Congress as parent-by-proxy. What could possibly go wrong with that? From the AP:
The Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday a correlation exists between bloodshed on television and violence in real life and that the government should take action on such programming.
Correlation, causation…you say tomato, the FCC says tomahto.
Interesting statistical tidbit: 100% of all habitual heroin abusers used one of two dangerous gateway drugs: “mother’s milk” or baby formula.
Correlation.
The agency released a long-awaited, congressionally ordered report that lays out ways the government can regulate violence on television –cable, satellite and broadcast.
The report contains suggestions for Congress, but it stops short of making specific recommendations.
The commission concluded that “exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote in a statement accompanying the report. “Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children’s exposure to violent programming in a constitutional way.”
Among those tools, Congress could require cable companies to sell their programming on a per-channel or family tier basis, rather than only in pre-bundled packages.
As for broadcast television, the report cites Supreme Court precedent to suggest the agency could regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity—by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching. Or it could create a family-viewing hour.
It also says that technology intended to help parents shield their children from objectionable programming, such as the V-chip, is inadequate.
And turning off the TV, based on what you believe your child is mature enough to handle? Way too complicated, as tools go.
I hinted at it above, but note that the report does not argue for any causation between watching “violent programming” (and who will get to describe what that entails, I wonder?) and violence—but that matters not.
Evidently, Congress has simply been waiting for the report in order to justify what it had previously decided needed to be done—namely, introduce regulation that presumes to “protect the children” against something that doesn’t rise above the nature of a “correlation.”
Nannystatism at its most opportunistic. And its most dangerous.
Between the potential move on the part of Congress to “regulate” TV violence under false pretenses, to the latest push by certain Congressional Democrats to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,” this chill on free expression, under the auspices of protecting us from ourselves, is far more worrisome than any NSA program that compiles and analyzes phone traffic in order to identify communications patterns that fit the fingerprint of terror-cells working with overseas handlers.
But…but…but…IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN! WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
Gah.
Satellite? Cable? WTF?!
…the government can regulate violence on television –cable, satellite and broadcast.
Under what theory can the FCC regulate cable or satellite? I don’t think they are using the “publicly-owned spectrum” that is the basis for regulating broadcast TV.
Must be under the “because we said so!” rule, huh?
I assume the 12- or 13-year olds driving SVIEDs in Iraq have been watching too much Sleeper Cell and Fahrenheit 911?
Better if there was no market media, just government sponsored media—like we started during our Cultural Revolution . . . and you know how that turned out!
Hoo boy, it has been a while since I dug out the ol’ CFR to look that one up!
Peng, a Great Media Leap Forward, eh?
other things that can be harmful to children:
water
sunlight
running
walking
wind
too much sugar
not enough sugar
sugar substitutes
things that start with the letter “x”
dogs
cats
dog and cats, in tandem
angry bees
bees that are happen but could be angry later
wallabies
plastic bags
rosie o’donnell’s body guards’s handgun
soft, plush dolls which present a choking hazzard
inflatable dolls which present a bio-hazzard
hazzard stickers….
care to join in?
I think the FCC’s position that they can regulate the content of cable and satellite TV is the most troubling, both constitutionally and practically.
Oops. Mojo beat me to it. Some background on the FCC’s overreaching.
I generally agree with Jeff and the prior comments about the legal problems—both with content regualtion and with jursidiction. I depart a little bit on Jeff’s invocation of the correlation-causation fallacy in this instance. After all, a great deal of speech is intended to affect the thinking or actions of others. Other speech (and action) does so less intentionally. Both are generally constitutionally protected. So whether there is causation or not should not, imo, be the issue. Rather, the governmental intrusion is the issue.
anything that makes young males less interested in watching television will not redound to the benefit of the nanny state
I suppose it would be too much to ask for their data/methodology/dialectic establishing this “correlation.”
Major John
My criticism of the Second Five Year Plan (or Great Leap Forward as defined by the your West) was the reason for the Chairman undertaking the Cultural Revolution.
Your American Great Leap Media Forward occured when FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler repealed parts of the Fairness Doctrine in 1985. Then in 1987, your President Reagan vetoed your Democratic Congress attempt to inhibit debate in the media. Your President Bush followed suit when the Democratic Congress tried again in 1991.
Rather than target the distributors, how’s about Congress target the manufacturers – root causes being root causes and all.
Oh, wait that would be Hollywood. They have that free speech thing, apparently something the broadcasters don’t.
Nevermind.
Oh . . . the American Cultural Revolution will start when your Democratic Congress passes the next Fairness Doctrine and it is signed into law by your country’s first female president.
Then all enemy’s of the Democratic State will be purged along with their bourgeoisie ilk.
Well, I guess now I know why the FCC’s been relaxing the rules for amateur radio. It must be so they can free up their people for chasing down complaints about Tom and Jerry cartoons and “The A-Team” reruns.
So, you really think John Edwards is gonna win it this time around?
Considering the violent crime rate in this country has been dropping like a rock for over a decade now, AND violent images have been greatly increasing in movies, on television, and in video games since that time, I’d say that if there is a correlation, it is a negative one.
In fact, considering violent video games have only been available since the beginning of the drop in violent crime rates, you could argue that those games prevent violence.
Irony-proof:
“According to Stevens, cable is ‘worse, much worse’ than network television, and recounted a moment when he was watching a show on cable and turned off his television in ‘disgust.’”
AND he’s a Republican.
Oh, the shame of it all…
It isn’t the issue, Karl—other than that the FCC and Congress will use a correlation argument to justify governmental intrusion. Which is of course the real problem.
Thank God – Joe Biden understands the fecklessness of this kind of regulation:
Thus obviating the need for FCC regulation…
Quite so, Peng. Indeed.
Effing, SNAP!
Second, our “bourgeoisie ilk” has been duly protected in the past from Democratic Congresses and will continue to be by our geopolitical war machine and our capitalistic, facist jackbooted thugs. Haven’t you paid any attention to our history at all?
Besides, our pacifist liberals are notorious noisemakers but the fight like effiminate sea cucumbers. Blovating and self emulation is all we keep them around for. Well, that and the fact that hippie chicks are cheap tail.
On the side, I love the way Peng talks. It’s like the dialogue you’d expect form a Che’ bobble head doll.
I don’t like your tone
I can’t think of a greater and more glorious reason for a bill to be passed than the fact that it is co-sponsored by …
TED STEVENS????
Intertube Ted? Bridge to nowhere Ted? THAT TED STEVENS?
And … and … Joe Biden opposes it?
Clean and articulate Joe Biden?
*groan* … my head … throbbing …
We’ll ban that book and T.V. show,
Forget that movie, no you can’t go.
Can’t sell that record, don’t like that song.
We know what’s right we know what’s wrong.
***
Well the new right’s been at work some time
They ain’t so new no more
Can you hear ‘em knockin’
Knockin’ down your door.
1984 has past, forget about Big Brother,
Welcome to the 90’s where the government’s your
mother.
They’ll tell you – don’t do that.
They’ll try and tell you – it’s for your own good.
Big Mother is watching you
Mother’s protecting you
Mommy knows what’s right for you
Scatterbrain, “Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom” (1990)
In case anyone hasn’t yet realized it, this isn’t the real Peng Dehuai.
it was more like a play for irony Moops… I don’t want to come right out and juxtapose this thread with timmy’s banning, cause I haven’t thought that all the way through
Rob,
What does CS Lewis have against trannies? One try and pick him up in a bar?
Next you’ll tell us happyfeet isn’t really a dancing penguin.
I’m all for this, as long as they replace the “violence” with “sex.” More boobies on tv==a damn good idea, in my opinion.
I’m probably in the minority, though.
This post and its comments are just golden.
Jeff, you should not fear the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Despite the preening of the Far Left, it is not even on a committee docket. It’s a loser bill, morally and politically.
Finally, it’s these social cons that just terrify me. You know what Teddy Stevens? You had the right answer when you “saw something that disgusted you.” You turned the damn thing off. Much like I do to American Idol (offensive less for its violence to music than for its banal insipidity).
Did Major John ever find a rationale for regulating content of cable? I read that Stevens “thinks he can,” which to the pre-lawyer in me sounded like cha-ching! If I had passed that little test, I went have sent fifty resumes out to cable channels. Litigation heaven. And a winner, too, if Congress’s power to regulate the internet is an indication of how the judiciary leans!
I’ll take the a la carte cable anyway I can get it. If someone else out there wants to pay for animal planet and the oxygen network that’s fine, but I’ve never felt the need to tune in.
In terms of broadcast content, the Brits seem to have a reasonable system in the watershed. For those not familiar: before 8 (my memory may be off), programming is family friendly; after 8, mostly anything goes. It seems to both recognize freedom of speech and that there are inappropriate times or places for some forms.
Just terrible typing. Sorry, the corrected (and in English) post is below. Sorry for that
Jeff, you should not fear the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Despite the preening of the Far Left, it is not even on a committee docket. It’s a loser bill, morally and politically.
Finally, it’s these social cons that just terrify me. You know what, Teddy Stevens? You had the right answer when you “saw something that disgusted you.†You turned the damn thing off. Much like I do to American Idol (offensive less for its violence to music than for its banal insipidity).
Did Major John ever find a rationale for regulating content of cable? I read that Stevens “thinks he can,†which, to the pre-lawyer in me sounded like cha-ching! If only I had passed that little test, I would have sent fifty resumes out to cable channels. Litigation heaven. And it’s a winner, too, if Congress’s power to regulate the internet is an indication of how the judiciary leans!
I don’t know about this one. While the social conservatives have tried some other pretty stupid stuff over the years, the left is not above its fair share of social engineering.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this initiative is the brainchild of an unholy alliance between the social conservatives at one side of the spectrum and the nanny-state nonviolent progressives on the other side.
You can’t find the good Tom and Jerry cartoons anymore. Hell, you can’t even buy Disney’s Song of the South because a pack of boomers thought it was offensive—but you can head to the parks and ride a log flume based on the movie, and buy another studio’s production of it at Wal*Mart.
Ever read Fallen Angels. Sometimes I think they were more prescient than they thought. Which is scary, because they were clearly aiming for laughs.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if this initiative is the brainchild of an unholy alliance between the social conservatives at one side of the spectrum and the nanny-state nonviolent progressives on the other side.”
Agreed, but I couldn’t figure out how to describe the anti-porn feminists and “judgy” lefty crowd. After all, McGehee is right, those lefties are the ones who took off the good cartoons (never thought I’d type McGehee being right. ‘Course, he may be reconsidering his earlier posts if he thought I agreed with them).
All it took when I was a kid was for my Dad, who loved watching Bugs Bunny, to look at me and my brother and say “you really can’t do that crap. It’s on TV and it’s not real.”
Now, it takes some “do-gooders” to tell everyone’s kids how bad everything is and then promote “The Saw 3” at the commercial break.
The time for these half measures is over. All TVs should be required to have a control chip that allows our benevolent government to turn them on and change the channel to the benevolent government station, PBS.
Anybdy who can’t stand Ted Stevens can’t be all bad.
99-44/100% bad, at most.
Precisely when the clock strikes thirteen.
I’ve often said that the dark ages were so violent because of the sadistic pap that was on the TV then. Thank Yahweh that our social betters are looking out for us now. Forward march of civilization!
I’d juts like to add that in case anyone hasn’t yet realized it, this isn’t the original Seth, 3rd son of Adam and Eve, but another later, but like named, person.
but actually some kind of hyper-regulation of tv content would probably go further towards sensitizing people to nannystatism than anything else drawn from the same well… Which is not an argument FOR doing so, but I think if there’s ever to be blowback, screwing with peeps tv would be the thing to do it
having trouble with possessives today – I blame teh selflessness
I wouldn’t mind seeing the cable companies allow you to purchase channels separately or create a PG-rated package, but the fact that the gubmint wants to do it is not a good thing.
I think it’s important that the default “mode” in society be non-vulgar, non-gory, and non-pornographic, and if you want those things you can get them through private channels.
But given that some people think that Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner qualify as “violent…” I don’t want Congress making that decision, because they’ll blow it. I’d rather it just be easy to avoid what you don’t want and to get what you do want.
FOR THE CHILDREN!
(This from someone who punched her father square in the eye to imitate Popeye.)
Ya know, talking back to Democrats is really a form of violence when you get right down to it.
Maybe it should be banned…
I hold the completely unfounded belief that watching violence actually quenches man’s natural need for violence.
That happened to me a couple of times while watching you-know-who on C-Span.
We’ll always have the Sopranos on DVD.
Hey, where’s Great General Peng? I wanted to ask if his falling-out with Mao over the Great Error Forward was just a difference of opinion over methods or perhaps a moment of clarity that one oppressor had been thrown off only to be replaced by another.
And while we’re at it, before the falling-out – Mao’s harem – did he share? Were they hot?
</blockquote>Mao’s harem – did he share? Were they hot?<blockquote>
I don’t think the second question matters since the Great Helmsman of Stupidity did not brush his teeth.
Sharing seems to be less attractive under such circumstances. (Think hot Motely Crue groupies, instance.)
I happen to like that. Very much.
No, timmyb, despite perusing the CFR, I didn’t find anything like the “‘cause I feel like it” rule that idiot Stevens seems to think he has in his back pocket…
SEXIST!!!1111!!!!!!
wishbone:
Hey, I was trying not to impose my cultural imperatives willy-nilly and all that.
We’re talking Winx Club 24/7 guys. Could get ugly.
Looks like the only content-based proposals are time restrictions on broadcast tv which already exist for sex. The non-content based regulations on cable and satellite look like they are rather the opposite of nanny-statism, as they are simply commerce based regulations forcing the companies to offer more parental control and choice. At least thats all thats mentioned in the article.
Everybody panic.
You know what is sad? She probably typed this with a completely straight face and really believes it.
Jeff wrote:
Agreed. But addressing the correlation argument in the manner of the initial post may inadvertently help legitimize it in some minds by treating it as an argument that requires substantive rebuttal. Tactically, I prefer to begin by explicitly rejecting the idea that the speech can be censored, even if causation could be shown. It moves the debate from trying to explain a logical fallacy to a casual listener to arguing the core principle.
Similarly, speech like “Vote for X” is clearly speech intended to influence thought/action, but it should be constitutionally protected, instead of suppressed on a posited correlation between political spending and the appearance of political corruption. And maybe it will be under the Roberts Court.
“You know what is sad? She probably typed this with a completely straight face and really believes it.”
Of course, some people think that regulating cable monopolies are going to be nanny statist. But its hardly protecting us from bad content to actually give us more ability to choose what content we buy. Hard to argue that the state is protecting us from content when its forcing companies to offer more choices and ways for parents and subscribers to decide what content they do want.
You know, to help people who say: “And turning off the TV, based on what you believe your child is mature enough to handle? “ Why not just get a cable subscription package based onwhat your child is mature enough to handle? Oh. wait, thats not offered. Till congress mandates that consumers be able to tailor what channels they get.
As a parallel demonstration of tactics, should I respond to emmadine’s comments by trying to explain to her the economics of cable and satellite TV, then how the FCC proposals would ultimately restrict the programming available by making a lot of it unprofitable?
Or should I simply ask what her opinion would be of the constitutionality of a law that proposed to order newspapers to sell its sections a la carte?
“As a parallel demonstration of tactics, should I respond to emmadine’s comments by trying to explain to her the economics of cable and satellite TV, then how the FCC proposals would ultimately restrict the programming available by making a lot of it unprofitable? “
My problem with a-la carte cable is that I think we’ll end up paying more for it. Probably they’d just offer different bundles, instead of it being fully a-la carte.
“Or should I simply ask what her opinion would be of the constitutionality of a law that proposed to order newspapers to sell its sections a la carte?”
Time, place and manner restriction, would be my guess—that would be if it was found to be content based. I would argue it would be, because the decision to arrange a newspaper’s sections is a content decision—whether to place a story in metro or not, for example.
But a-la carte cable? That’s not so clear that’s a content based regulation. Because channels are a basic technological requirement. You have to have channels—and cable providers aren’t making the content decisions for what is on those channels. You don’t have to have sections in your newspaper, but you do have to have channels.
It would make an interesting case, for sure. I think as it is we force cable providers to also offer the local broadcast stations. That would play out very differently if we analogized to newspapers.
A cable channel can have multiple types of content, just as broadcast channels typically do. Nick at Nite can be different from Nick generally. HBO can play movies, concerts and original series. And so on.
This can also be done by the cable company. I can remember when I got C-SPAN for part of the day and Country Music videos for the rest of the day on the same cable channel.
It is thus no different from sections in a newspaper, and it would be unconstitutional under your own newspaper argument.
As for the economics, newspapers and cable companies offer the multiple types of content precisely because some types of content (e.g., sports) subsidize other types of content that would not draw a large audience to be profitable standing alone. Dictating a la carte content almost inevitably will act to censor certain types of content.
But, as just demonstrated, it’s much easier tactically to jump past the economics to the core principle, which is that mandating a la carte content necessarily interferes with editorial decisions about content.
Contrast Cartoon Network’s daytime and prime time programming to Adult Swim, for example. I’d never let a small kid watch Adult Swim, but I’ll give up Venture Bros. when you pry my remote from my cold, dead hands.
That is the way mine is now, is this unusual? I just marvel at the notion that more government regulation is going to give us more control and choices. It will probably be cheaper too. With unicorns.
Cable companies aren’t monopolies. Too many options out there, often including one’s choice of cable companies.
And yes, demanding legislated content controls when there are already perfectly viable user determined controls is indeed nanny statist.
Silly BMoe!
Unicorns are only available with the Special Extended Package with HD. This includes Pixies, Lesser Elves and the option of Flaming Flying Monkeys.
Plus a 30 day free trial of Showtime…
Cut and Paste skills are still lacking…
Amazingly enough, there’s a great deal of truth in this. my family deals with this constantly. We have to either keep the TV off, or restricted to kiddie channels until they go to bed. Even if the programming is tame, the commercials leap out. So, many people simply opt out entirely and load DVDs and VCR tapes. Thus, one segment of the paying public is scaling back its cable usage. Where I’m at Comcast can be counted on for nothing else but raising rates often. I’m paying over $75 monthly for basic cable; no ‘premium’ channels.
Tailoring of usage is thus already happening; the only unchanged variable are the consumer costs.
Question: Would requiring greater flexibility in channel/package formulation be a win-win, or would it cause more problems than it solved?
“A cable channel can have multiple types of content, just as broadcast channels typically do. Nick at Nite can be different from Nick generally. HBO can play movies, concerts and original series. And so on.”
And they’re not proposing to regulate that. At least not from the article.
“It is thus no different from sections in a newspaper, and it would be unconstitutional under your own newspaper argument.”
I think its different. There is a difference in the content decision. But note that content based time place and manner restrictions aren’t necessarily unconstitutional.
“Dictating a la carte content almost inevitably will act to censor certain types of content.”
Yes. Censorship. People won’t be paying for stuff they don’t want. And people who do want that stuff will have to pay more.
Overall, the a-la carte is a cute idea, but frankly I don’t think it will work. Because it don’t thikn the problem is so much that there are problematic channels. But I can see parents deciding that. I can see people being happy with regulations like this and others that help parents to know about and control what their kids watch.
But constitutionally? I think it would fly. It might not if i was found that it wasn’t very useful for its purpose. But overall its not content-based, which makes it easier to pass constitutional muster. After an interesting court battle.
Great googly moogly, you truly believe that crap, don’t you?
How about this: If you want to know what your kids are watching, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE WATCHING. If you don’t like what they’re watching, CHANGE THE CHANNEL OR TURN IT OFF!
But do NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, allow the damn nanny-state to wiggle their fingers any further into a business that’s already over-regulated! I do not want the gummint’s help. I do not need the gummint’s help. And I do not want any half-witted, shit-for-brains asshole in D.C. to tell me what I can or cannot allow my kids to watch!
Those worthless fuckers can’t even wipe their own ass without a guide book and a special “helper”, yet they think they can tell me what I need to watch? Please. They need to shut the hell up and sit their like the brainless rocks they all are. Corrupt, spineless, greedy, brainless rocks. This is nothing but an over-reaching solution to a non-problem. More unneeded government interference.
“If you want to know what your kids are watching, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE WATCHING. If you don’t like what they’re watching, CHANGE THE CHANNEL OR TURN IT OFF!”
Thats my point. Make sure parents are able to find out what the kids are watching, and they are able to control that. Either by cable companies providing that or being mandated to. I don’t know how it is nowadays, but when I grew up, there was a lot of TV watching we could do when parents weren’t around. Though there wasn’t cable.
“And I do not want any half-witted, shit-for-brains asshole in D.C. to tell me what I can or cannot allow my kids to watch!”
everybody panic.
I think I should now come clean and state for the record that I am not, in fact, Ernie Kovacs.
George Carlin has become a bitter old man after the death of his wife, but I’m forced to use one of his recent quotes now: “Fuck the Children.”
And actually, I’m not panicking, Your Smugness. I’m angry. Big fucking difference, Mrs. Grundy.
Apologies for the language, folks.
No kidding, nothing like a Cialis commercial in the middle of Spongebob.
“Daddy, what’s a priapism?”
“Well son, that’s an erection lasting more than four hours.”
“Do you have one?”
“Hell no, I’m married. But all men have one at one time.”
“They do?”
“Sure, it’s called ‘adolescence’. You’ll probably have one that lasts about five years.”
“Five years?”
“Years, Junior. Years”
“How do you stop it?”
“Well, you’re gonna have to get married to any woman who doesn’t want to be a Senator from New York.”
“How will I know if I marry one of those?”
“If you marry one of those your boner will last eight years, by year seven you’ll have a pretty clear idea of where you’re headed.”
“Sounds terrible Daddy, I don’t want one!”
“It’s not all bad son, remember your Uncle Freddy and his new freind James got drunk at Thanksgiving and taught all you kids about blow-jobs…?”
They are able to do that, because the ability is already provided. Mandating that the transmission companies assume that personal responsibility for what one’s children view is ridiculous.
With broadcast TV, there is an argument for content control based on public ownership of the airwaves. No so with cable, satellite, internet and telco based video distribution services.
It isn’t the government’s job to parent children. It’s the parent’s job, and the tools are available for them to do it.
Our Glorious Chairman did not like committee meetings to go into paper tiger dens during illustrious discussions. The designated offender, who was determined to be responsible for this contradiction, was purged from Our Party. Likewise, I feel that your Chairman Jeff and his followers should take appropriate measures against anyone who makes antagonistic contradictions to any illustrious thread (timmyb).
Having been demoted once because of my conservative candor, the path I have chosen forces me to not reciprocate to any comments that fail to follow your magnificent chairman’s filament.
(However, I must respond to Merovign’s question concerning our Chairman’s celebrated harem. Some imperialist reactionaries, certainly U.S. monopoly capitalist groups, persist in pushing the theory that the Cultural Revolution was launched primarily to replace the Second Five Year Plan (your Great Leap Forward) version. These reactionaries speculate my impertinent criticism was really an ill-advisably allegorical condemnation of the GLF version’s quality and required a new student movement to refresh and revitalize, therefore Our Magnificent Chairman undertook the Cultural Revolution to supply improved delicate models. This theory has been condemned repeatedly by Lin Biao and Our Glorious Chairman. In reality, the 100 Flowers Movement of 1956/57 was repeated in 1966/67 with new college students, and justified with the staement:
After watching Kill Bill and Kill Bill 2, the violence offsets are probably going to bankrupt me.
Unless I can just give them to myself…hey, there’s a thought.
What would you plant with violence offset money?
Ganga, mon?
Poppies, more likely.
Or…
Offer speaking fees to Ted Stevens to chat with as many people as possible. Heck, I know I want to lay down and nap everytime he speaks.
You just have to be sure that he doesn’t kill anyone with one of his stunning inanities.
Clogs up the intertubes doncha know…
This is gold. It’s also quite descriptive of my situation.
Do I think that the government can or should reegulate (censor) such things? No.
Is it possible to ask that commercials be rated and shown during shows with similar ratings? Yes, and common sense would have made this automatic. But then we’re talking about Hollywood here.
Blue Hen:
The argument against matching-show-type advertising (especially kiddie-show) has already been made; remember the flap about “Children’s Shows Are Nothing More Than Half-Hour Toy And Cereal Ads”?
IOW, damned if you do, …
The heck you say! You ARE TOO Ernie Kovacs!
LMC – I agree, that was gold.