On the coming anniversary of 9/11, CBS plans to broadcast the film “9/11″, a documentary of that fateful day in American history. But our domestic Taliban is upset. You see, CBS plans to show “9/11″ in an uncut format on the air. But Don Wildmon and the religious right army he commands is trying to censor the broadcast.
Why?
Because there are some dirty words being used.
That’s right, because when confronted with terrorist bastards who sought to kill thousands of us, a firefighter, a cop or a regular citizen might have been compelled to use a four letter word.
Because they are human.
But the “American Family Association” is a soft-minded association of nincompoops whose slavish devioton to censoring the world knows no bounds. And so they’ve launched a campaign to censor CBS’ broadcast of 9/11 because – oh no, someone is going to use a naughty word.
I would have thought their objection was going to be it’s too soon and just ghoulish in making this into entertainment. I hope the swear words were put in to both reflect what was actually said and to stop it being ‘family’ fayre
I know it’s hard to apply reason to the positions these folks take, but they’re concerned about their childern being exposed to “dirty words” yet feel it’s okay to let them watch a film documenting the horrors of 9/11? I would have no problem allowing my 12-year old to watch “9/11″, four-letter words and all. I wouldn’t let my 9-year old, and that has very little to do with profanity. I don’t know what it says about a society where its acceptable to expose a kid to a body getting blown to bits but heaven forbid they might hear a four-letter word or see a bare breast.
These religious fanatics kill me. They are hypocrites on the highest order. First, their basic platform is for ‘family values,’ whatever that means, then when CBS wants to air an important documentary, they don’t trust families to police their children…they want to take up the torch for those families.
Which one is it guys? Do you trust families to invoke their own values, or do you just want to impose your fanaticism on them?
I guess I don’t understand your point: Are you saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to protest television programming that they don’t like?
Personally, I don’t see why anyone would get too upset about this particular film. But suppose CBS decided to air a two-hour documentary on the great social programs of the Nazis. I’d certainly want to protest. Wouldn’t you?
Obviously you are free to disagree with these folks, but mostly you’ve just called them names. You could have objected that the profanity is a necessary consequence of the realistic depiction of these events.
But you didn’t.
You could also point out that the Government shouldn’t be in a position to influence what’s broadcast on CBS, even though they’re granted a license to use the public airwaves. That would have been a good point to make.
But you didn’t.
So what’s your point?
Incidentally, ABC is broadcasting a 9/11 “documentary” that blames it all on Clinton. I certainly plan to protest that bit of hackery.
Noone is saying that they have no right to protest-only that
AFA is a bunch of hacks who are only looking to line their own pockets from the rubes who think they represent “family values”.
I’ve seen that documentary. It’s almost unwatchable in places, but it’s probably the most important documentary film since Shoah or the Hindenburg footage.
The non-Clinton one I mean.
This is the Naudet film we’re talking about, right? The one that CBS has already aired at least twice?
Ridiculous.
Actually Farmer, to be honest, I probably wouldn’t actively protest if CBS decided to air a pro-Nazi program; I just wouldn’t watch. CBS. Ever again. Neither would millions of others I’d guess. And I would bet CBS would realize that their pro-Nazi piece was truly obscene and offensive to 99.99% of the population and they would elect not to run it.
A better analogy would be if a network decided to air a pro-religious program, say “Touched By An Angel,” and I and bunch of other pagans decided to do everything we could to get it pulled.
You’re right, the American Family Association has the right to protest whatever they want, be it the “9/11″ documentary, Tinky Winky, or Coors Lite commercials. My problem is that all too often programmers cave to this type of pressure and folks like AFA end up having their moral views, which in my opinion are out of touch with today’s world, imposed on the rest of us.
I promise that I won’t impose my values on the American Family Association if they promise not to impose theirs on me. I won’t watch their programs if they’ll just let me have mine.
And of course, protestation is free advertising, so it usually works against the protestor. Protesting is a sacred right and everyone is free to have at it. It seems more productive to pick and choose the right battles, though.
I don’t think it blames it all on Clinton, but the ABC documentary is called “The Path to 9/11″, which would include all their activities from 1993 to 2001. That would be inclusive of the Clinton presidency and the actions or inactions that helped or hurt Al Qaeda. I do think they take direct aim at Sandy Berger and the situation about not taking Osama into custody from Sudan.
Hmm…, “actions or inactions that helped or hurt Al Qaeda”?
I trust that includes the wild-goose-chase the far-too-right put upon Clinton thereby distracting the resources of the executive branch.
“I do think they take direct aim at Sandy Berger and the situation about not taking Osama into custody from Sudan.”
Which is a hack job- since that didn’t happen. Wingnuts love that 9/11 story, that’s how I know it’s a hackjob.
Darryl, yes, that includes the wild goose chase.
Factcheck, it’s part of the public record as far as I know. Sudan was going to hand him over and we didn’t feel we had the legal basis for taking custody.
Again, we all act like Osama is the Boss Monster in a video game. Kill him and Al Qaeda dissolves and we get an extra life. I agree the Clinton administration probably bobbled that one, but I don’t think capturing him would have put an end to Al Qaeda.
If someone could show me the record that says the Sudanese handover was fabricated, I’ll issue a retraction.
Understood, Steve. And I concur that too many people want to “simplify” a highly complicated issue… especially when it comes to folks throwing rocks at the biggest superpower on the planet.
“Sudan was going to hand him over”
No, they weren’t.
I couldn’t count the times that very same falsehood has been debunked right here on OW’s blog.
Won’t stop some people from telling it again, though.
“… the ABC documentary is called ‘The Path to 9/11′ …”
Are you talking about this “documentary,” the one that stars Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473404/
So repeating shit that isn’t true until someone tells you otherwise the sign of a “serious” debater?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008
You see, Steve, if you had done even the most basic research to verify the claims you were repeating, before you repeated them, I might respect you as a moderate. But you didn’t it. Instead you automatically assumed that what you heard from the right was true, repeated it as if it were true in a so-called “serious” post, and then left it up to us to correct you. That shouldn’t be our job.
Let me ask you Steve, is being lazy one of the qualifications of being a moderate?
General George S Patton stated that an army without profanity cannot fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.
So of course fuck these people.
The idea that the word “fuck” is contrary to Christian teaching is garbage. Orthodox Christianity has a lot to say about fucking.
As for me, I don’t want to watch a movie about firefighters walking to their possible deaths in a 1/4 mile tower of fire who don’t say “move it, motherfucker!” when it’s time to move it. And I sure as hell don’t want to be in a building surrounded by cops and firefighters who talk like pre-school teachers.
Careful frame- you wouldn’t want to scare “moderates” from coming to “our side”.
Tee hee.
the wild-goose-chase the far-too-right put upon Clinton distracting us from catching Bin Laden was Republican’s fault?
Then that must make the wild-goose-chase the far-too-left put upon Bush (over Plame) distracting us from catching Bin Laden Democrat’s fault!
One does not equal the other.
You’re right: Clinton was actually guilty!
yeah, of lying about an affair that wasnt anybody’s damn business. Bush employs someone who leaked information that actively damaged our intelligence agencies. This happened during Clinton you’d be calling it Treason, and you’d actually be right for once.
Clinton was actually guilty!
When was that verdict delivered?
IOTIYAD
“It’s only treason if you’re a Democrat.”
Best check your sources. Even David Corn is admitting it was Armitage who, by the way, “no longer works in my administration”.
Every single time the words “President Clinton” are mentioned.
Ok, Frame, I’m willing to assimilate that information. According to the report there is no substantial evidence that Sudan was willing to turn over Osama. I noted the Sudanese claimed to have made the offer and it was denied by the Clinton administration as having been made, so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the US. The Sudanese did not offer to hand over OBL.
“Ok, Frame, I’m willing to assimilate that information.”
WTF, are you the borg?
No, Mod.
Frame, I could agree with you 100% and you’d still howl about my punctuation. I bet you drive a Corvette.
Hardly. I just think it’s telling when people can’t simply admit that they’ve been used like a fool by the right wing. Instead they have to come up with awkward, robotic phrases like “I will assimilate that information.” Instead of “assimilating” the truth about Clinton, why don’t you “assimilate” the fact that the first place you heard the lie and every place you’ve ever read the lie was playing you for a sucker. Then tell me that calling you an idiot is that real threat to democracy.
Frame, you kill me. Sorry I didn’t use the exact phraseology you wanted me to. Guess there’s no room for individuals to parse their own words in Frameistan. It’s your way, or idiocy. You really are the Left’s equivalent of Hannity, and, a damn fine dictator.
Ahh, I almost forgot, there were conflicting claims in the report. The Sudanese did say they offereed OBL, so your racist assumption is they’re liars because we’re American investigators and they are just poor Africans who can’t substaniate their claims. NOW you’re all for the good and dutiful work our government does for us, when it reinforces your beliefs.
By my own tolerant grace, I’ve decided to side with our investigation and I’ll spread the gospel, lordy, lordy, lordy.
“I’ve decided to side with our investigation and I’ll spread the gospel, lordy, lordy, lordy.”
Now doesn’t that feel better?
Tooootally.
tvceyhok ztiqrx ubqlmpnd bcvqghik brfpce tqgbmyieu cptdi
tvceyhok ztiqrx ubqlmpnd bcvqghik brfpce tqgbmyieu cptdi
tvceyhok ztiqrx ubqlmpnd bcvqghik brfpce tqgbmyieu cptdi