Sunday, March 27, 2011

Would "Just leave us the fuck alone, you busybodies" be too much to ask?

Labour deservedly cop a lot of flak for their determination that we must all be made to behave in the ways liberal hand-wringers think are appropriate, but it's often overlooked that National have the same tendencies, with the liberal handwringers swapped out for stodgy, church-going stuffed shirts.

Fine examples of both types in the SST this morning. The Labour examples are hangovers from their last time in power:

Case 1. "The menace of the humble pie." Not online, but is basically a duplicate of this article from back in February (activist journalism, much?). It's essentially a beat-up about how removing restrictions on what school tuck shops can sell means children are (gasp!) eating pies for lunch. Apparently, they should be eating sandwiches, muffins, chips, fruit and muesli bars instead - ie, carbs, carbs, carbs, carbs and carbs. For fuck's sake, at least the pie has a bit of protein in it. What we could really do with is a regulation banning food activist nutcases from inflicting their mental problems on the nation's children.

Case 2. "Jurors stand by their disputed cruelty verdict." Again not online, but again basically a duplicate of last week's misnamed Smacking acquittal outrage. In this case, a hand-wringer declares "there were no circumstances under which washing a child's mouth out with soap as a punishment was acceptable." No shit, Sherlock? It's also the case that giving other drivers the fingers when they annoy you isn't acceptable behaviour, the question is whether a particular "unacceptable behaviour" warrants you being arrested, run through the court system and given a criminal record and quite possibly a jail term, with the added bonus of an onging CYF nightmare for good measure. The jurors, as was the intention of jury trials, have displayed some good sense in this case and reached the correct decision.


Then there's National's contribution. The National Party seems to hold a lot of attraction for conservative stuffed shirts who'd like to see conservative stuffed-shirtdom enforced by law - witness most of their MPs. Said stuffed shirts have taken the opportunity to appoint like-minded individuals to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, with predictably stupid results:

Case 3: "TV fights to show sex scenes."

The Hung incident involved an episode where a woman's genital area was shown before she put her legs over a man's shoulders.

New Plymouth's Beth West complained, concluding: "I like to watch things that promote mankind's dignity rather than depravity." The authority upheld the complaint.


Where to start? For one thing, if Beth thinks oral sex constitutes "depravity" and that sex is about maintaining your dignity, one can only feel deep pity for her husband. For another, if Beth doesn't like to watch this kind of thing, maybe she shouldn't be up late at night tuning in to a programme about a male prostitute? You think? I mean, how unforeseeable is it for a conservative stuffed shirt to figure out that a programme like that is going to involve sex? National's appointees on the BSA, however, are obviously Beth's soulmates and feel that her personal assessment of what she'd like to watch must be treated as some kind of holy writ by the TV companies. Thanks, National - you're doing great.

20 comments:

Redbaiter said...

Yeah that's right Milt, you're all for "change the channel" if you don't like it. Fair enough too.

Unless of course it something that is perceived as "reflecting badly" on queers or left wingers or blacks or multi-culturalism or in some way biased to the right. Then you want to shut it down.

As leftists are trying to do in the US with Rush Limbaugh and FOX news and here in NZ where they enforce such a rigid cultural conformity the only commentators permitted on radio or television are lame meek apologists for the socialist racist political condition that you have foisted upon NZ.

National are bad but only because you and your ilk have made them that way through your enforcement of a totalitarian political and social cultural. They're not Conservatives. Most of them don't even know what the word means, as is evident from the unbalanced ramblings of your associate National party blogger here.

If they were Conservatives, things would be so much different. TV One would be privately owned for a start. The smacking law wouldn't exist. The government wouldn't be regulating school tuck shops. These are all fascist concepts that are the antithesis of Conservatism.

Not that you would appreciate that Milt. Your understanding of the ideolgy is three times as crippled as anyone in National.

Rex Widerstrom said...

While some Acts are repealed and consolidated, an interesting statistic would be the sheer weight of words contained in statues and regulations under which NZ now staggers, compared to, say, the 1950s (an era in which Beth would clearly be happier living).

I'd bet fair sum that it's at least double, if not exponentially more.

Yet as you rightly point out, neither side of politics ever talks of reducing the strictures applied to us... each just argues the case that their new, additional prohibitions are superior to the prohibitions being proposed by the other lot.

Oh for a truly liberal party in NZ, rather than one that made a mockery of the term to such an extent that I note that - since Garrett at least - even Act don't have the chutzpah to lay claim to the mantle.

ZenTiger said...

I think the expectation you no longer have to download soft porn, or rent it from the back room of the DVD shop, because you can watch it on TV is the thing that got Beth going. I don't think you can conclude Beth thinks oral sex constitutes depravity, just showing it on TV. There is a difference.

What got me going, was Home and Away showing simulated sex scenes when they are supposed to abide by a G ranking to preserve the time slot that comes at the tail end of the kids time slot. Again, I'm not saying sex on the kitchen table is depraved. Showing it to kids is not "age appropriate". The bastards should lose their G rating and lose their valued time slot.

On the bright side, being buggered by the BSA has to be good for ratings.

Redbaiter said...

National are not Conservatives. If they were, education would be private. Tuck shops would be free to sell what they wanted in any commercial agreement they were able to get approved with the school. If National were Conservative, they would have thrown the anti-smacking law out long ago. They haven't done so because they're Progressives, not Conservatives. If National were Conservative TV One would be privately owned. The BSA would not exist.

The fact that Progressives have enforced a totalitarian social and political culture means that there are very few Conservatives in NZ. Not quite suffering the same fate as the Moa suffered at the hands of our original eco-conscious tangata whenua, but hunted down and marginalised in much the same way. The National Party are just more of the same leftist excrement that has ruined this country and that you Milt have supported for as long as I have read this blog. They wouldn't have a clue about Conservatism, as is demonstrated by the incoherent rambling of your National Party colleague on No Minister.

Whenever Conservatives complain about what is on government owned television we are told we should just change the channel. Fair enough, except that its always only a one way game.

The left threw Paul Henry off state owned television for alleged racist remarks. Paul Holmes was lucky to keep his job at NewstalkZB for the same perceived transgression. People are up on charges all over the globe for saying things considered anti-homosexual, anti-multi-cultural, anti-Muslim. Leftists are campaigning to shut down Glenn Beck and FOX news and Rush Limbaugh. Change the channel doesn't apply when its some sacred cow of Progressivism or the leftist totalitarian social construct that is being criticised.

(PS: This is also the second time I've posted this as it mysteriously disappeared the first time. Happens frequently actually. Sounds like some "stuffed shirt" on your board is as bad as anyone at the BSA Milt. I suspect that National Party loser from up Nth.)

Psycho Milt said...

Nah, it seems to be some kind of bug with Blogger. I've had it happen recently to my comments here, at the Hand Mirror and at NZ Conservative - the common denominator seems to be the Blogger comments interface.

dad4justice said...

Once again redbaiter nails it.Would a REAL CONSERVATIVE please stand up...please stand up....

Anonymous said...

Once again redbaiter nails it.Would a REAL CONSERVATIVE please stand up...please stand up....

What sort of REAL CONSERVATIVE would end his comment with a wigger rapper rhyme.

Surely skrewdriver would have been a better fit d4j?

dad4justice said...

Go away big blouse you coward.
No demerit system here nark.

Anonymous said...

"there are very few Conservatives in NZ"

Not true. There are very few in govt. Don't get the difference confused because to do so will lead you to expecting we have govts that do what is sensible.

I don't know anything about Beth but I'm a church goer and not stodgy. There's always DVD's or pay to view if you want spice and maybe that's how it should be.

Anonymous said...

Milt, life must be harrowing having to deal with the constant stress of food Nazis, kids needing a whack and you can't give it. And to cap it off the oppression foisted on us by people who object to a male prostitute being shown lunching at the Y.

Some therapy would be to eat a few pies, wait for the kids to get right out of hand and let the cops take over, and don't read the Sunday Star Times.

Stress levels should drop.

George

Anonymous said...

"And to cap it off the oppression foisted on us by people who object to a male prostitute being shown lunching at the Y."

You can always try not watching it, but you would find it harrowing just knowing that it's on and other people might be eh George? No busy-body you.

You guys are weird. Go ahead and assault children, but don't you dare show "smut" on the tele! Nice.

Judge Holden

James said...

Scatch a conservative and you find a socialist inside...no real difference.Control freaks all.

WAKE UP said...

Amazing, the number of people who are too stupid to find the OFF button.

Anonymous said...

I simplified it. I haven't had an ON button for the last decade. I grew weary of subjecting myself to braindead progressive rubbish and inane advertisers.

George

Keith J said...

Rex said: "Oh for a truly liberal party in NZ"

Yeah. I just don't know who to vote for any more. Used to vote ACT. Seriously considering Green, because the liberal/authoritarian axis is much more important to me that the left/right axis. The terms "conservative" and "socialist" just represent different rights that people want to take away from me.

Psycho Milt said...

...neither side of politics ever talks of reducing the strictures applied to us... each just argues the case that their new, additional prohibitions are superior to the prohibitions being proposed by the other lot.

The default position seems to be that failure to enforce an existing law can be overcome by piling new laws on top of it - with fairly obvious results.

I don't think you can conclude Beth thinks oral sex constitutes depravity, just showing it on TV.

Not the impression I got, but even giving her the benefit of the doubt, my recommendation would be to avoid watching late-night programmes about hookers, rather than trying to inflict her preference on the rest of the viewers.

I just don't know who to vote for any more. Used to vote ACT. Seriously considering Green, because the liberal/authoritarian axis is much more important to me that the left/right axis.

Voted Green before now and may have to again. Their opposition to almost any kind of economic activity or scientific endeavour makes it a nose-holding exercise though.

Heine said...

It's true. People are pretty folish if they cannot turn off the TV or the christian fundy folk should ban their kids from TV in case their minds are broadened ;)

James...yep. And you only need to scratch very lightly. Moral Statists is what I call them!

ZenTiger said...

Amazing, the number of people who are too stupid to find the OFF button.

To take this to the extreme, why not show scenes of graphic sadomastic violence, rape scenes, and the like, randomly during kids (we are talking age 3 to 10) programs.

Sure the parent could stay in the room and be ready to turn off the TV if they think these kinds of images are not appropriate for children, flicking it on and off quickly to see when the kids programs would resume, but why should they have to?

Because a couple of liberals think showing what goes on inside people's bedrooms have to be broadcast to even children, so they can "broaden their minds"?

You guys are not liberal, you are anarchists. You don't actually understand the concept of "civil" life.

Psycho Milt said...

Maybe, but I'm sticking with the view that someone who hates the idea of sex on TV probably shouldn't sit down to watch a late-night programme about a male hooker. Likewise, if I sit down to watch Benny Hinn and then complain to the BSA that the TV company tried to inflict religious propaganda on me, the BSA would be entitled to consider the complaint either vexatious or laid by an idiot.

ZenTiger said...

Sorry Milt, not meaning to include the people in the 10pm debate, more the folks that think 5 year olds should be potentially exposed to anything currently on TV because it "broadens their minds"...and the resulting illogic that even G rated programs should contain adult content because, well, freedom is sooo important.