Dunno, @Stormsinger is suggesting it isn't a real thing, just some indignation over a perhaps mole hill event. TYT does do that kind of thing like all of us do, so it wouldn't be to shocking.

Personally, though, I would think homosexuality is a large enough "anomaly" to at least be worthy of mention to the person that is getting the sample. I don't know a thing at all about the sperm donation process, I assume some kind of profile is already given to people who accept the sperm, and homosexuality seems like a genuine attribute a person should know about before you accept it. To that end (anecdotal), I heard of a blind, lesbian couple that wanted to find a blind male sperm donor to inseminate one of them to increase to likelihood of a blind child. That is all just to say choice is always a good thing to have, and edifying choices require information and freedom to act. If the FDA was mandating sperm banks to provide a profile that includes homosexuality as a listed trait of the donor (which is what I thought this video was going to be about), that is one thing, but wholesale misunderstanding of the risks of spreading HIV as it was mistakenly understood as Gay-related immune deficiency seems so folly that I almost can't believe it is true. However, being that I produce sperm well enough on my own; my own desire to google if this was a story worthy of actual merit escapes my attention span.

>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?
So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.


It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?

So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'april 28 2009, craig ferguson, supreme court, censorship' to 'april 28 2009, craig ferguson, supreme court, censorship, FCC' - edited by RhesusMonk

>> ^KnivesOut:

A video with cats in it. I'm surprised they don't enter the queue with 9 votes.

DIS AR TEH TEST OV TEH EMERGENCY BROADCATS SISTEM. TEH BROADCASTERS ON UR WEBSIET WIF TEH COOPERASHUN OV TEH FCC R CONDUCTIN DIS TEST 2 INFORM U DAT THAR R LOTZ DA PLACEZ 2 GO IN DA EVENT OV LACK OV KAT VIDEOS. VIDEOSIFT.COM CUD NOT BE NOT WAN OV THEM.

Remember Niet Vergeten
记得 Memoras
Recordar помнить
Merken Sonje
θυμάμαι Zapamätať si
Lembrar Minte
تذكر Memento

-DIS AR TEH ONLY TEST-

We now return you to your segularly pscheduled rogramming

@ChaosEngine @NetRunner I think you are abusing the first amendment here. The first amendment says nothing about how independent businesses should conduct themselves, but how the government should conduct itself. Unless you are saying that businesses also must provide for " the right to trial by jury", which is of course just silly

Self censorship is a right, unless you are going to say that people selling ad space on TV must accept some kind of objectionable material. So, if one of the largest FREE video upload sites knocks off your video, to bad, so sad...and you might have a case that they violated the agreed upon terms of serves and have some sort of appeal...but in the end...you don't have a RIGHT to store video information on a server that you don't own...period. Now, to relent to your point, I think it is a shitty to boost that you are a open forum and start editing content away...but lets not overlook that youtube ALREADY censors all adult (pornographic) material. Youtube might start to shift away to a public forum of video information to more of galactic TV service...and they should be allowed to do so.

So the REAL question is will you still use them if this is the business model they adapt. Not that we get to force them (by law) into what we want youtube to be, the choice will be much more indirect. Anyway, I truly think you are abusing the words "free market" and "free speech" to advance a demagogically end. Youtube has ALWAYS filtered content, is fully in its rights to do so. And to carry your logic to its end...they should be forced to store pornographic information in the name of the first amendment, (which was never its intent) to wit @gwiz665 just gave 2 thumbs up. Then again, the FCC should also then be shut down for censorship of free speech by the same token, as the actively participate in the largest censorship regime, perhaps, in the world. Which would also be the same body responsible for not censoring the internet...fail.

Political capital is much harder to gain for smaller issues. Law maintenance is a much harder order than terms of service. You can quit youtube anytime you want, you can't quit the FCC, or alcohol prohibition. If you are looking for easy, I suggest a different planet. The only things you get in this life are the things you fight to preserve, no amount of laws or terms of service will keep you safe over time, only vigilance.

Large corporate powers and political capital work by the same basic rules, I am just against a monopoly on the control of that power...I don't think it gets us what we all want. Really, we are arguing about crumbs under the table. All the videos gone from youtube still exist somewhere else. If Google starts acting evil on a wide scale, people can abandon it for some other site (I can name 6 off the top of my head). I would argue the out cropping of lots of different video sites is a safer way to prevent censorship than the FCC, which has a legendary record of censorship in the US...in fact, they are the face of censorship for most everyday Americans.

Once again, I am not proposing perfection, just a good imperfection that has its own very troubling problems. We all choose what failures we are willing to deal with, and for me, the trouble of dealing with a corporate body which I can choose not to partake in is a more agreeable situation (do you have a life after google solution, I do, I have a life after windows as well). I do concede a great threat by those who own nearly everything, undermining that ability to have options, lucky for us, with the internet we don't have to worry about that as much (the internet becomes unfathomable larger everyday).

TL;DR It isn't the ends I am against, it is the means.


</rant>
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....

One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.

Right, because raising a popular movement against billion-dollar corporations any time they engage in censorship is much simpler than just maintaining a law on the books that says "communications companies can't limit people's free speech" and enforcing it...

how strange is that? they talk about penises and sex, yet the beep over "dick". I'll never understand the FCC and their regulations. Also what's with the warning? They didn't even showed the thing :-)

It's really not envy. It's people tired of having a small portion of people suck up more and more wealth each year while they themselves can't even get a cost of living raise yearly.

It's been shown time and time again, on the whole the majority of people make less now than they did 20 years ago because they haven't gotten cost of living increases.

They marginalize your job by whatever means they can, and glorify for their positions so much so that not only does their salary not compensate them for DOING THEIR JOB but they also need yearly bonuses that exceed your 10 year income.

And then when times are tough, they continue to take those bonuses and salaries and cut out the jobs that haven't gotten a wage increase in years maybe even decades. Certainly not enough to keep up with inflation 99/100 times.

It's a silly way to operate, but they are backed by both politicians and the major money holders in the nation to enforce this weird dichotomy we have. Where even though they will tell you your job is worthless to the company...it never completely disappears...they just move it as close to poverty as they can and still get someone "satisfactory" in the position. Then move onto the next position and repeat it. After they've made their rounds, then they have to offshore as much as possible to continue the downward spiral that allows them to bring in higher and higher profits and pay out increasing bonuses.

And soon you'll see they have to outsource and offshore to other countries (from the ones they are in now) because people eventually figure out that it's fucking nuts to let these guys put a stranglehold on them like they are. Slowly tightening and tightening until it becomes more sustainable to not work versus the cost of clothing, commute, extended hours, health detriment, etc.

If they didn't have everything locked up for 50-100 years via patents and monopolistic deals, we could have small businesses spring up in our country to compete that might actually force them to pay competitive wages if they want to keep customers by providing quality service and quick repairs. But they continue to run "satisfactory"...and satisfactory standards get lowered each year. People get paid less, less people work there.....they pull in more money per employee by providing less service. And never grow or maintain their operations to stay modern (look specifically at cell phones and ISPs for this), but charge increasingly more each year for less service.

How can you envy that kind of behavior? The money they gain is coming from directly fucking over their employees and customers. The "more successful" ones are just better (more ruthless) at fucking people over.

Neither party wants this kind of behavior to end, that's why none of them actually bring all this bullshit to the forefront and call out specific businesses (especially the TOO BIG outfits) for their behavior. FCC blocking AT&T + T-Mobile merger is what they exist to do, and they are getting slapped on the back for doing it after months and months of information gathering on it, when the layperson on the street could tell you one less provider equals more being fucked as a consumer like they aren't getting fucked enough as is.

I wish they would start revoking the charters of corporations for negligence and malfeasance. They are like parasites feeding on the population at this point, and not mutualists that are good for the human body and in turn the population. And they are parasitic in more than one way, services rendered with their rising costs, and workforce shrinkage with it's decreasing wages and total amount of jobs.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about with the idea of net neutrality turning into something crazy insidious. It was only a matter of time before "managed internet fairness for all" was...well "manged internet unfairness for all", I just didn't expect it to happen so rapidly, then again, I didn't think Obama would be murdering US citizens either. Things seem to be accelerating out of control; faster than you can name the rights your loosing. This is what Net Neutrality looks like over time, it looks like radio and TV...highly monitored and censored for your own good. Want to broadcast your own radio station, too bad, you need clearance from the FCC. Want to open your own website, to bad, you need clearance from the FCC. Want to host content that you didn't make yourself, to bad, you need clearance from the FCC. Government has ALREADY had this role in radio and TV for decades, it would be foolish to think they won't eventually do the same here. Being that we just singed the NDAA, pretty sure SOPA or something like it will pass during this administration. Rant over! Thanks for the links @kceaton1, here's hoping this doesn't pass during some other holiday we are all drunk for..like the NDAA did.

Good talk NR. I'm not convinced.... there are cabinet appointments, etc. he's made that make me not trust him, but I am listening. Ob's speech a couple days ago has me wondering you've got a direct line to him or something.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Truckchase:

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.

Oy, Buddy Roemer? The problem with Buddy Roemer is that he seems to think his becoming President is the only/main way to fix the problem with money in politics. Never mind that the biggest problem with campaign finance law is that a) Republicans always oppose it and b) the Supreme Court has deemed real campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The answer to that is a Constitutional Amendment, not giving Buddy Roemer the potential ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, especially since he'd only get to replace liberals in a 2013-2017 term, not roadblocks like Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts.

I personally don't think silent support is good enough. I'm gonna be out campaigning for Obama nice and loud. I'm especially going to be pushing back against what I see as crazy misinformation, like the story Cenk is pushing here.

Once you strip away the misinformation, the only legitimate liberal complaints I've heard about Obama boil down to "he didn't do enough to make things better" as opposed to "he made something worse". People seem to have rather quickly forgotten the width and breadth of the damage done by Bush and a Republican congress.

Most people just remember the wars, the Patriot Act, and the tax cuts. Fewer people remember the US Attorneys scandal, fewer people remember the way he gutted the SEC, put the EPA on hold, sabotaged the FEC, tried to gut the FCC, turned the NLRB into a union-busting department, and so on. It was a nonstop deluge of sabotage, fraud, and abuse that just went on and on relentlessly for eight fucking years.

It grates me that it's only partially and often only temporarily being undone by Obama, but now those low-publicity nitty-gritty detail stories are almost universally good ones.

The choice isn't really one of a "lesser of two evils" it's a choice between empowering an enemy who's sworn to destroy everything you hold dear, or empowering a friend who's let you down. I see this as a choice between feckless and imperfect good, or pure, ruthless evil.

>> ^Truckchase:

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.

Oy, Buddy Roemer? The problem with Buddy Roemer is that he seems to think his becoming President is the only/main way to fix the problem with money in politics. Never mind that the biggest problem with campaign finance law is that a) Republicans always oppose it and b) the Supreme Court has deemed real campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The answer to that is a Constitutional Amendment, not giving Buddy Roemer the potential ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, especially since he'd only get to replace liberals in a 2013-2017 term, not roadblocks like Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts.

I personally don't think silent support is good enough. I'm gonna be out campaigning for Obama nice and loud. I'm especially going to be pushing back against what I see as crazy misinformation, like the story Cenk is pushing here.

Once you strip away the misinformation, the only legitimate liberal complaints I've heard about Obama boil down to "he didn't do enough to make things better" as opposed to "he made something worse". People seem to have rather quickly forgotten the width and breadth of the damage done by Bush and a Republican congress.

Most people just remember the wars, the Patriot Act, and the tax cuts. Fewer people remember the US Attorneys scandal, fewer people remember the way he gutted the SEC, put the EPA on hold, sabotaged the FEC, tried to gut the FCC, turned the NLRB into a union-busting department, and so on. It was a nonstop deluge of sabotage, fraud, and abuse that just went on and on relentlessly for eight fucking years.

It grates me that it's only partially and often only temporarily being undone by Obama, but now those low-publicity nitty-gritty detail stories are almost universally good ones.

The choice isn't really one of a "lesser of two evils" it's a choice between empowering an enemy who's sworn to destroy everything you hold dear, or empowering a friend who's let you down. I see this as a choice between feckless and imperfect good, or pure, ruthless evil.

The Mario Brothers movie used KL5, which is 555. Simpsons did the same.

They do this because the 555 section of numbers is reserved specifically for this purpose by the FCC or whatever. No real numbers exist with a 555 prefix.

Congress, FCC, and Lobby groups across the nation were up in arms and shocked at Janet Jackson's nipple slip. Fines were levied, apologies made, new FCC rules put into motion.. Howard Stern and many "shock jock" dj's had more fines due to new rules after the Janet Jackson nip slip, I remember stern talking about for weeks cause of that nip slip he's got hundred thousand dollar fines.

Now where's the controversy? I swear it proves they only used the jackson slip as excuse for bigger government and more laws and fines attacking free speech in the media and now that those laws are in place them not reacting to this shows their hypocrisy

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

There is, in my mind, a bigger issue at hand than the tissue at hand (Sorry, Elmo in Grouchland ref...)
And that is the movement of society. Paul isn't, as I have note before, a means to an end. He is the first step in a million mile march.

Yes, and to me that march is a million miles in the wrong direction.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
The only two things he can get done in office is 1--Change the direction of our nation's military might (Which is far more important than say Unions from a financial perspective.) 2--Stop federal enforcement of the drug war.

He could also sabotage the EPA, HHS (and healthcare reform!), dismantle the SEC, FEC, FCC, Department of Education, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, while he goes indiscriminately axing through every alphabet soup agency on his way to the FRB, he'll stop off at the DEA, probably right after the ATF and FBI, mind, but that's not an enticement for me to support him.

But for me the big deal with the Presidency is the bully pulpit. The most common complaint us liberals have about Obama is that that guy who gave beautiful, moving speeches in favor of our philosophy just completely vanished when he got sworn in as President.

Paul's whole point in running is to get more time in front of a camera to give voice to what he believes in. I doubt he'd hesitate to use the bully pulpit to the fullest. And keep in mind, much of what he believes in is complete anathema to me.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
To say you don't trust him on certain things is odd. What would it take to earn your trust?

He'd have to stop lying! In 2008 I might have wanted him to become the Republican nominee, but 3 years of being subscribed to the Campaign for Liberty mailing list has completely disabused me of that.

I definitely don't want to help that man become President.

Oh, and not to tweak you off too much, but I agree with every word this guy said.