Skip to content

Reducing Schumer’s Volume

by on October 6, 2010

We could use a law that requires the television to automatically mute anytime a United States Senator appears onscreen.  It would make C-SPAN and cable news infinitely more tolerable.

Actually, that might be a tad of an overreach.  That’s not even to mention that it’s unfair to assume we wouldn’t want to hear what the legislators in question have to say, as the august upper chamber is doing the important work of protecting the nation and our interests.

Just kidding.  Actually, they’re trying to regulate the volume of television ads with a law that doesn’t seem to match the spirit of any Schoolhouse Rock short (h/t Justin Card):

The appropriately titled Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) calls for the FCC to draft new regulations which would guarantee that televised commercials can’t be obscenely loud, or broadcast at a volume that exceeds the decibel level of the program it interrupts. The bill, which was originally proposed by California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo in 2009, had already passed the House of Representatives before receiving the Senate’s blessings. Now, it must return to the House for a final vote, before heading to the White House for President Obama’s signature.

It’s official: every American industry has been hassled.  Advertisers who substitute deafening for clever may seem like a nuisance.  But their unsubtle harangues don’t quite necessitate federal intervention.  No one in New York will feel shock to learn that the trivially meddlesome burden was sponsored in the Senate by human commercial Chuck Schumer:

“It’s about time we turned down the volume on loud commercials that try to startle TV watchers into paying attention. This is a simple step that will keep ads at the same decibel level as the programs they are interrupting,” the Democratic Senator from New York says. “TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial.”

Firsthand listening is by definition more dangerous than secondhand smoking, no?  Still, it seems as if the legislation might be wholly, completely, utterly, totally gratuitous.

The public can take care of this scourge ourselves if we only determinately employ willpower.  We can do it!  Um, it’s not hard.  Viewers could complain to networks or write emails to the offending companies noting that they would rather buy a Snuggie than a product pitched in a commercial featuring a spokesman blaring like an AC/DC concert held next to an airport runway.

The audience could also pursue easier solutions like turning down the sound or simply dealing with it.  Life’s not that tricky sometimes.  But any of those courses would involve actions taken without the consent of Democrats serving in the Capitol or White House.

The exasperating regulatory burden embodies everything annoying about the majority party.  Overseeing every aspect of all lives is something for which they are strangely not ashamed.  Rather, they expect to be thanked and reelected for pestering citizens who they think are too dim to alter or deal with circumstances.

To many present legislators, every trifling life aspect falls under their jurisdiction.  Thankfully, such attempts at mandatory micromanaging could cost some their jobs. But that blessed accountability maddeningly doesn’t seem to apply to Schumer.

His junior colleague from New York isn’t cruising as smoothly: Tracy Flick is somewhat in danger of losing this election, which would be a remarkable feat for a New York Democrat. On the other hand, Chuck Nasty is running ahead of Jay Townsend by what last seemed like an uncomfortably comfortable margin.

There doesn’t seem to be much recent surveying on Schumer’s race, possibly on account of how there is little value in measuring seemingly uncompetitive contests.  Why bother with a race that seems over?  Even pollsters don’t like being bored.

If they’re right to focus elsewhere and Schumer is indeed on his way to a third term, it means he will be able to pursue his personal goals.  Yes, they’re more frightening than his political ones.  He says he doesn’t want to be Majority Leader, which is his way of saying he wants to be Majority Leader.

Maybe he’s doling funds from his war chest out of kindness and generosity.  Also, maybe he’ll turn down an opportunity to be on camera.

Happiness would be seeing the Senate fall out of Democratic hands.  Bliss would be if the seat that costs them the majority is Schumer’s.  The first scenario is tricky but mildly feasible; the latter seems presently improbable.

But New Yorkers should realize that they’d be returning to the Senate a man who thinks the government is acting within our interests by controlling television volume.  The stereo hurts my ears, so I’ll call Chuck’s office.

The only hope then would be that, after sponsoring bills for another six years, he might run out of aspects of human life to regulate.  But it’s doubtful: Schumer seemingly invents a new way to intervene every time he speaks.

Regardless of whether this bill is signed into law or not, Schumer’s voice and words are worlds more irritating than even the Nissan Leaf polar bear hug ad. If rated by smugness, they might be tied.

Advertisements

From → Campaign 2010

10 Comments
  1. Apart from them both being females, explain how Senator Gillibrand resembles Tracy Flick.

  2. Politico is from January 2009. So is Maureen Dowd (hero to the conservatives now?), so is Huff Po. The NY Mag profile is from June 2009, and the last link merely parrots Dowd’s insult.

    So, she’s ambitious. This is unique for politicians, how?

  3. So, you’re announcing that you’re way behind the times. Also, you’re admitting that you don’t understand the point that even Dowd calls her that. And you still don’t get the joke. Email MoDo and ask her to try to explain it to you. Also, learn to use Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22kirsten+gillibrand%22+%22tracy+flick%22

  4. Your condescension is phenomenal. But I give you kudos for at least arguing and defending your position, rather than just throwing out verbal bombs and then running away when challenged on them, like your partner here.

    What you’re admitting is that you parrot what cretins like Maureen Dowd say, your humor is more “mean” than “funny”, and you use Google to link to stories that merely reference a story you’ve already provided a link to. Perhaps you should learn to read?

    Have a great day!

  5. You deserve all the condescension you get, harpy. I feel awful that the most utterly humorless blogger on Earth doesn’t find me funny. And I’m sad that you still don’t realize why everyone but you understands Gillibrand’s nickname. Consider learning to read, write, think, and laugh. Have a great day yourself. Just joking.

  6. Ha ha! You’re just like that Carrottop fella! Almost.

  7. Nah, you’re the funny one: I laugh at everything you write. I could never come up with a concept as clever as that Buffalo Pundit character. Everything “he” churns out is so smug yet illogical that I can only shake my head and giggle in response. You should be proud for creating the perfect parody of an oblivious blowhard. I once thought for a moment you were serious, but I must have been tired and hungry at the time. Thank you for testing material here. Now go make a joke about “Teabaggers,” you hilarious wag. P.S. A Carrottop [sic] reference? Don’t let anyone tell you that you’re a hack.

  8. You corrected my spelling of Carrottop? QED.

  9. I’m sorry to have pointed out yet one more small example of your ignorance. You could have looked it up, but apparently your Google is still broken. Oh, and you misspelled Mr. Top’s name again. Learning is hard, at least for some people. Regardless, I’m impressed it only took you 11 days to think of that comeback. Maybe dropping another “QED” will convince people you’re not a twit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: