I know this is not a MA politics issue but those who don’t care can skip it.
The Senate unanimously passed a bill late Wednesday to require television stations and cable companies to limit the volume of commercials and keep them at the level of the programs they interrupt.
The House has passed similar legislation. Before it can become law, minor differences between the two versions have to be worked out when Congress returns to Washington after the Nov. 2 election.
Praised be Allah, no more ear drum popping volume when the next Viagra ad comes on while watching Keith Olbermann and Rachel. Too bad they couldn’t have signed the bill today but I know Speaker Pelosi had to twist arms to get the House adjourned early so they could RUN AWAY from the Obama Tax Cut issue before the elections. What a bunch of babies!
I like to watch television in bed, but my wife doesn’t like to listen when she goes to sleep. NESN’s commercials volume have made it difficult to reconcile the Red Sox and my wife, particularly during those West Coast road trips.
<
p>Someday Democrats will learn that you can’t win a war (and politics is war by non-military means) without conviction and without standing up for what we believe in. Whether I’m alive to see, however, is an open question.
Both on the commercials and that the House should have stayed to vote on the tax issue.
On both counts. Looks like it’s unanimous.
Ok – What I meant to say was I want commercials at a higher volume so the evil capitalist can sell more widgets made in China at outrageous profit rates… (only kidding)
I figured that if people didn’t like the loud commercials, then they could take personal responsibility and watch something else, thereby depriving the television station of revenue, inducing them to change their behavior.
<
p>Instead, we get more government regulation stifling innovation, reducing profitability, and interrupting the free market.
<
p>What’s up with that?
but seriously… why is this different? Why is this worthy of government intervention when so much of the discourse from GOP, tea party-goers, and conservatives is that government should butt out, particularly from free market type situations?
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to the law (despite that I don’t watch television programs), but then again I don’t take a default position against government regulation.
and after that comes opposing regulation. But self interest always trumps any other principle. Except for social conservatives, of course.
but I for one have never been for the elimination of rules, regulations and or laws and standards in totality. I want regulations and standards such as the functional aspects of cable tv (digital standards…) and I have no problem with standards concerning pornography on the airwaves or the old “subliminal” advertising of inserting frames (of food…) into regular broadcasts… AND I support them being able to not raise the volume of my TV during a commercial.
<
p>Having said all that, I do not want the government telling me what to do, what to eat, what to smoke, what color to paint my house, mandating I buy health insurance…
<
p>I don’t see any inconsistency between these 2 views.
You don’t want the government to tell you what to do, but you have no problem with them telling someone else* what to do.
<
p>
<
p> * In this case, the owner/producer of a television program/station
This will prevent deafness AND heart attacks!
It’s ok to put your fingers in your ears during the commercial break. I seem to remember this being a law in the mid-50s, again in the late 60s, sometime in the 70s. I’ve lost interest since as I can only hear the joke so many times before I get bored. In between time we’re told the commercials aren’t louder. I think what we will see is the claim that the commercials aren’t louder and there will be no reason to lower the volume. Another useless law by Congress.
<
p>But as Congress flees DC to try to win over their
victimsconstituents, they can proudly point to the passing of this law as the alpha and omega of Congressional lawmaking. I doubt if the bills abandoned (including a budget) will get much press.<
p>This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. –Will Rogers
pepper any Congressman and/or Senator about the decision to leave DC with no vote on the pending tax increases for everyone. They will not get away with running this time.
<
p>PS Did Ed and the rest of the non-partisan Republican bashing America-together crowd in DC today talk about how Congress ran out of town to escape the vote on the Bush Tax Cuts (soon to be called the Obama tax increase)?
…but assuming you are refering to Ed Schultz then I can attest that he has countless times on MSNBC called for Congress to stay in town and address the expiring tax cuts.
which I guess refers to One Nation (without Republicans or Conservatives) speech which he gave can be read here. He did not mention anything in the speech about the sack-less Congress who went home with out voting.
<
p>I’ll have to believe you that he mentioned it on his show as I would rather listen to fingers on a chalkboard than listen to Ed talk about the “truth” on his show, good grief! PS looks liek I am not alone being a non-watcher of his show.
If I’m not mistaken, there is an underlying model here of how Congress works. It goes like this: There are maybe hundreds of bills but only a few of them are important. If everyone in Congress industriously puts in eighty hour work weeks, the important ones will pass. If they’re lazy and only work fifteen hour weeks, then the easy legislation passes but the hard work is shirked; the important bills languish.
<
p>By this view, the reason important bills don’t pass is shear laziness.
<
p>There are a number of things wrong with this view:
Nonetheless, the naive view might be widely held, it might even win elections. It’s sad for democracy, though, when misconception out-polls understanding.