From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady! (Was: Clinton's VP list gets shorter
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 18:08:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul31.082250.16947@ennews.eas.asu.edu> paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Paul) writes:
>   Anyone watch the coverage of Frank Zappa ripping Tipper Gore and her
>tea party commision on the whole record thing several years back?
>I have to say it was refreshing to hear someone actually say what so 
>many people were thinking.
>
	Quite a number of rock figures have come out in _favor_ of her
proposals as well - or haven't you noticed the ones who don't support your
position?

>
>   What the hell is the problem with people?  You want to limit children's
>access?  Why don't parents look after their own kids and take some time
>to set rules for them?  There's this screwed up mentality that "we" know
>what's better for you and yours than you do, so just let us take care 
>of you.  Throw on another screwed up concept that every single special
>interest group seems to have this idea that all the problems of society
>stem from the fact that we just haven't quite passed the right law yet.

	Why do you assume I (or anyone else) want to limit other people's
rights simply because we want to be informed as to content on record albums?

	Are you so afraid that if recording artists know their lyrics will
be seen by parents that their music will change? Or do you believe that no
one has the right to limit access to ANYTHING by children (which, by
necessity, would include alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc.)? 

	You (and others) keep insisting that labeling/printing lyrics is
tantamount to censorship. What tripe! If the lyrics on an album are so
obscene that they would subject the record seller to prosecution for
obscenity then either the obscenity statutes need to be changed or the
record very definately is _not_ suitable for young children!
	NO ONE has suggested governmental intervention except for those who
oppose Gore's position. The concept is _voluntary_ labeling.  VOLUNTARY, not
legislated!

	As far as influencing others goes - if the alternative is to allow
children to be exposed to materials that increase the likelihood that they
will harm others (i.e., music which encourages violence toward women, etc.),
then perhaps the parents of those children SHOULD be influenced to look at
what is happening. Don't claim that music doesn't influence people's
behavior - not only is that nonsense, but the example of the sixties protest
movement proves it (as do any number of psychology studies). 

	Censorship is abhorrant! Providing the necessary materials to allow
the consumer to make an informed choice is a VERY reasonable act.

	You question the motivation of those who find labeling/lyric
printing reasonable. I SERIOUSLY question the motives of those who oppose it
out of hand!


>So much of the country wants the easy way out, and our leaders are 
>constantly helping by introducing rules and such which seem to start on
>the basis that we're all blithering idiots.  You can't shape morality
>by legislative action very easily, and in fact establishments like the
>welfare system and many other entitlement programs are having a very 
>adverse effect on it.
>
	NONE of which has anything to do with the subject of the debate. 

>   What this country really needs is another legislative body which 
>can toss laws out on a 1/3 majority or something simliar.  Give the 
>president back the line item veto, and let's at least try to get
>someone in government with some semblance of answerability to the people.
>
	1/3 is not a majority it is a minority! And a line-item-veto can
only serve to let one individual (the president) dictate policy to the
entire congess!

>
>p.s.  In retrospect I suppose there are some unintentional twinges of 
>    libertarian ideas in here, but the republicans seem to be floundering
>    without direction, and it was sick watching the democrats'
>    presentation of "unity" by trying to hide half the party in the
>    wings at New York (ack, it's bad enough watching Teddy "what this 
>    country needs isn't less government, but more government" Kennedy,
>    and having Maxine Waters speak during the nominations, but thank God
>    they locked up Tom Foley (sp?) and the other pork barrel cronies).

	It isn't libertarian at all. A libertarian would be VERY comfortable
with labeling/lyric printing - since neither represents any form of social
control and both provide benefit for the consumer. Otoh, s/he would oppose
the creation of another legislative body as you suggest.

	Republicans seem to be floundering without direction because they
have reached the point that they cannot convince the public that helping the
rich get richer is a benefit to our failing economy!


-- 
    Rick Adams | KE8HH    /|\        You are right from your side,         
      adamsr@ais.org    /  |  \        And I am right from mine.           
     adamsr@netcom.com  \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,    
    rick.adams on GEnie   \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections