now more than ever. At some point the tide just has to turn...

Wow, that Desperate Housewives statistic is sickening. That makes me wonder how many young children watch other shows of that nature.

I guess it's a good thing I don't watch TV [i]much[/i]. I pretty much gave up on it after watching the first couple of shows of the latest [i]Real World[/i] on MTV.

Oh yeah, television tells-a-vision, and it's not redemptive.

Chill, Ms. A. Golden Globes have very unsavory past. Not too far away from the days when an award was very much given at a price. To some poor foreign columnist making enough money from back home to pay overpriced rent in Hollywood. Not much better today. But well-attended because the booze flows free and everyone's at their table hanging out and having fun. List of awards not taking into consideration by Oscars' voters. Meanwhile, enjoy the laffs and grade the gowns. Like everyone else.

Well,

I think it's a pretty funny show.

Again, perhaps conservatives should just keep their TV's turned off if they don't like a show.

They can just turn on the propaganda known as Pat Robertson and The 700 Club for some wholesomely brainwashing material.

I'm glad you wrote about the crassness of popular culture. I strictly limit my viewing to a few fiction shows and a few non-fiction shows. If there is lewdness, etc., I will not watch it. I keep Thessalonians in mind.

I don't think it's that serious. TV offers a vice, a guilty pleasure or what have you, for people who lead otherwise normal, moral (oftentimes boring) lives. Its ok to occassionally indulge in mindless, even if immoral, entertainment. Of course, children shouldn't be finding their role models on late night tv anyway. It's adult television because adults are able to watch it without taking the content literally.

Sorry--I meant Philippians. Also, there are people who whine that the "common man" does not have power. I think the junk that the entertainment industry dumps on us proves that power is strong, otherwise they wouldn't be going for the lowest common denominator in the most disgusting way.

Mike M., unfortunately, turning off the TV isn't the most efficacious course of action.

If we don't like something, we use our freedom of speech to [i]censure[/i] that establishment. And as we saw with the Janet fiasco, censure brings about censorship.

Believe it or not, the "Church" is still one of the, if not THE wealthiest [and most powerful] establishments in the US/World. I believe the latest election is the revelation of a gradual undertaking of that financial authority.

If (Once?) the Church understands that all denomination/division only weakens us, liberal ideology will be crushed and pulled up from the root.

Ugh, I just noticed that I've been using UBB Code instead of HTML. :(

Dang message boards.

Desperate Housewives is @ 9m EST. Children should be asleep by then. Moreover, I can't see the difference between this show and soap operas, Dallas/Dynasty, etc.

Nip/tuck is imitating a phenomenom that is happening in real life: me/women (sometimes too young) that are not satisfied with their appearances and go under the knife. It's not that mainstream, but it has been on the rise.

Both shows aim to entertain and exaggerate quite a bit. You might be shocked by them, but you can switch the chanel. It's pop culture, like you said and in the end pop culture appeals to the lowest denominator. Blaming Hollywood is the easiest thing to do in this case.

Still,

Censorship (an objective occurance of limiting one's speech) is still scarier than immorality (a subjective opinion held in one's mind of what constitutes "good vs. bad").

I'd rather live in a world of perverts than a world of people perverting the Constitution to fit their own religious preferences and doctrine.

I'm a conservative and though I've only caught a few episodes of Desperate Housewives, I think it makes good adult entertainment.

Key word: adult.

The fact that the ratings are highest amongst youth viewers is a clear sign of the lack of concern a lot of parents have.

I don't blame cable companies for bragging about their high ratings, if the parents don't care why should they?

Moral decay?
Who the heck do you think is WATCHING those shows? Clue: it ain't just us blue-staters. Hollywood is in the business of making moolah, and if that takes Reagan-style Rambo epics or sex-mad housewives, whatever. You really think red America isn't eating this stuff up too?

They're buying porn, too, you know (I remember reading that porn consumption is actually higher in the red states).

Censorship . . . is still scarier than immorality

A good rule to keep in mind next time someone tries to have a production of The Merchant of Venice or The Taming of the Shrew banned for being "anti-Semitic" or "sexist."

ATEENTION LIBERAL TROLLS:
Not everyone who is conservative is a Christian.
Not everyone who is a Christian is conservative.
Christian also live in "blue" states.
Non-Christians also live in "red" states.
Millions of "red-staters" voted for Kerry.
Millions of "blue-staters" voted for Bush.
Immorality is a "subjective opinion"? Then let's throw all laws out the window and have total anarchy. You believe that it's wrong to murder another person? Based on what? Your "subjective opinion"? There are people out there who are of the "opinion" that your life is worthless based on the fact you don't embrace Islam. It's a slippery slope, ain't it?

Why do people equate folks wanting less decadence in their entertainment as fundamentalists? And why do people always equate the desire to have less racy entertainment as censorship? Although I believe in a higher being I'm not "one of the Pat Roberson" crowd. And just because I (personally) don't care to watch something which is constantly serving the "lowest common denominator" doesn't mean that I'm for censorship. Nor does it mean that I'm a prude. That's another word that people like to throw around. Also, using the word adult doesn't necessarily mean something racy or improper. News talk shows tend to be adult because children aren't particularly interested in talking heads or politics, etc. Some history shows would be considered adult as well because the subject matter is often too dry for children. My point is, people are not all the same in their tastes and interests and just because someone doesn't like crassness doesn't automatically make them a pollyanna... Can't there be some middle ground?

First, let me preface by saying that I do not watch, hence am not a fan of, Desperate Housewives. In between my blogging, reading and watching of the food channel and cable news, I escape from reality by watching a wide variety of insane "reality" TV programs (everything from Amazing Race to Strange Love ... NOT Fear Factor).

While people are worried about the risque plots of DH and liberated women like those on Sex and The City, how can we possible say that the shows of yesteryear were any more realistic, healthy or positive? I grew up watching Beaver, Andy Griffin, Brady Bunch, Bewitched and every other 60s-70s family program. But look at what happened to the "real life" people who were supposed to be playing "real life" wholesome people. One of the Darrens and Uncle Arthur from Bewitched were both gay. Heck, even the Brady Bunch dad was gay. Both Mary Tyler Moore and Dick van Dyke were alcoholics. Patti Duke was bi-polar. Desi Arnez/Ricki Ricardo was a womanizer. Buffy overdosed on drugs (now talk about crushing me) and Jody just grew up to be ugly ...

My point is that why do we need to keep pretending that the good old days were good? Girls and boys were molested by family and friends but went through life scarred because no one talked about it. There would never have been a shift in women's roles had they been happy being quietly/secretly abused, cheated on, straddled with too many babies ... basically seen as property and men wouldn't be in therapy and on talk shows now crying about how distant their dads were. There wouldn't be dozens of movies and sitcoms about single fathers if men, in a way, were not trying to connect with children the way their dad's never did with them.

Though I grew up when televisions had dials, I now - like everyone else - have a remote control and the power to change the channel. If everyone would worry about their own remote, in their own home and control the programming for their own children, don't you think it would be a much better world?

There are plenty of conservative voters who enjoy crass, vulgar culture. People who choose not to consume that stuff do it for various reasons, including moral reasons and a preference for more refined forms of entertainment.

Mike M.,

I'm guessing that either a) you don't have a wife and kids; or b) you do have a wife and kids, but you wouldn't mind if someone started bombarding them with graphic porn.

Censorship is scarier than immorality??? Are you serious?

Ambra, I think one aspect to be considered is that Hollywood has already ceded a certain % of the market as unreachable. (Unless I'm mistaken, DH is broadcast TV, not cable.)

In that sense, the race to the bottom is strictly competition for the remaining viewers. At the same time, it is a race to reach the bottom last since general broadcast TV viewership is declining year after year.

To wit, if it wasn't for CSI and a couple of other hit series, CBS would be having a top to bottom house cleaning or go broke.

Seems to me even in the heyday of Sex in the city, in spite of its so-called popularity, it really wasn't all that significant. IOW, as a % of total viewership, everything but SitC was more popular. From this POV, that's not such a bad thing afterall for us "prudes".

Off the top of my head, I'd say if any single show can truly claim 10% of the US eyeballs (don't believe the Nielson hype), then you have a show that is sensitive to public outrage, anything less than that, the boadcasters would just shrug their shoulders at the protestors.

On second thot, maybe I better wait for Superbowl, brfore I sign off on the prior paragraph ;)

Glen,

Of course censorship is scarier than immorality. You conservatives find gay people immoral. I don't.

We liberals find this war immoral. You don't.

However, something should not be censored simply because it offends your taste. As much as I hate to side with a man like Larry Flynt, he was a true patriot in the 80s when he took on the conservative right to prove that pornography is protected under the First Amendment.

Certain recurring "themes" of morality are without question. However, conservatives too often like to play the morality card when attempting to appeal to prospective voters.

Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I don't have morals. My morals are based more on individual freedom and not on stifling the lives of others in society.

Aren't conservatives the ones who say government should stay out of peoples' lives? Well, let me watch what I want and read what I want. And, yes...let me marry whoever I darn well choose.

Yes, homosexuality is immoral. So is adultery and a bunch of other stuff. And I don't particularly want to see that stuff portrayed in a positive light or glorified on public TV (i.e. not cable).

Ambra,
In principle I do agree with you but... Come on. Liberals have far from cornered the market on sin. We just seemed to have better marketing for it. :-)
But seriously, Let's face facts. Sin sells. Sex sells. Silliness sells. It wouldn't be on TV if it didn't. You can't totally blame Hollywood filling a nation wide demand for cow feces.

PS

For the record: Only 2 of the five women are really slutty. But it looks like a third might start to dabble in it. (3 out of 5 ain't bad :-))

I don't think Ambra's point was the need for censorship. I think she was simply pointing out that immorality is the way to acclaim in the TV industry right now.
For my part, I agree with her. I feel that the TV industry is socially irresponsible in pandering to the lowest denominator and much of what they laud to be unpalatable. I won't watch shows that play in the moral gutter, so to speak. I have many family members and friends and associates who think the same. There is a famine of clean entertainment out there, and the entertainment industry is mostly ignoring that demand and continuing to give us offensive material rather than entertainment that relies on something other than shock value and voyeurism to attract audiences. (Is that laziness on the part of the entertainment industry, or what!)

It's like the movie Titanic, a brief steamy sex scene to "state" that the two were in love. I liked it but it could have been done just as effectively without the nudity and not limit the audience.

I enjoy many an R movie, but it away from the kids and certainly doesn't belong on TV. Just think, we are only 2 weeks from the next Superbowl halftime! What surprise awaits us there.

However, something should not be censored simply because it offends your taste.

Maybe not directly. You seem to have ignored the secondary mechanics at work in my proposal. If the populace decided to censure an establishment [in large numbers], it would lead to censorship--corporations listen to the outcry of it's viewers, believe it or not. Quite frankly, liberals, or whatever group it affects, would just have to deal with it, or counter it with a flexing of their own freedom of speech.

I don't see anything wrong with that. It'd be wrong if the government took upon itself to force censorship, which would violate the 1st Amendment.

How does one go about getting this "raunch" off TV?

1.Censorship
or
2. Show the heads at the networks that there is an audience who wants what you like...

How does one do that? By watching the family oriented shows that show up and get canceled because they get no backing. If you feel so strong about the issue, campaign for wholesome TV shows when they seem to be in ratings trouble, it's been done before (My So called Life)

But whining about the decay or morality on TV is going to do nothing, at the end of the day it's what sells.

I was gone most of the day and therefore couldn't respond to these comments. Remind me to tell you where I was...it's really good news.

In any case, I have little to say. The more fitting act right now would be for me to pull out my violin and play a concerto because some of these arguments are just whiny.

For starters, it doesn't matter what children should and shouldn't be doing. The point is, they are. "Adult humor" my foot. Are we really dense enough to think that the producers are so morally accountable that they don't equally covet that 9-12 age bracket?

Please.

(Sidenote: "Housewives" comes on ABC, not cable to whomever suggested that.)

Regarding the idea that capital rules the world and is sub morality, please see the following posts, Hollywood, Black, White or Green and THe Sexualization of Black Women

Alex: Thank you and thank you. About that UBB code...you've revealed yourself as a true nerd.

Cath: I believe you nailed what I was ultimately getting at.

Quasan: The Good ole days certainly weren't all good, but it's dishonest to say there wasn't some good. C'mon, even at 23, I can think back to the '90's and identify aspects that were better than the 21st century.

The thing with standards however, is that like TLC, "they creep". So whereas there was once a day when we wouldn't have seen a husband wife sleeping on the same bed on the TV, now not only can we see full frontal nudity and graphic sex scenes, we see them with people who are married, but having sex with other people.

When the first "Real World" was introduced, it was cutting edge, even for cable. Today, it's simply the norm.

Somebody's gotta set the standard. I say it's the church. Moreover, it certainly isn't passively sitting by espousing the "just turn the channel philosophy". Sorry my community and the future of omy generation is more important to me than that.

Whose church decides to set this standard? Will we have to register with them? If we don't walk in lockstep with them will we be labeled as "undesirables"? :)

Sheesh! I'm glad I don't watch TV. I'm spared both this show (which sounds cheap and boringly predictable) and the kerfuffle over its "artistic" merits!

I, too, am glad I hardly watch TV. Some Fox News, some Discovery Channel occasionally. I watched the old Twister movie last night. Queer Eye, Desparate Hussies, etc... later this year is Book of Daniel and Revelations on NBC. I hope they don't decide to put strippers in it.

OLIVER:
"You really think red America isn't eating this stuff up too?

They're buying porn, too, you know (I remember reading that porn consumption is actually higher in the red states)."

Not everyone who is conservative is a Christian.
Not everyone who is a Christian is conservative.
Christian also live in "blue" states.
Non-Christians also live in "red" states.
Millions of "red-staters" voted for Kerry.
Millions of "blue-staters" voted for Bush.
Stop already with the "red state, blue state" stuff.

MIKE M:
"Censorship (an objective occurance of limiting one's speech) is still scarier than immorality (a subjective opinion held in one's mind of what constitutes "good vs. bad")."

Immorality is a "subjective opinion"? Then let's throw all laws out the window and have total anarchy. You believe that it's wrong to murder another person? Based on what? Your "subjective opinion"? What if there were people out there who are of the "opinion" that your life is worthless? OH WAIT...(smacks forehead) Heh heh...silly me, there ARE people who see nothing wrong with murdering the likes of us. They're called TERRORISTS.
When you throw out the moral authority of the word of God, it's a slippery slope indeed.

Hollywood/media cancel shows all the time for bad ratings. You don't like a show? Then don't watch it... if enough of your fellow citizens refuse to watch and the ratings plummet, the show will ultimately be cancelled.

On the other hand, if you want more wholesome entertainment, then you have to support it! If enough people watch, they will make more of it.
(Then again, even when they do make wholesome entertainment, it's not "good enough"... reminds me of Ambra critisizing "Touched by an Angel" because it wasn't really Christian enough...)

Really, this is not rocket science. It's just free-market economics (I though all you conservatives were experts on this?)

To Oliver: It's called the Church of Jesus Christ (no not latter day saints). It's not a denomination, and It's not a building. It's a people.

Ambra,

Right, and Christians never have disagreements among themselves. I think that was to what Oliver was alluding.

I didn't say "Christians". I said, "The Church". There's a difference.

Ambra, I recall an old episode of "All In The Family" where Edith had befriended a woman who was a "swinger" ... It took her a long time to "get" what the woman was talking about and it was certainly funny. But all kinds of stuff has been going on in "nice" working class, middle class, bedroom communities for a very long time. If you've ever listened to "old folks" talk you know that, despite appearances, not much has changed over the years (except DNA tests that prove that the joke about some kid being the "milkman's" had to come from somewhere).

Just as there was some good in the good old days, there is some good in these days off honesty about human beings being fixated on "lewd and licivious behavior" ... I have friends in their 20's, 30's and 40's, church going folks, who do not date because even those "church going" men expect something after a couple of dates. And, unfortunately, even after having had a religious education all the way through college, find the church or men who are constantly spouting the bible or any other religious text, the LAST place to look for a suitable mate.

Glen, you see homosexuality as immoral because your God tells you it is. However, not all citizens of this world follow what YOUR God says. Therefore, it is your OPINION and NOT FACT that homosexuality is immoral.

Immorality IS subjective. For instance, some may not find murder immoral. I do. I think a war in which we've killed 100,000 Iraqis (and, in reverse, more than 1,300 of our own troops have died) for no clear reason is immoral. You see two men or two women kissing and that's immoral. I have an opinion, as do you.

I would like to think everyone believes murder is immoral. However, I can shove my view down someone else throat. That's why we have a legal system in this country. That's what laws are for. Not to inject morality, but to objectively approach an issue and adequately come to a conclustion.

I think the death penalty is immoral. George Bush thinks otherwise. Does that make him immoral? Well, to some it may. But, I don't judge his "morality." Clear and simple. The death penalty is premeditated murder, whether you believe it or not. Yes, I think abortion is murder as well. However, I don't have the right to tell a woman how to rule her body. I usually deduce my opinion on abortion by asking myself two questions:

1) Is abortion wrong? Yes.
2) Do I have the right to tell a woman (which I am not) it is wrong and therefore take control of her reproductive system? No.

There, end of my argument with myself.

There is no new evil under the sun. Society's norms ebb and flow. What we have here today is the CELEBRATION of immorality.

Lot's of folks say "stay out of my bedroom." Well, your bedroom now has a camera in it and is broadcasting to the world.

I stopped watching most TV (sports and Fox News still on) several years ago. Thanks to Ambra, I now remember why.

I find other people's sex life BORING! G or PG movies make more money than most R movies, yet the envelope keeps getting pushed. Don't you have anything better to do?

"I didn't say "Christians". I said, "The Church". There's a difference."

WOW! Now that would make a very interesting post. A lot of wisdom in those three sentences.

So, we all have to submit to this "Church of Jesus Christ". Interesting. Where do I sign up for the revolution?

Mike,

Please don't call the police when someone trashes your house and steals all your stuff, then. They are simply exercising their own, personal "morality."

Ambra,

I just read your post on the "Sexualization of Black Women" for the first time. Outstanding! As far as this thread is going, many of my colleagues in broadcasting insist that if they can't say exactly what they want whenever they want to say it, that they are being held back and their First Amendment rights are being violated. When I tell them that if nothing stops the progression of broadcast indecency it will never ever stop, most say "sure it will!"

None of them has ever been able to say where that mythological stopping point will be. I have an idea. How about here and now?

Glen,

No...trashing my house and stealing my stuff would be AGAINST THE LAW. Objective LAWS are put in place to protect us. Subjective MORALS are put in place to judge people.

Creating a law to outlaw homosexuality would be a joke, would it not? And rather Orwellian. It always amazes me how the same conservatives who want minimal government are the same conservatives who would seek to regulate an individual's sex life.

I love Desparate Housewives, and I am at this very moment conducting a study on the feasability of going back to high school and becoming a gardener.

I am really shocked that most of the commenters defending the show are liberals. This is one example of a show that should appeal to everyone. Yes there are some themes that could be construed to be mildly anti-conservative,(high powered exec-chic can't handle being a housewife proving that some women should be in the boardroom, not the kitchen.) but there are others that could be called anti-liberal.(The fact that the married ones don't work outside the home)

I agree that the show has some decadance, but it is fun and funny with some interesting twists and turns. Suicide is not glorified in the show. Not in the least. I really think you missed the mark on this one. The woman who cheats with the teenaged garderer is easily seen as a shallow, weak person. Though she is easily the most glamourous, she is far from being a role model. She is lonely, selfish and unfulfilled.

As for youngsters watching, it would be nice if parents would be responsible and keep kids away from it, but I remember when I was growing up and my parents kept me from watching the classic ADULT (much more that the 'wives) program, Soap. That was raunch. But it was also a Riot. An absolute classic.

While all I have sid thus far is true, I won't defend the idiots who ignore The Passion in their voting. That side of them is blind to the obvious.

c-ya!

Mike Said: No...trashing my house and stealing my stuff would be AGAINST THE LAW. Objective LAWS are put in place to protect us. Subjective MORALS are put in place to judge people.

Me: Laws are just subjective morals that are enforced by the government.

That's why in other countries it is legal to enslave people.

I suggest you read Be Intolerant, Because Somethings are Just Stupid (I forget the author). It has a pretty good break down of why moral relativity fails on all fronts.

Mike,

Hah.
Your so-called "objective laws" are simply codified morality.
Stealing and vandalism aren't necessarily "wrong" unless your moral code says they are.
Can't have it both ways, bub.
And what, pray tell, have I ever said here about the legality of homosexuality? Why are you so fixated on that? I simply said it is immoral, just like adultery and many other things.

Glen,

When someone steals my crap, that is an act AGAINSR a person who didn't wish for said act.

I will stick with the homosexuality argument because it seems you conservatives LOVE this one.

Two homosexuals having consensual sex in their bedroom shouldn't be against the law, as Justice Scalia had hoped for several months ago.

Some morals should be codified into laws. Morals that DON'T hurt someone NOT INVOLVED in a transaction SHOULD NOT be codified into law.

Of course things like robbery, murder and kidnapping should be laws. Because what happens here is one person willingly harms another. Conservatives claim gays are "harming" them, yet they refuse to show any tangible evidence. When a gay man legally forces himself upon you, Glen, then perhaps you may have a case. And even still, that would be a charge of simple assault.

I can slice this a million ways, but I don't think you'll ever be able to understand my side. I understand yours; I just think you're wrong.

However, I digress, as I feel I'm blathering.

Mike,

There's not a chance in the world that you really understand "my side."

You are simply blinded by your moral relativism and cannot see, for example, that abortion is murder and should be prohibited -- according to what you said above:

>

I would say that a dead baby is definitely involved AND hurt (mortally) by the transaction.

What's it gonna be, Mike? Can't have it both ways, can you?

Glen,

I believe I said in a prior post that I personally view abortion as murder. I think it is wrong. However, that baby is one with the woman and not its own individual being. When the government decides to go 1984 on our asses, then you may have a case for legally taking possession of a woman's body and telling her abortion is not an option.

Do I think abortion remains an overused option in our society? Of course. Do I want to be the one to tell a woman she can't have one? Hell no.

Conservatives don't understand how frightening it would be if we entered an era where abortions were considered illegal and women were forced to use hangers to remove fetuses from...wait..this situation WAS common several decades ago!

Let's put it like this. Abortion is kind of like smoking pot. No matter how illegal it may become, people are still going to do it. Not for a high, but out of shame.

George Carlin performed an act about a decade ago in which he blasted anti-abortionists. He said conservatives don't give a damn about babies once their out of the wombs...something to the effect of..."no pre-natal care, no post-natal care, no well-child care, no daycare, no healthcare, no preschool, kindergarten...conservatives don't give a f*** about you until you're draft age."

Of course, it's a joke, but one would wonder what we'd do with all those 43 million babies, born predominantly to lower-income women who rely on the welfare system conservatives so love to trash talk.

If you want all these babies outside of the room, don't bash the programs that will help keep them healthy and safe.

Last sentence should read "womb," not "room."

Then please explain, Mike, why Scott Peterson faced TWO counts of murder? In your world, he only killed his wife and a mass of no-rights-havin' flesh inside her.

Have you ever heard of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, where women can get support, free care and help to deal with what are usually "unplanned" pregnancies? Many, if not most, of these places are run quietly by people you would call "conservatives."

George Carlin is hardly someone to take seriously about anything. I try to rely on people other than know-nothing comedians for my information.

Then please explain, Mike, why Scott Peterson faced TWO counts of murder? In your world, he only killed his wife and a mass of no-rights-havin' flesh inside her.

Have you ever heard of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, where women can get support, free care and help to deal with what are usually "unplanned" pregnancies? Many, if not most, of these places are run quietly by people you would call "conservatives."

George Carlin is hardly someone to take seriously about anything. I try to rely on people other than know-nothing comedians for my information.

Glen,

Your idea of no-nothing is someone who doesn't agree with you politically 100%.

You can make such an asinine comment, but it's a pretty low one. Have you heard Carlin speak outside of a comedy club? He's been on quite a few talk shows and--surprise--the guy really seems to know what he's talking about.

Just because one is employed in the field of comedy doesn't mean one can not also have a functioning brain.

Wait, I'm an idiot...instead of no-nothing, that should read "know-nothing."

Do I have egg on my face, or what?

"The guy really seems to know what he is talking about."

Uhhhhh, whatever, Mike.

There are plenty of people I totally disagree with who I would never say are "know-nothings" -- Carlin ain't one of 'em.

"Conservatives don't understand how frightening it would be if we entered an era where abortions were considered illegal and women were forced to use hangers to remove fetuses from...wait..this situation WAS common several decades ago!"

Right...so to keep those too irresponsible to avoid pregnancy from hurting themselves, it's much better to just kill the innocent child who never asked to be conceived.

"one would wonder what we'd do with all those 43 million babies, born predominantly to lower-income women who rely on the welfare system conservatives so love to trash talk."

Wow, that sounds dangerously Margeret Sanger-ish

Seal-lover,

Given most abortions are performed on women who couldn't economically raise a child, how else would you provide for that child you conservatives SO care for?

Conservatives want a society free of social aid to the poor. So, let the child be born and then throw it out on the street? Surely that's not what you're implying and I'm not saying you are, but unless conservatives have another way of dealing with the volume of children born in to poverty, well then, I say let the woman keep her right to choose.

Yes, Sanger was a little out there, but I think her overall message of empowering a woman to her own body is commendable.

Mike, you are just wrong on your assertion that "most abortions are performed on women who couldn't economically raise a child."

The facts simply do not support your assertion in the United States.

And where do you get off making the categorical statement that, "conservatives want a society free of social aid to the poor?"

That is an ignorant, unfounded statement. I guess the millions of dollars contributed to social-aid charities every year by "conservatives" don't count?

Of course, you would prefer the GOVERNMENT to give away my money for me.

Mike M. said, "Yes, Sanger was a little out there, but I think her overall message of empowering a woman to her own body is commendable."

A little out there? Please. There is not one thing she did that was commendable. She was a horribly wicked and manipulative woman who was used to lay a foundation of lies and hatred.

Sorry, praise of Sanger just doesn't fly around here.

"Given most abortions are performed on women who couldn't economically raise a child, how else would you provide for that child you conservatives SO care for?

Give the child up for adoption. I certainly believe Conservatives, and more specifically the Church could stand to aid and provide services for single and economically challenged mothers. But I'm sorry, I don't see shortcomings in that area as justification for infanticide.

Oh, and in regards to this statement, "immorality (a subjective opinion held in one's mind of what constitutes "good vs. bad")" Sorry but no. Morality is neither relative nor subjective.

"Given most abortions are performed on women who couldn't economically raise a child, how else would you provide for that child you conservatives SO care for?"

With that line of thinking, almost no one should have been born during the Great Depression, should they? Which would mean most of us wouldn't be here to have this discussion.
I suggest you do a little more research on Ms. Sanger before you try to sing her praises. You can start with this:

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466&department=CWA&categoryid=life

Ambra,

Yes...give all those kids up to an adoption system already neglected and overcrowded.

Maybe if conservatives were more open to gays being able to adopt...well, I won't go there.

To those of you who think indulging in the guilty pleasures that are on television really don't affect you read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. The medium is the message. If it didn't work advertisers wouldn't be spending millions of dollars for 30 seconds of air time. Our society's modes of communication (via printed word, radio, TV, film) have a profound effect on how we communicate and view the world. I encourage you to keep the TV turned off Ambra.

Another good book on this subject is All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes by Ken Myers.

To those of you who think indulging in the guilty pleasures that are on television really don't affect you read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. The medium is the message. If it didn't work advertisers wouldn't be spending millions of dollars for 30 seconds of air time. Our society's modes of communication (via printed word, radio, TV, film) have a profound effect on how we communicate and view the world. I encourage you to keep the TV turned off Ambra.

Another good book on this subject is All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes by Ken Myers.

"Maybe if conservatives were more open to gays being able to adopt...well, I won't go there."

Yeah don't. I have plenty to say there. Maybe it'll come up another time.

Ambra,

Perhaps I know what you have to say...and you'll probably be shocked to find out I agree.

But, I'll save it for when you bring it up...