Bizarre Headline: “Super Bowl F-bomb could put FCC in a bind”

February 4, 2013
Fear the 'F-Bomb'.

Fear the Bomb.

This bizarre headline comes to us from Yahoo! News:

Super Bowl F-Bomb could put FCC in a bind

Let’s take a moment to clarify exactly what’s binding who. Just a little reminder to anyone out there who may have lost all touch with reality: The ‘F-Bomb’ can not bind anything. The ‘F-Bomb’ is a sound that comes out of a person’s mouth. Sounds can not bind things. You hear them, and then they kind of go away. Sounds don’t bind things. People bind things.

So if the ‘F-Bomb’ isn’t binding the FCC, then what is? Why, the officers and agents of the executive branch of government, including those of the FCC itself, are binding the FCC. They are following Supreme Court¬†precedent, and they are doing it at the behest of the members and officers of the Parent’s Television Council, who believe they are entitled to expletive-free television, and who insist that the FCC enforce this alleged entitlement. They are putting the FCC in a bind. The ‘F-Bomb’ is gone. The man who uttered it, not to mention everyone else in the entire world, had already moved on with their lives not three seconds after the bomb had dissipated into the air around it. My revised headline would read more like this:

Parents Television Council complaints could put FCC in a bind,

or, because the FCC has a bit of discretion over which complaints it investigates, simply,

The FCC could put the FCC in a bind.

Make sense?

Besides the FCC and it’s largely self-imposed bind, who else could potentially be in a bind before this is said and done? Why, the Columbia Broadcasting System, aka CBS, over whose equipment the ‘F-Bomb’ was broadcast, could be in a bind. Who would bind the Columbia Broadcasting System? The FCC. How will the FCC bind the Columbia Broadcasting System? With threats of fines backed up by threats of license revocations backed up by threats of force. If that comes to pass, then I would expect to see the following headline:

FCC puts CBS in a bind.

Got it?

Links for December 27, 2010: Four Loko and Net-Neutrality

December 26, 2010
  • You can not really understand a moral panic like this in rational terms. … You can still mix Red Bull and vodka.

  • I’m not really a computer wizard, so I can’t speak about the the accuracy and completeness, but the last 17 seconds of the video explains why the net-neutrality movement has not yet won me over.

  • Read the rest of this entry »

    Links for July 19, 2010: To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate; What Police Can Do; much, much more….

    July 18, 2010

      Paul Krugman: Boost aggregate demand! Muahahaha!!!

    1. It’s good to hear Krugman speak and respond to questions. The thrust of this discussion is that the opposition to the stimulus is a visceral reaction, not an intelligent one. Although some guests early on questioned the empirical efficacy of the stimulus, we did really not hear from any Thomas E. Woodses or any Peter Schiffs who maintained, in quite an intellectual fashion, that the stimulus is simply bad economic policy. Krugman remarks toward the end that he doesn’t see stimulus jobs as “makework” jobs. I do not understand how this position can be honestly defended alongside the position that we now need government to “boost aggregate demand”, i.e. create demand where none existed before. What is the purpose of the stimulus if it is not to “make work”? If these were not “makework” jobs, we would do them anyway. We would not need an economic crisis as a pretense for passing $700 billion spending bills. For a response to the assertion that Roosevelt’s slashing of the deficits caused a recession in 1937, see this. For a response to the assertion that World War II spending lifted the U.S. economy out of the depression, listen here, starting at 32:17.¬† Read the rest of this entry »