A look ahead . . .
"24" Day 7, Episode Guide, 1:00 - 2:00 PM
1:00 PM
Chloe calls Jack's PDA and informs him that CTU has evidence that Maumoud know where the nuclear device is hidden in Los Angeles. Jack turns to Maumoud and says "Please tell us, in the name of peace, where is the nuke." Maumoud refuses. Jack pleads again and Maumoud still refuses. Growing angry, Jack kicks a box across the room, calms down as Mike reminds him that violence never solves anything. Jack then pleads with Maumoud to tell him where the device is. Maumoud refuses.
1:05 PM
CTU Acting Director Morris O'Brien informs President Rodamn that Jack is getting nowhere with Maumoud and asking to be able to use "aggressive techniques." Rodamn is upset that this crisis is interfering with her effort to roll out free health care for America's children and can't understand why the terrorist hate a country about to have free health care for its most venerable citizens. Vice President Ed Wards councils the President that world public opinion would be lost if aggressive techniques are used on Maumoud. They debate this for quite some time, extolling the President's global warming initiatives, support for Palestinian rights, and anti-proliferation efforts.
1:55 PM
The nuclear weapon fizzles out underneath a grade school.
1:56 PM
Jack, learning the nuke was a dud, is glad he didn't use aggressive techniques on Mamoud, saying he didn't know how he'd live with himself if he did and thinking he'd probably need anger management counseling.
Don't laugh. The Democrats are at it again. Remember Janet Reno wanting to control television violence? Well take away the stogy dresses and you have Jay Rockefeller, D-WV (I think they even wear the same glasses), who, according to and article by Bill Gloede,
[I]s leading the charge at the moment, and promises a bill, and hearings, any day now.
What worries me is that this time, with Congress in the hands of Democrats, there is going to be a bill, and I fear that a lame-duck President, who appears increasingly disengaged from the core principles of Republicanism, might actually sign it. Which could make The Sopranos, or anything like it, illegal.
Oh, like 24?
And as I reported earlier (quoting a Hollywood Reporter story):
Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is expected to introduce legislation giving the FCC the power to regulate such content -- much as it does indecent content on television. In April, the FCC approved a report on TV violence that asked lawmakers for the requisite enforcement powers.
A Senate-FCC industry task force has been convened to identify ways of forcing content producers to encourage children to eat healthy foods.
And as Gloede warns:
More troubling is that the FCC, at least nominally in the hands of Republicans, is asking Congress to define TV violence so that it can regulate it.
Can't wait to see the 100 page definition of "violence" the FCC will undoubtedly produce.
Gloede gets it exactly right when he says:
Congress should remember that, under the U.S. Constitution, it is the foremost duty of government to protect its citizens, from outside attack and from each other. It is not the duty of government to protect people from themselves.
Regulating violence on TV will succeed only in dumbing down TV, turning it into an instrument of behavior control and modification at the behest of government. It will also diminish the value of one of this country's greatest exports—entertainment—in the international marketplace. It will have no effect on violence in our society, which is endemic. To solve that problem, Congress must address the root cause: their violent constituents.
My favorite words in the Constitution come at the end of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…"
Once we give congress cum government the power to decide what we watch, why can't they use that power to tell us what to think, to "forcing content producers to encourage children to eat healthy foods" or promote the party in power's agenda, be it the GOP or the Democrats. And once they have power over television, why can't they have power over movies, books, newspapers, Internet. Not likely? Perhaps not, but probable enough that it needs to be taken seriously.
Power in the hands of government to control media is more dangerous than anything that media can or will do.
And if you don't like what's on T.V., read a book. Just make sure is approved by the government.
Comments