Janet Jackson's Nipple . . .

[Cuthberta]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/janet-jacksons-nipple-ve_b_16676.html

CBS was fined $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson's right nipple on live television. Coal mines that endanger the lives of their workers are commonly fined $60 per violation.

How do you like those priorities?

A nipple is worth nearly 10,000 times more than the life of an American worker.
Here's a quote from the USA Today:



"On Aug. 16, 2005, an inspector found a main escape path "obstructed by concrete blocks." On Nov. 8, 2005, an escapeway was "not being maintained in a safe condition to assure passage of anyone." Sago got six citations for blocking escapeways miners use to flee a fire or explosion. Each citation said one miner was endangered. The mine paid $60 fines for two violations."


In January, 2006 twelve miners died in a Sago mine.

Sixty dollars for blocking escapeways that save worker's lives. $60!

How many people died when we saw Janet's boob?

$550,000 versus $60.

If that doesn't make you sick, I wonder if you have any humanity left.

Are those your priorities? Are you comfortable with a government that has these values?

I'm not sure if this is moral or religious item or where it should go, but I have a major thing about the United States and the way it holds miners' lives so cheaply. It makes me very angry!

I thought the whole nonsense over Janet Jackson was way out of line and totally ridiculous for an advanced nation to engage in. What idiotic, devilish values!

 

[Krie]

dude that is SICk

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering the Super Bowl is highly publicised, and has a ton of indirect political contacts, through networks mainly, it doesn't suprise me. A few dirty miners that few even know exist, and a TV network that is political ties. It's sad to see the government cares more about petty things.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Propaganda.

 

[Jaymes]

Have you got something to refute it, angellous? 'Cause I'd be interested in it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have you got something to refute it, angellous? 'Cause I'd be interested in it.

There's no need to refute it. The data has no inherent relationship in and of itself, and it is being used for an emotional response. They are telling us not to think. It's posion.

 

[Jaymes]

So the data isn't false, you just have a problem with the way it's presented?

If so, I can't see why. I see a similar correlation between something like the pay of teachers and pro basketball players. It says a lot about our society when we pay more for entertainment than the future. Or in this case, decide that it's just to fine more than 9,000 times more for seeing a nipple on TV than for blocking escapeways that resulted in the endangerment of 6 miners.

 

[kevmicsmi]

So the data isn't false, you just have a problem with the way it's presented?

If so, I can't see why. I see a similar correlation between something like the pay of teachers and pro basketball players. It says a lot about our society when we pay more for entertainment than the future. Or in this case, decide that it's just to fine more than 9,000 times more for seeing a nipple on TV than for blocking escapeways that resulted in the endangerment of 6 miners.

How many teachers can play a pro sport? How many pro athletes with 4 year degrees could teach? There is your answer Jensa. Supply and demand.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I try to keep a breast of these emerging issues. However, I fully agree with AE that this fallacious comparison should be nipped in the bud. The study fails to reveal everything in a juvenile attempt to counter tit for tat.

The point of any fine is to be a deterrent. The MANY $60 fines found in a routine visit really add up. A partial obstruction would merit a $60 fine... a full obstruction would merit FAR WORSE. OSHA is nothing to be trifled with.

However, CBS made a MINT off of the Super Bowl and to charge them only $60 would be an OPEN INVITATION for more nipplage. You have to make them HURT a bit to get their attention. That's the bare facts!

 

[gnomon]

There's no need to refute it. The data has no inherent relationship in and of itself, and it is being used for an emotional response. They are telling us not to think. It's posion.

Actually it is relevant. It is a comparison between two government agencies, the FCC and the MHSA. One member of the entertainment industry is fined for an incident which poses no threat to anyone's health and the other where companies face small fines even though the lives of its workers depend upon the safety regulations in place.

Here is an interesting article on the Sago mine incident,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/07/AR2006010700967.html

 

[Jaymes]

It's not about supply and demand, it's about making our athletes "worth" millions of dollars per year and our mere teachers tens of thousands, if that.

Last I checked, being able to kick a football is not a valuable skill. Making sure the next generation comes up knowing how to do basic math and with the ability to read is. The way we pay sure as heck doesn't reflect that, though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the data isn't false, you just have a problem with the way it's presented?

If so, I can't see why. I see a similar correlation between something like the pay of teachers and pro basketball players. It says a lot about our society when we pay more for entertainment than the future. Or in this case, decide that it's just to fine more than 9,000 times more for seeing a nipple on TV than for blocking escapeways that resulted in the endangerment of 6 miners.

The way that the data is presented is dishonest and anti-intellectual and does not begin to warrant investigation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually it is relevant. It is a comparison between two government agencies, the FCC and the MHSA. One member of the entertainment industry is fined for an incident which poses no threat to anyone's health and the other where companies face small fines even though the lives of its workers depend upon the safety regulations in place.

Here is an interesting article on the Sago mine incident,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/07/AR2006010700967.html

It cannot be anything but propaganda!

Comparing the $60 fine for a violation of mine safety to a fine concerning public broadcasting takes countless leaps of logic, and then somehow working that into ethics is beyond reason.

They are feeding you crap.

Come hungry leave happy I guess.

 

[jeffrey]

So I guess we should fine these coal companies a half million, effectively shutting them down, causing energy prices to rise and putting hundreds on the unemployment line. Pay pro ball players about 50 grand a year, so the owners can become even richer. In fact, let's put a gov. panel together to decide what every job should pay...

 

[Booko]

It's not about supply and demand, it's about making our athletes "worth" millions of dollars per year and our mere teachers tens of thousands, if that.

Last I checked, being able to kick a football is not a valuable skill. Making sure the next generation comes up knowing how to do basic math and with the ability to read is. The way we pay sure as heck doesn't reflect that, though.

:clap :clap :clap

 

[Sunstone]

If we're going to talk the economics of salaries, then technically (and despite that bimbo talk show hosts routinely screw this up), it's actually more a matter of economic productivity than supply and demand that influences teacher's and pro player's salaries. Just a quibble, I suppose, since the subject is off topic in this thead about Janet Jackson's nipples of moral doom.

Back on topic. I think Jeff raises a good point. The purpose of imposing fines is to punish, not destroy. You want them to hurt a business enough that the business will find it more cost/beneficial to correct the violation, not hurt a business so much it folds.

 

[gnomon]

If we're going to talk the economics of salaries, then technically (and despite that bimbo talk show hosts routinely screw this up), it's actually more a matter of economic productivity than supply and demand that influences teacher's and pro player's salaries. Just a quibble, I suppose, since the subject is off topic in this thead about Janet Jackson's nipples of moral doom.

Back on topic. I think Jeff raises a good point. The purpose of imposing fines is to punish, not destroy. You want them to hurt a business enough that the business will find it more cost/beneficial to correct the violation, not hurt a business so much it folds.

I think the issue is based on the point that the MSHA did not properly exercise it's authority by levying fines which amount to pocket change to the mining companies. I would consider the MSHA to hold more responsibility as agency involved with the safety and health of miners as opposed to the FCC monitoring the content of interstate communications.

There is an appearance that the federal government in the aftermath of both events seemed to more concerned with the nature of lewd television than it did with the safety of miners. I don't know. Some public hearings have just opened up on the Sago mining incident. I really don't think there is a relevant enough connection between the two given the enormous size of the federal government and the "regulatory industry".

 

[jeffrey]

We don't know what exactly they where fined for. It could have been a flashlight on the floor of the doorway. I myself can get a $100 fine for a side marker light out on the truck. I can get a $2,000 fine in the state of Californie for mis-spelling a city name on my oki book, both classified as safety hazards.

 

[Booko]

We don't know what exactly they where fined for. It could have been a flashlight on the floor of the doorway. I myself can get a $100 fine for a side marker light out on the truck. I can get a $2,000 fine in the state of Californie for mis-spelling a city name on my oki book, both classified as safety hazards.

That's why I didn't get too upset about the $60 fine issue. Without the context of the number of fines one might expect to get during an inspection, it's just out of context.

Though I do think there's truth to the idea that when a topic involves *other people's* naughty bits, our society does go rather bonkers. :sarcastic

 

[jeffrey]

I agree, and $60 fines are usually minor violations. Anybody ever work on a construction site? When the inspectors come by, you can get a small fine like that for a 2x4 laying in a doorway. It's classified as an obstruction also.