Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Cable Companies Provide Porn While Funding Politicians

Critics Say Politicians Morally Obligated to Refuse Donations


Feb. 8, 2005 - While its previous owners considered adult entertainment "immoral," Adelphia Communications Corp., the country's fifth-largest cable television provider, last week became the first to offer hard-core adult films on pay-per-view to its subscribers.

"It's a very lucrative source of funds," said Dennis McAlpine, a media and entertainment industry analyst. "The cable companies and the satellite companies are programming agnostics in the sense that they don't care what the programming is. It's what the viewers want to see."

Viewers can watch such sexually explicit movies in the Hilton and Marriott hotel chains on video services like LodgeNet or on "On Command," which is owned by Liberty Media, formerly a part of AT&T; at home via DirecTV, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp; or via virtually every cable company, including Cox, Time Warner and Comcast.

'A Really Smart Business Decision'

Adelphia's programming decision is being applauded by the adult film industry.

"I think they made a really smart business decision," said Tim Connelly, publisher of Adult Video News, the trade journal of the adult entertainment industry. "So today Adelphia, tomorrow Wal-Mart."

While the corporations generate millions in profits from providing adult content, their political contributions are often given to those elected, in no small part, because of their stance on "moral values."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Comcast Cable has given millions in political donations since 1998. The national Republican Party committees are its biggest organizational recipient, with donations totaling $851,000. President Bush is its biggest individual recipient with $109,000 in donations.

Adelphia has given $166,000 to Republican committees, $17,000 to conservative Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., and $12,000 to Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., one of the most conservative members of the Senate.

"I always admired the fact that [previous Adelphia owner] John Rigas had the courage to stand up and say no to the adult porn industry, even when it may have cost him potential profits," Peterson told ABC News. "I am disappointed that the new leadership didn't have the courage to continue the policy of putting our young people ahead of their bottom line."

Santorum would not comment on Adelphia's decision.

"Maybe the Republicans will be a little more forthcoming about it now," said Connelly. "They certainly don't have any problem taking the money from it."

'White-Collar Pornographers'

Conservative activist Donna Rice Hughes, president of the anti-porn group Enough Is Enough, calls these corporations "white-collar pornographers." She says politicians who espouse "family values" should refuse their donations.

"If their business practices, whatever they are, do not line up with the values of the politician, I think it's important to walk the talk," she said.

Adelphia says it does not "promote" its adult programming and is simply catering to viewers' "varied interests."

Pornography has never needed much promoting, but it does need distributors. Conservative activists say Adelphia's decision -- and the rush of major America companies to profit from porn -- is hypocrisy fueled by billions in corporate profits. [enditem]

Amy Thomas and Bianca Slota contributed to this report. - 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures - Story - Url.: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=478984%26page=1


FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this blog is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, and even to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. [http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html].

'Sign on the Wall': The REAL ID Act of 2005

Our lawless future with the 'Electronic Identification Card' - eID

In the future you will be carrying one ID-card only, which by the so called 'authorities' may be activated c.q. validated for certain areas. If you are socially, (religion), politically as well as economically 'acceptable' to those who hold the power, you may get a residence-permit for some part of the country, maybe even some acces to Internet, you can use your eID for banking and it also is your driving license, entitling you to a certain amount of gallons of gasoline. That's the card we mentioned earlier: http://tinyurl.com/6v8ru - and which already is produced in Belgium in cooperation with Microsoft - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5nbrb


Department Of Homeland Security Seeking Power To Suspend All Laws

by JWSmythe - Full story: Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5bbxz

On January 26, 2005, Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418). In the name of homeland security, it includes a number of items changing immigration laws, use of drivers' licenses etc.

But -- most overlooked -- is Section 102 of this bill. It would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend any and all laws in order to ensure the "expeditious" construction of a set of barriers and roads south of San Diego, to keep illegal immigrants out. It also would prohibit ANY judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law. ON EDIT:

While the law the bill references mentions barriers and roads "near San Diego," it does not appear to be (technically speaking) limited to that area -- but to any barriers or roads "in the vicinity of the
United States border."

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

Free Internet Press - Pls Read More - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5bbxz

Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
The Netherlands

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press
Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information.
Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html