Why is the Jerry Springer show no longer political? It’s been a long time since the Klan faced off against decent people. At least where I live. Why the relationship focus? What’s wrong with Queers vs Christians kickboxing? Or Neo-Nazis vs good people all-in-wrestling? What about Eugenicists vs average IQs?
Both Jerry Springer and Gerraldo Riviera are politically liberal and were once very worthy members of the journalistic profession. Gerraldo Riviera was responsible for exposing inhumanity in mental institutions in the sixties - is that right? Why would they choose to air relationship problems rather than political viewpoints?
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, 21 hours, 25 minutes and 13 seconds.
8195 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,024.46.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 10 hours, 55 minutes.
THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!*
A lot of people in the world still don’t have access to a free press. They can’t get the truth printed and they can’t read the truth. When you have it why waste it on the big breasted? I’d rather see donkeys against Palestinians* or militiamen against vegetarians.
OK, that’s what you’d rather see. But apparently there are enough people who want to see big breasted strippers to make it worth their while to book the bimbos on the boob tube (no ten inpunded).
Seriously, though, I think this is symptomatic of a democratic society with a free media. Certainly there will be worthwhile shows devoted to genuine debate, but abuses such as Jerry and Geraldo are bound to creep to the surface at some point. And be wildly popular at that. It’s the price we pay for our freedoms.
I can see your point perfectly. But I just can’t believe my tastes are that idiosyncratic. I can’t be the only person who prefers watching clashes between political or cultural groups rather than between two bunches of in-laws no one has ever heard of. Politics makes things more interesting because it usually means there will be a team (a belief system) I can support. I’ve made it all sound unnecessarily sleazy. A public forum in which, say, pro-euthanasia and anti-euthanasia groups argue to the death has to be more entertaining on the basis of the ideas being thrown around. I’m a woman and I’m bored by Jerry Springer’s relationship shows.
Flagellation is for all sorts of Christians not just gay ones. Or it used to be.
In a Springer gays/Christian standoff gays would probably be fighting for the right to become Christians anyway.
Most Christians will not accommodate homosexuality because it means changing the rules of the Bible. You’re not supposed to change God’s laws - you’re meant to submit to them.
But flagellation would be cool - if it was done with proper whips - not those pretend ones you see around that look like they just tickle.
Fortunately JC cleared up a lot of that when he pointed out that only the sinless should stone the rest of us sinners to death. Don’t paint all Christians with that brush. Hate sprewing fundies tend to miss the messages JC tried to teach and don’t represent “most Christians.”
You are the very model of a moderator major general aren’t you? Alternatively, you could choose from one of these: http://www.ology.org/eschat/parody/piratesidx.html.
Sooner or later Jerry is bound to have a programme called little jumped-up victimising bureaucrats with sophisticated user names, but whose real names are more like Gavin, Darryl or Godfrey versus the never did anything wrongs. I’ll be there.
