Personal Responsibility
I am greatly alarmed by the programming on some of the so-called basic cable networks.
A new special report by the Parents Television Council shows just how licentious and depraved some of the programming on basic cable is. I urge you to read the report, which can be found at www.ParentsTV.org. The PTC's report shows that basic cable is rife with some of the most obscene themes and content imaginable, including pornography, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, threesomes, statutory rape, incest and bestiality. Why should I be forced to bring this sewage into my home in order to watch the Food Network or the Disney channel? Why should parents have to subsidize channels that undermine their core values and beliefs?
I ask you to consider families like mine when you decide on cable choice. By offering me the ability to choose the channels I want, and to pay only for those channels, you put power back in the hands of the consumer and force the producers of indecent or violent programming to fund their own raunch. These raunchy cable networks have been carried on the backs of American consumers long enough. It is time for this extortion to end, and you have the power to stop it.
Ok, lady, if you don't like it then cancel your Comcast subscription. You shouldn't expect Comcast to do something about this because not everyone has the same views as you do, even in the Bible Belt. Whether you like it or not there are people who don't mind that programming; they're paying customers as well so they have just as much right to watch that programming as you have to not watch it.
And that's something else: If you don't like it, don't watch it! You can have the channels blocked from your home Take some responsibility and take action for your own home, don't expect Comcast to simply ban the channels just because YOU don't like them. It's not going to happen. What makes you think your Constitutional rights to free speech are more important than anyone elses? I bet you also think you're not a sinner.
And allow me to point out the fact that the Parents Television Council is an extremeist group that needs to be stopped. J. Brent Bozzil (however you spell his name, honestly I don't care because he isn't worthy of my respect) basically feels that every televisional channel should be banned except for the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Basically he feels that all secular television is sinful and we'll all go to Hell for watching it. This is a man who has resorted to violence to get his views across. Violence: The main thing he rails against on television, yet he doesn't mind resorting to it himself.
Hypocrite much?
How about this one, found as a link on Fark:
NEW YORK - A woman who was sued by American Express over an alleged scam where she posed as a Saudi princess to steal thousands has countersued the company, saying she was mentally incompetent when she opened her account and the company should have known it.
The countersuit was filed by Antoinette Millard, 40, free on $100,000 bail and awaiting trial on attempted grand larceny charges for alleged scams carried out while she posed as a Saudi Arabian princess and a Victoria's Secret model. She was neither.
Millard, a former vice president at the Brown Brothers Harriman investment bank, countersued for $2 million in Manhattan's State Supreme Court after Amex obtained a court order of attachment freezing more than $951,000 of her assets for unpaid charges.
Millard's court papers say that to "induce" her to establish a Centurion account, the account through which Amex customers get the rare and envied Centurion "black" card, the company promised she could make flexible payments.
The court papers say the promise was "false and fraudulent" and "in truth and in fact (American Express) did not allow (Millard) to make flexible payments" on the account.
Millard, her lawsuit says, "was suffering from anorexia, depression, panic attacks, head tumors and by reason of such illnesses was mentally incompetent and unable of executing or making any agreement as alleged" in Amex's complaint.
American Express "knew or should have known that (Millard) was acting impulsively and and irrationally at the time she entered into contract," her court papers say.
The larceny charges against Millard stem from her allegedly trying to steal $262,000 from an insurance company by falsely reporting that her jewelry had been stolen, the Manhattan district attorney's office said.
Prosecutors alleged that Millard, arrested in May at her Manhattan home, had in fact sold the jewelry and then tried to collect insurance on it. She is charged with insurance fraud, attempted grand larceny and possession of a forged instrument.
Millard faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on the insurance fraud charge, the top count.
Let me get this straight: She racked up a HUGE amount on a credit card and she's suing American Express because of it? Saying that they should have known she was mentally unstable? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was a credit card companys' responsibility to diagnose and track mental illness. To me it sounds like a clear-cut case of someone trying to get out of their debts by copping out.Are you getting the impression that I very much dislike stupid people?
Come on, people, take some responsibility for yourselves. If you don't want your kids to watch "offensive" cable channels, have them blocked from your home or, better yet, monitor what your kids watch. Don't rail to have the programming banned just to suit your tastes. If you know you can't afford a high limit credit card, don't get one and then sue the company after you've ran up a very high bill claiming mental illness. Don't expect the government or a company to "protect" you, take care of yourself. It's because of bullshit like that mentioned above that trial lawyers are having such a hayday and why our legal system is so screwed up.
--Jonathan

