Friday, February 27, 2004
I am very much on board the rollertrain as this rant has been brewing since yesterday after work when Johnny K and I started discussing our civil liberties and the fact that they seem to be disappearing one by one. We came to different conclusions as to why it is happening however, regardless of the "why's", ANY reason is a bad reason when the government starts stripping our rights away. I started doing some research and it began and ended at the FCC's website. Kathleen Q. Abernathy is a Commissioner at the FCC and had quite a bit to say in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Why this particular committee, I have no idea, but the message was clear and she has taken it upon herself to speak for the general public and demand decency in the media. It's not the fact that the FCC is asking for "the prospect of levying higher fines", no, it is the fact that they are asking for congressional legislation to increase their forfeiture authority under the guise waning public tolerance.
Abernathy speaks to the "elusive viewers aged 18 to 24" and that "TV broadcasters have lost their footing and must be reminded not only of their public interest obligations but also of the critical role they play in forming and shaping society." That statement alone is proof enough for me that this is NOT just about protecting our children. THIS is about controlling the content of what even adults listen too and watch.
From what I can tell this directive is coming from those parents who are too damn lazy to parent their children themselves. Apparently personal accountability has suffered the same fate as the puritanical programming of the 50's and 60's and has been replaced with the religious right force feeding THEIR moral agenda down the throats of dejected and fouled. This needs to stop and it needs to stop NOW. Our voices MUST be heard and WE must become the loudest and we MUST demand change. We cannot afford to lie down like defeated dogs and let the Government dictate what is and is not aesthetically appropriate for us.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
of
KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY
Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission
on
Protecting Children from Violent and Indecent Programming
Before the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
9:30 a.m.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the FCC's efforts to protect children from indecent and violent broadcast programming.
A recent study found that even the youngest of children - those under the age of six - are immersed in today's media world, and a vast majority of parents have seen their children imitate behavior they have seen on television. This comes as no surprise: children are a part of the broadcast audience for a substantial part of the broadcast day. Moreover, media has a profound impact on our perception of the world and gives us an impression of what is "normal" or acceptable in our society.
The law holds that broadcasters, because they make licensed use of publicly owned airwaves to provide programming to the general public, have a statutory obligation to make sure that their programming serves the needs and interests of the local audience. These local audiences inevitably include parents and children. The courts have upheld the existence of a compelling government interest in the well-being of children, as well as the prerogative of parents to supervise their children in furtherance of that well-being. Those simple and straightforward legal principles are the foundation of the laws and regulations that limit the broadcast of indecent programming, and make available to parents means to help them control the programming available to their children.
Notwithstanding these well-established legal principles and the steps taken in furtherance of them, this hearing is a most timely response to an increasingly urgent set of problems. The recent Super Bowl halftime show was perhaps the most notorious, but only the most recent, example of a progressive coarsening of our culture as reflected in broadcasting, cable, and video games. And it is not simply an issue with regard to excessive sexual content in many mainstream programs; it is also reflected in the excessively violent content of material distributed to children via broadcasting and the Internet.
It finally appears that the level of public tolerance is waning for artists who regard any live appearance on broadcast television as an opportunity for indecent utterances or actions. And it is also waning for broadcasters who, despite all the surprise and contriteness they display after an indecent incident has occurred, seem bereft of the common sense and control needed to prevent such action before it happens.
It is particularly surprising that some more recent incidents have occurred despite this Commission's vigorous enforcement of the indecency laws as described by Chairman Powell, despite our announcement that these efforts would be further intensified by the prospect of levying higher fines and subjecting each separate utterance to a separate fine, despite our putting broadcasters on notice that we would not hesitate to designate licenses for revocation if the circumstances warranted, despite pending congressional legislation to increase our forfeiture authority, and despite the Administration's support for that legislation.
Historically the FCC's indecency rules and enforcement efforts have generally been effective at balancing broadcasters' First Amendment rights with society's right to protect its children from material that is unsuitable for them. Our rules and precedents have allowed us to calibrate our evaluations to the specific circumstances of particular broadcasts and to reach results that, hopefully, reflect the judgment an average broadcast viewer or listener would make. But with the advent of new technologies that deliver hundreds of channels into consumers' homes and an increased desire to target marketing to those elusive viewers aged 18 to 24, it appears that some radio and TV broadcasters have lost their footing and must be reminded not only of their public interest obligations but also of the critical role they play in forming and shaping society.
In light of this environment, the FCC must be given the ability to impose meaningful fines that will deter the future airing of indecent programming. Therefore, I strongly support your efforts to increase our forfeiture authority. Our current statutory maximum of $27,500 could be perceived as a mere slap on the wrist. In contrast, for any violation of Title II of the Act, we are authorized to fine up to $120,000 for a single violation, and $1.2 million for continuing violations. The well-being of our children is just as important as Title II violations and our authority should be expanded to demonstrate this commitment.
The FCC also must do more to clarify the legal parameters regarding the broadcast of indecent material and encourage best practices by the industry. For example, relying on its understanding of past Commission rulings, the Enforcement Bureau staff recently issued a decision determining that Bono's use of the "f word" during a live telecast of the Golden Globes was not indecent. The full Commission is reviewing this staff decision. And while I would not want to comment on what action the full Commission may ultimately take, I will say that it is difficult to imagine very many contexts where the knowing broadcast of this obscenity would not be patently offensive under contemporary community standards.
Moreover, I am aware that concerns have been raised about the processes currently used to handle indecency complaints, including how these are enumerated and reported, the standard of documentation that must be met even to file a complaint, and the length of time it has taken us to resolve them. I support an expeditious reexamination of these matters. If these or any other procedural rules are unintentionally discouraging the public from filing otherwise credible complaints, they can and must be changed.
Nevertheless, these enforcement-based measures, at their best, are necessarily after the fact. And although I strongly support pending legislation to increase the amount the FCC may fine broadcasters for violating the indecency rules, monetary penalties alone may not fully prevent future misconduct, especially when it comes to the live broadcast of radio or TV programming. Therefore, in addition to current and even enhanced enforcement measures, it may also be appropriate to consider improving and amplifying our complement of forward-looking safeguards as well.
Currently, these forward-looking safeguards consist of laws and regulations whose intent is to enable parents to limit their children's television viewing to those programs consistent with whatever value system the parents are striving to teach. Gone forever are the days when a parent could simply sit a child down in front of the TV and leave that child in the hands of the broadcast babysitter. Television viewing today requires that responsible parents be proactive in selecting and in monitoring the material their children are permitted to watch.
Our laws try to help parents understand and control the programs their children watch in several different ways, especially when it comes to pre-recorded material. The rule restricting indecent broadcasts to the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. puts parents on notice that they must exercise particular care in supervising the material that children watch or listen to during those hours. But it is perhaps even more important to understand what options are available to protect children from adult programs that broadcast during the main part of the broadcast day - programs that may not be indecent but include excessive violence or sexual content or are simply inappropriate for young children. The V-chip and program ratings legislation that Congress has passed is intended to help parents understand the content of broadcast programs, thereby assuring that the values they are attempting to instill in their children won't be compromised by exposure to programming at odds with those values.
Is this system working as well as one would wish? No, it is not. Most parents do not understand how to use the V-chip and are unaware that a TV ratings system exists. At the same time, broadcasters are trying to retain audiences that have been deserting them in droves in favor of cable programming that is not subject to any indecency restrictions. As a consequence broadcast licensees are constantly pushing the programming envelope in an attempt to be more like cable.
The shortcomings of the present parent advisory-based system are more troubling, especially when it comes to facilitating the screening of violent programming which, unlike indecency, is not subject to FCC enforcement sanctions. This is not because violence is less prevalent on television than indecency; on the contrary, a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly two out of three programs contained some violence, averaging about six violent acts per hour. Moreover, identifiable harm resulting from televised violence has been documented: laboratory experiments have found that exposure to media violence increases children's tolerance for real-life aggression.
This Committee has grappled with the many legal and practical issues involved in attempting legislatively to define and limit televised violence. In the absence of statutory authority, the Commission is reaching out to the public to help make parents aware of the V-chip and the program ratings system, and how to use them. I have tried to address this problem by working with the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to create an FCC web site called Parents Place. Parents Place explains the rating systems, including what the ratings mean and when and where the ratings are displayed and directs parents to web sites that identify age-appropriate programming. It also explains the V-chip is and how it works. In addition, I dedicated an issue of my consumer newsletter, Focus on Consumer Concerns, to how parents can protect children from objectionable programming on television. This newsletter also includes details on the V-chip technology and ratings system, as well as other blocking tools, including lockboxes.
Nevertheless, any system based on giving advance notice to parents, however it is constituted, will work only when advance notice and information is, in fact, made available. As last week's Super Bowl debacle showed, these early warning systems simply won't work in the face of surprise. Whatever we may be able to do about either improving the existing system or informing more parents how to use it, both efforts are meaningless unless we also consider ways to eliminate the kind of surprise indecency that thwarts the best efforts of even the most vigilant parent.
Because such unwelcome surprises seem most apt to happen during live-broadcast entertainment or awards shows, we could begin by evaluating the effectiveness of a five- or ten- second audio and video delay on the broadcast of live entertainment events. This type of safeguard has already been implemented by a number of broadcasters, and it would seem to offer the best assurance against the recurrence of the kind of unfortunate spur-of-the-moment displays that we are increasingly being subjected to.
I also believe we will need to enlist the help of broadcasters if we are to ultimately address consumer concerns because the issues encompass more than simply what is or is not indecent programming. I am somewhat heartened that broadcasters are finally getting the message. Just last week I spoke at a conference organized by Fox Entertainment Group for their creative executives. All of senior management were there, from Rupert Murdoch on down, and the focus of the conference was how their producers and programmers can balance creativity and responsibility. I discussed not only what the law requires with respect to indecency on the airwaves, but how they, as broadcasters, cable programmers, and filmmakers, can and should go beyond the letter of the law to ensure that their programming reflects the values of the communities they serve. My remarks were followed up be a series of panels that included parents and their children, producers, government officials, and members of such groups as Kaiser Family Foundation and the Parents Television Council. The goal was to have an open and frank discussion about media content, the FCC's indecency rules and the networks responsibility to its viewers.
Mr. Chairman, if there is anything at all positive to be said about what has happened, it may be that all of us now appreciate the significant challenges we face in ensuring that our children are protected from indecent or inappropriate programming while continuing to tap into the best of what broadcasting has to offer. In response to these challenges, I fully support both the expanded enforcement efforts by the Commission as well as the possibility of improving the existing safeguards, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss any additional matters the Members of this Committee may wish.
Abernathy speaks to the "elusive viewers aged 18 to 24" and that "TV broadcasters have lost their footing and must be reminded not only of their public interest obligations but also of the critical role they play in forming and shaping society." That statement alone is proof enough for me that this is NOT just about protecting our children. THIS is about controlling the content of what even adults listen too and watch.
From what I can tell this directive is coming from those parents who are too damn lazy to parent their children themselves. Apparently personal accountability has suffered the same fate as the puritanical programming of the 50's and 60's and has been replaced with the religious right force feeding THEIR moral agenda down the throats of dejected and fouled. This needs to stop and it needs to stop NOW. Our voices MUST be heard and WE must become the loudest and we MUST demand change. We cannot afford to lie down like defeated dogs and let the Government dictate what is and is not aesthetically appropriate for us.
of
KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY
Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission
on
Protecting Children from Violent and Indecent Programming
Before the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
9:30 a.m.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the FCC's efforts to protect children from indecent and violent broadcast programming.
A recent study found that even the youngest of children - those under the age of six - are immersed in today's media world, and a vast majority of parents have seen their children imitate behavior they have seen on television. This comes as no surprise: children are a part of the broadcast audience for a substantial part of the broadcast day. Moreover, media has a profound impact on our perception of the world and gives us an impression of what is "normal" or acceptable in our society.
The law holds that broadcasters, because they make licensed use of publicly owned airwaves to provide programming to the general public, have a statutory obligation to make sure that their programming serves the needs and interests of the local audience. These local audiences inevitably include parents and children. The courts have upheld the existence of a compelling government interest in the well-being of children, as well as the prerogative of parents to supervise their children in furtherance of that well-being. Those simple and straightforward legal principles are the foundation of the laws and regulations that limit the broadcast of indecent programming, and make available to parents means to help them control the programming available to their children.
Notwithstanding these well-established legal principles and the steps taken in furtherance of them, this hearing is a most timely response to an increasingly urgent set of problems. The recent Super Bowl halftime show was perhaps the most notorious, but only the most recent, example of a progressive coarsening of our culture as reflected in broadcasting, cable, and video games. And it is not simply an issue with regard to excessive sexual content in many mainstream programs; it is also reflected in the excessively violent content of material distributed to children via broadcasting and the Internet.
It finally appears that the level of public tolerance is waning for artists who regard any live appearance on broadcast television as an opportunity for indecent utterances or actions. And it is also waning for broadcasters who, despite all the surprise and contriteness they display after an indecent incident has occurred, seem bereft of the common sense and control needed to prevent such action before it happens.
It is particularly surprising that some more recent incidents have occurred despite this Commission's vigorous enforcement of the indecency laws as described by Chairman Powell, despite our announcement that these efforts would be further intensified by the prospect of levying higher fines and subjecting each separate utterance to a separate fine, despite our putting broadcasters on notice that we would not hesitate to designate licenses for revocation if the circumstances warranted, despite pending congressional legislation to increase our forfeiture authority, and despite the Administration's support for that legislation.
Historically the FCC's indecency rules and enforcement efforts have generally been effective at balancing broadcasters' First Amendment rights with society's right to protect its children from material that is unsuitable for them. Our rules and precedents have allowed us to calibrate our evaluations to the specific circumstances of particular broadcasts and to reach results that, hopefully, reflect the judgment an average broadcast viewer or listener would make. But with the advent of new technologies that deliver hundreds of channels into consumers' homes and an increased desire to target marketing to those elusive viewers aged 18 to 24, it appears that some radio and TV broadcasters have lost their footing and must be reminded not only of their public interest obligations but also of the critical role they play in forming and shaping society.
In light of this environment, the FCC must be given the ability to impose meaningful fines that will deter the future airing of indecent programming. Therefore, I strongly support your efforts to increase our forfeiture authority. Our current statutory maximum of $27,500 could be perceived as a mere slap on the wrist. In contrast, for any violation of Title II of the Act, we are authorized to fine up to $120,000 for a single violation, and $1.2 million for continuing violations. The well-being of our children is just as important as Title II violations and our authority should be expanded to demonstrate this commitment.
The FCC also must do more to clarify the legal parameters regarding the broadcast of indecent material and encourage best practices by the industry. For example, relying on its understanding of past Commission rulings, the Enforcement Bureau staff recently issued a decision determining that Bono's use of the "f word" during a live telecast of the Golden Globes was not indecent. The full Commission is reviewing this staff decision. And while I would not want to comment on what action the full Commission may ultimately take, I will say that it is difficult to imagine very many contexts where the knowing broadcast of this obscenity would not be patently offensive under contemporary community standards.
Moreover, I am aware that concerns have been raised about the processes currently used to handle indecency complaints, including how these are enumerated and reported, the standard of documentation that must be met even to file a complaint, and the length of time it has taken us to resolve them. I support an expeditious reexamination of these matters. If these or any other procedural rules are unintentionally discouraging the public from filing otherwise credible complaints, they can and must be changed.
Nevertheless, these enforcement-based measures, at their best, are necessarily after the fact. And although I strongly support pending legislation to increase the amount the FCC may fine broadcasters for violating the indecency rules, monetary penalties alone may not fully prevent future misconduct, especially when it comes to the live broadcast of radio or TV programming. Therefore, in addition to current and even enhanced enforcement measures, it may also be appropriate to consider improving and amplifying our complement of forward-looking safeguards as well.
Currently, these forward-looking safeguards consist of laws and regulations whose intent is to enable parents to limit their children's television viewing to those programs consistent with whatever value system the parents are striving to teach. Gone forever are the days when a parent could simply sit a child down in front of the TV and leave that child in the hands of the broadcast babysitter. Television viewing today requires that responsible parents be proactive in selecting and in monitoring the material their children are permitted to watch.
Our laws try to help parents understand and control the programs their children watch in several different ways, especially when it comes to pre-recorded material. The rule restricting indecent broadcasts to the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. puts parents on notice that they must exercise particular care in supervising the material that children watch or listen to during those hours. But it is perhaps even more important to understand what options are available to protect children from adult programs that broadcast during the main part of the broadcast day - programs that may not be indecent but include excessive violence or sexual content or are simply inappropriate for young children. The V-chip and program ratings legislation that Congress has passed is intended to help parents understand the content of broadcast programs, thereby assuring that the values they are attempting to instill in their children won't be compromised by exposure to programming at odds with those values.
Is this system working as well as one would wish? No, it is not. Most parents do not understand how to use the V-chip and are unaware that a TV ratings system exists. At the same time, broadcasters are trying to retain audiences that have been deserting them in droves in favor of cable programming that is not subject to any indecency restrictions. As a consequence broadcast licensees are constantly pushing the programming envelope in an attempt to be more like cable.
The shortcomings of the present parent advisory-based system are more troubling, especially when it comes to facilitating the screening of violent programming which, unlike indecency, is not subject to FCC enforcement sanctions. This is not because violence is less prevalent on television than indecency; on the contrary, a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly two out of three programs contained some violence, averaging about six violent acts per hour. Moreover, identifiable harm resulting from televised violence has been documented: laboratory experiments have found that exposure to media violence increases children's tolerance for real-life aggression.
This Committee has grappled with the many legal and practical issues involved in attempting legislatively to define and limit televised violence. In the absence of statutory authority, the Commission is reaching out to the public to help make parents aware of the V-chip and the program ratings system, and how to use them. I have tried to address this problem by working with the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to create an FCC web site called Parents Place. Parents Place explains the rating systems, including what the ratings mean and when and where the ratings are displayed and directs parents to web sites that identify age-appropriate programming. It also explains the V-chip is and how it works. In addition, I dedicated an issue of my consumer newsletter, Focus on Consumer Concerns, to how parents can protect children from objectionable programming on television. This newsletter also includes details on the V-chip technology and ratings system, as well as other blocking tools, including lockboxes.
Nevertheless, any system based on giving advance notice to parents, however it is constituted, will work only when advance notice and information is, in fact, made available. As last week's Super Bowl debacle showed, these early warning systems simply won't work in the face of surprise. Whatever we may be able to do about either improving the existing system or informing more parents how to use it, both efforts are meaningless unless we also consider ways to eliminate the kind of surprise indecency that thwarts the best efforts of even the most vigilant parent.
Because such unwelcome surprises seem most apt to happen during live-broadcast entertainment or awards shows, we could begin by evaluating the effectiveness of a five- or ten- second audio and video delay on the broadcast of live entertainment events. This type of safeguard has already been implemented by a number of broadcasters, and it would seem to offer the best assurance against the recurrence of the kind of unfortunate spur-of-the-moment displays that we are increasingly being subjected to.
I also believe we will need to enlist the help of broadcasters if we are to ultimately address consumer concerns because the issues encompass more than simply what is or is not indecent programming. I am somewhat heartened that broadcasters are finally getting the message. Just last week I spoke at a conference organized by Fox Entertainment Group for their creative executives. All of senior management were there, from Rupert Murdoch on down, and the focus of the conference was how their producers and programmers can balance creativity and responsibility. I discussed not only what the law requires with respect to indecency on the airwaves, but how they, as broadcasters, cable programmers, and filmmakers, can and should go beyond the letter of the law to ensure that their programming reflects the values of the communities they serve. My remarks were followed up be a series of panels that included parents and their children, producers, government officials, and members of such groups as Kaiser Family Foundation and the Parents Television Council. The goal was to have an open and frank discussion about media content, the FCC's indecency rules and the networks responsibility to its viewers.
Mr. Chairman, if there is anything at all positive to be said about what has happened, it may be that all of us now appreciate the significant challenges we face in ensuring that our children are protected from indecent or inappropriate programming while continuing to tap into the best of what broadcasting has to offer. In response to these challenges, I fully support both the expanded enforcement efforts by the Commission as well as the possibility of improving the existing safeguards, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss any additional matters the Members of this Committee may wish.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
~ My couture paper dress and I had a date with a speculum yesterday. My favorite time of the year is February when my yearly appointment with the hoohoo doctor is due and a q-tip gets to have relations with my cervix. I felt dejected however when she told me to get dressed and had not yet stuck her KY’d finger up my ass. Oh well, there’s always next year. It still befuddles me why anyone would voluntarily choose to be this type of physician. I can think of nothing more disgusting than seeing fat hairy nasty tang on a daily basis. I shudder.
I am faced with the decision to have a surgical procedure done that would burn the lining of my uterus or to have an I.U.D implanted there that would last a period of five years. Surgery or hormones? It’s a tough decision for me.
~ Added to my list of obsessions, which already includes, Firemen, Mechanics, Jewish men, mannequins and gay black men are LUMBERJACKS! Watching hot manly men climbing up trees is extremely arousing. I need to commission my friends in the bidness to make a smut movie. I think it would be a huge success.
~ In this day and age of sexual liberation, I think that the adult film industry needs to come out with a line of movies targeting hetero women. I am a connoisseur of lesbian porn but I think the industry would prosper greatly from this. Merely a suggestion based on nothing more than my own personal desires.
~ Today is Ash Wednesday and for some reason I felt empty when I saw this woman at the store who had already been to church. I haven’t the foggiest idea why the inclination to attend mass has been so powerful. I am constantly reminding myself why I left the church in the first place but on the same token I am also trying to figure out if those reasons are still even valid and as important to me as they once were.
I am faced with the decision to have a surgical procedure done that would burn the lining of my uterus or to have an I.U.D implanted there that would last a period of five years. Surgery or hormones? It’s a tough decision for me.
~ Added to my list of obsessions, which already includes, Firemen, Mechanics, Jewish men, mannequins and gay black men are LUMBERJACKS! Watching hot manly men climbing up trees is extremely arousing. I need to commission my friends in the bidness to make a smut movie. I think it would be a huge success.
~ In this day and age of sexual liberation, I think that the adult film industry needs to come out with a line of movies targeting hetero women. I am a connoisseur of lesbian porn but I think the industry would prosper greatly from this. Merely a suggestion based on nothing more than my own personal desires.
~ Today is Ash Wednesday and for some reason I felt empty when I saw this woman at the store who had already been to church. I haven’t the foggiest idea why the inclination to attend mass has been so powerful. I am constantly reminding myself why I left the church in the first place but on the same token I am also trying to figure out if those reasons are still even valid and as important to me as they once were.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Apparently being a bastard is en vogue but I fear that our self-righteousness is consuming our souls and will shortly cease being “all the rage” and simply become a way of life. We no longer have patience for our fellow man and demand that our neighbors live up to our standards of living and thinking. For I am the chosen and you must abide by what I deem is true and holy. We are surely invoking the wrath of God and I hope to him I have long passed before that last day in history occurs.
Friday night was the elementary schools talent show which a- was a part of. Him and his friend had a “dance off” and they electric boogaloo’d their way into the hearts of the audience. I had no idea he had the funk in him but that is beside the point I am trying to get across. Prior to a’s- act, three little girls, probably five or six years in age, came out to do a lip synch number to Supermodel (You Better Work). That within itself was a slice of hilarity as I wondered how many of the middle aged, Docker wearing, Kenny G listening, audience members would have called Children Services had they known those three little angelic, innocent girls were dancing and swinging their flashy batons around to a sassy tune sung by a black transvestite. I digress and seeing as though I am already getting bored with this whole writing process, I had better get straight to the point. During the act an older boy came out onto stage and started dancing around with the little girls He had picked up one of their batons and was swinging it around. He looked a little awkward but I am sure everyone thought he was just trying to “work” it. Everyone was looking sideways at each other but the more he danced, the more we laughed, until a teacher came out onto the stage and escorted boy off. It wasn’t apparent until that moment that the boy was obviously mentally handicapped. How he made it pass the masses of faculty backstage up onto the stage is beyond me but it made for an interesting footnote to the evening and k- and I hysterically laughed about it afterwards. They allowed the three little girls to repeat their act and the night moved on without a hitch.
My brother was sitting in the lobby of the auditorium when that same boy came walking in. One of the little girls fathers was out there and started pushing the retarded boy around wondering why he had ruined his daughter’s act. My brother told the asshole to stop but the man (I can hardly bring myself to call him that) ignored my brother and continued to push this poor boy around demanding answers. My brother told the guy to lay off again but he continued to badger the child. I have no idea what happened afterwards but the whole incident left a pretty bitter taste in my mouth.
That type of attitude is becoming the norm and I shudder to think of where we will end up as a result. It’s all about our sense of entitlement and what WE deserve for time served. It makes me sick that instead of greeting people with a smile we greet them with demands and a “do you know who I am” attitude. Is common courtesy such a terrible thing to expect out of people?
It’s 11.15 and I am still in my wife beater and pajamie pants and have done nothing in the few hours I have been awake. I suppose I better become a functioning human today and get something accomplished.
Friday night was the elementary schools talent show which a- was a part of. Him and his friend had a “dance off” and they electric boogaloo’d their way into the hearts of the audience. I had no idea he had the funk in him but that is beside the point I am trying to get across. Prior to a’s- act, three little girls, probably five or six years in age, came out to do a lip synch number to Supermodel (You Better Work). That within itself was a slice of hilarity as I wondered how many of the middle aged, Docker wearing, Kenny G listening, audience members would have called Children Services had they known those three little angelic, innocent girls were dancing and swinging their flashy batons around to a sassy tune sung by a black transvestite. I digress and seeing as though I am already getting bored with this whole writing process, I had better get straight to the point. During the act an older boy came out onto stage and started dancing around with the little girls He had picked up one of their batons and was swinging it around. He looked a little awkward but I am sure everyone thought he was just trying to “work” it. Everyone was looking sideways at each other but the more he danced, the more we laughed, until a teacher came out onto the stage and escorted boy off. It wasn’t apparent until that moment that the boy was obviously mentally handicapped. How he made it pass the masses of faculty backstage up onto the stage is beyond me but it made for an interesting footnote to the evening and k- and I hysterically laughed about it afterwards. They allowed the three little girls to repeat their act and the night moved on without a hitch.
My brother was sitting in the lobby of the auditorium when that same boy came walking in. One of the little girls fathers was out there and started pushing the retarded boy around wondering why he had ruined his daughter’s act. My brother told the asshole to stop but the man (I can hardly bring myself to call him that) ignored my brother and continued to push this poor boy around demanding answers. My brother told the guy to lay off again but he continued to badger the child. I have no idea what happened afterwards but the whole incident left a pretty bitter taste in my mouth.
That type of attitude is becoming the norm and I shudder to think of where we will end up as a result. It’s all about our sense of entitlement and what WE deserve for time served. It makes me sick that instead of greeting people with a smile we greet them with demands and a “do you know who I am” attitude. Is common courtesy such a terrible thing to expect out of people?
It’s 11.15 and I am still in my wife beater and pajamie pants and have done nothing in the few hours I have been awake. I suppose I better become a functioning human today and get something accomplished.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Me Chinese. Me play joke. Me put peepee in your coke.
What else are you going to do with five minutes of your day left to spare?
I am the poster child for mindless drivle.
What else are you going to do with five minutes of your day left to spare?
I am the poster child for mindless drivle.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
This is the most vile fucking thing I have ever seen in my whole entire life. It's a fucking rubber funnel that you use when you are on your period that "works quite differently from tampons. Instead of absorbing your menstrual fluid, it holds it in a little cup, which you can then wash out a couple of times a day and reuse." I am literally sitting here with my mouth agape. To make matters even worse there are these. Nope! These sponges are NOT used to apply liquid makeup. These beauties are wash and go sea sponge tampons that you rinse and reuse. This was my favorite question in the f.a.q. section for this product.
What about when I'm out of my home and need to change it?
There are no magic answers to this question. Use judgment and discretion in public washrooms as some women may find the sight of menstrual blood offensive, or have concerns about young girls seeing it. Some facilities have private wheelchair-accessible or parent and child washrooms with a sink that may be available for you to use instead.
NOT only is it offensive you stupid *furry moron, it is so fucking utterly foul to even fathom a woman rinsing her bloody sea sponge out in public. I am all for embracing other types of lifestyles but there is nothing, not one fucking minute iota within me that can support this.
Fucking hippies! Go stick a granola bar up your twat and get over your selves.
*The reason why use the statement, "stupid furry moron" is because any woman who endorses or uses any of these products cannot possibly shave her pussy. NOT in a million years.
What about when I'm out of my home and need to change it?
There are no magic answers to this question. Use judgment and discretion in public washrooms as some women may find the sight of menstrual blood offensive, or have concerns about young girls seeing it. Some facilities have private wheelchair-accessible or parent and child washrooms with a sink that may be available for you to use instead.
NOT only is it offensive you stupid *furry moron, it is so fucking utterly foul to even fathom a woman rinsing her bloody sea sponge out in public. I am all for embracing other types of lifestyles but there is nothing, not one fucking minute iota within me that can support this.
Fucking hippies! Go stick a granola bar up your twat and get over your selves.
*The reason why use the statement, "stupid furry moron" is because any woman who endorses or uses any of these products cannot possibly shave her pussy. NOT in a million years.
Eight months down and seventeen to go. What a tedious chore this has been and will continue to be, marking all of my old journal entries private. I have since asked myself why, but I cannot seem to find an educated answer. It just seemed like a sound decision when I made the resolution to start writing again. During this process I have taken the time to re-read quite a few of my past entries. I have laughed at myself quite a bit and scoffed at my nonsensicality even more, but at the very least I wrote and wrote often. Self imposed as it may be, I feel as though there are a lot of expectations to meet. Trying to get back into the swing of documenting is somewhat of an arduous task and although I am perfectly content on being drama free, I feel mediocre and bland and I am grasping at multi-colored bendy straws for something interesting to say. As always, I am sure I will persevere and eventually liberate the constipation that is my brain. Until then, I suppose I have the hilarity that is my other journal to keep me occupied.
This is all just part of the process
This is all just part of the process
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Ugly shoes drive me INSANE
Friday, February 13, 2004
My photographs are my babies and admittedly, I am overly protective of them seeing as though I am a nobody photographer. I just think it would be easier for someone to rip off my work than it would be to steal from Annie or Helmut. I am not under the delusion that there are droves of thieves waiting to plunder my gallery but I am still as paranoid as Hunter S. Thompson on twenty-seven hits of LSD. As much as I want my work to be exposed I still need to learn how to cut the umbilical cord. How do you let something like that go?
I am still debating whether or not to post my images here while divineimagery.com is under construction. I love to share my work with my friends and hope to one day in return receive CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM instead of the pussy stroking praise that you seem to get elsewhere. For fucks sake, that would be nice.
I am still debating whether or not to post my images here while divineimagery.com is under construction. I love to share my work with my friends and hope to one day in return receive CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM instead of the pussy stroking praise that you seem to get elsewhere. For fucks sake, that would be nice.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
The want is always more than the get and I often find myself with a snarly discontented scowl on my face at the notion of desire. I realize that this is all terribly selfish of me, but today I am tired of playing the part of the altruistic mother and wife and have signed on for the smaller, yet more powerful role of the sacrificial lamb. Please do not misconstrue my words for feelings of regret or resent because I harbor not even a hint of either for my family. It is more the act of coveting the materialistic possessions of others that has my boy cut panties in a bunch. I am just trying to purge these ridiculous notions so they do not turn into a festering cesspool of anger in me. So please don't mind my bratty temper tantrum because my mom wont buy me a pony. Which reminds me of this wonderful poem.
Little Abigail and the Beautiful Pony
There was a girl named Abigail
Who was taking a drive
Through the country
With her parents
When she spied a beautiful sad-eyed
Grey and white pony.
And next to it was a sign
That said,
FOR SALE--CHEAP.
"Oh," said Abigail,
"May I have that pony?
May I please?"
And her parents said,
"No you may not."
And Abigail said,
"But I MUST have that pony."
And her parents said,
"Well, you can have a nice butter pecan
Ice cream cone when we get home."
And Abigail said,
"I don't want a butter pecan
Ice cream cone,
I WANT THAT PONY--
I MUST HAVE THAT PONY."
And her parents said,
"Be quiet and stop nagging--
You're not getting that pony."
And Abigail began to cry and said,
"If I don't get that pony I'll die."
And her parents said, "You won't die.
No child ever died yet from not getting a pony."
And Abigail felt so bad
That when she got home she went to bed,
And she couldn't eat,
And she couldn't sleep,
And her heart was broken,
And she DID die--
All because of a pony
That her parents wouldn't buy.
(This is a good story
To read to your folks
When they won't buy
You something you want.)
- Shel Silverstein - A Light In the Attic
Little Abigail and the Beautiful Pony
There was a girl named Abigail
Who was taking a drive
Through the country
With her parents
When she spied a beautiful sad-eyed
Grey and white pony.
And next to it was a sign
That said,
FOR SALE--CHEAP.
"Oh," said Abigail,
"May I have that pony?
May I please?"
And her parents said,
"No you may not."
And Abigail said,
"But I MUST have that pony."
And her parents said,
"Well, you can have a nice butter pecan
Ice cream cone when we get home."
And Abigail said,
"I don't want a butter pecan
Ice cream cone,
I WANT THAT PONY--
I MUST HAVE THAT PONY."
And her parents said,
"Be quiet and stop nagging--
You're not getting that pony."
And Abigail began to cry and said,
"If I don't get that pony I'll die."
And her parents said, "You won't die.
No child ever died yet from not getting a pony."
And Abigail felt so bad
That when she got home she went to bed,
And she couldn't eat,
And she couldn't sleep,
And her heart was broken,
And she DID die--
All because of a pony
That her parents wouldn't buy.
(This is a good story
To read to your folks
When they won't buy
You something you want.)
- Shel Silverstein - A Light In the Attic
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
I really think I need to get my OCD/ADD looked at. As I get older, I can’t imagine that it gets any easier. In fact, I would place my bets on it becoming all the more difficult to control. I mean, who wants to be an eighty-five year old woman who pisses herself over and over and over again, that forgets to clean up because Bootsie the cat came to visit? The thought of going toe to toe with my physical AND mental faculties at the ripe old age of decrepit is not at all appealing. Or would it be amusing to be this cantankerous old witch of a woman that spits on the orderlies and shouts profanities like, “Fuck my pussy you ass fucking faggot”? I could scratch at the nurse’s eyes and throw my applesauce at the Doctors and hit the other residence with my walking cane on the way to the Activities Hall to watch Cocoon , starring Steve Gutenberg. I presume that both scenarios have their pros and cons, as I am not one who enjoys lazing around in my incontinence however, being fully aware of my dying body does not sound all that appealing either.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Why is it inordinately impossible for human beings to take responsibility when they error on the wrong side of anything? Is it becoming part of our genetic makeup to knee jerk react into a fists up, head down stance at the slightest indication of a contrary opinion, observation and/or remark? Have we become a race of arrogant, self-important people, hell bent on always being right? Are we that pompous or are we just a product of our own insecurities? Whatever the reasoning, it makes me tired.
AND, it’s usually over the most inane shit. FEH!
AND, it’s usually over the most inane shit. FEH!
Monday, February 09, 2004
I wish I had something interesting to say but I fear that I am terribly boring at this point and time. Perhaps this wasn't a good time to start a new journal.
My job is slowly and painfully snuffing out any flame of creativity that I have so I have been dreaming up ways to rectify the situation. I have been toying with the notion of becoming active in the photographic community but I will publicly admit that it frightens me. I have a million and one reasons why I shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't (of course NONE of them even remotely valid) and only one reason why I must. I need a mentor. One that is here. One that I can taunt with the most inane questions. One that will answer with complete understanding. I know I am talented but I am lost. I haven't even the foggiest of where or how to begin and for a control freak like me it is maddening.
My job is slowly and painfully snuffing out any flame of creativity that I have so I have been dreaming up ways to rectify the situation. I have been toying with the notion of becoming active in the photographic community but I will publicly admit that it frightens me. I have a million and one reasons why I shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't (of course NONE of them even remotely valid) and only one reason why I must. I need a mentor. One that is here. One that I can taunt with the most inane questions. One that will answer with complete understanding. I know I am talented but I am lost. I haven't even the foggiest of where or how to begin and for a control freak like me it is maddening.
Friday, February 06, 2004
I am laughing at myself for being here but perhaps this forum will be a little more “adult” than its counterpart that caters to the thirteen year old, misguided youth of our age. I think that over time even the adults that frequent that other place, through osmosis, digress in maturity. It was getting a little too ridiculous for me and my writing was suffering. Although writing in a public forum such as this, you expect some sort of audience but the process became about everyone else but ME and I am not one who cares to be censured. I barely have time to sit and write, so the times when my attention is centered enough for me to form complete thoughts I don’t want to spend time wondering who I will alienate.
In closing, I have no time to care about your expectations and have none of my own.
In closing, I have no time to care about your expectations and have none of my own.
I'm finding my passion.
Again.
Perhaps I will find my voice as well.
Again.
Perhaps I will find my voice as well.
