Of course, you're right, Agnostick: I know nothing of Boucher and how entrenched and comfortable he's become living off the government teat in DC, in the name of public service. I've never spent any time in Arlington and the greater DC area. Nor have I studied in Charlottesville, home of UVa. So, again, you're right that I'd probably have a hard time picking VA out of a blank map.

You completely missed my point, but I'm not surprised. Reading comprehension is not a prerequisite to being able to post here.

Speaking of trolls, how's that mirror doing?

RiverRat... You sound like the perfect consumer for a digital video recorder.

I remember once going to a Christmas party at a friend's house, three or four years ago. Our gracious host had recorded the day's Chiefs football game, and was showing it to a guest that had missed it. Sticking only to the scoring plays, they watched the entire 3-hour game in @ 15 minutes.

I seriously doubt "Informed" is actually that. I'd wager this article is the very first time the troll has ever seen or heard the name "Rick Boucher." I seriously doubt the troll knows Boucher, knows anything about Boucher's voting record. Shown a blank map of the continental United States, I doubt this troll could even find the state that Boucher comes from. The troll saw the "D" next to a name and launched into its automatic, pre-programmed screed. Trolls like this are best ignored.

As to the topic at hand, they can stop the ads from being louder--but can they stop the programs from being "softer* ...?

I might be wrong, but I thought similar legislation was already in place, and that the broadcasters circumvented the legislation through selective normalization, equalization etc. of the audio components of programs and advertisements.

Here's a couple of good explanations of it:

http://primetimetv.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_are_tv_commercials_so_loud

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17229281/ns/business-consumer_news/

I think, if enacted, such legislation would receive an all-expenses paid trip to the Supreme Court, courtesy of The First Amendment. First Amendment would win.

Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

P.S. Ignore the threadjackers...

Excellent news! I can't wait until it goes into effect as public law. Things have been so bad with the super-loud advertisements that most of the time when I watch TV I'm sitting there with my trigger finger resting on the Mute button.

What I would love to see happen next is an FCC ban that prohibits television channels from synchronizing their advertising periods. Currently, this disgusting practice even involves "official time-outs" or "time outs on the floor" where play is interrupted during a live sporting event simply so the network carrying the game can synchronize its advertisements with all the other ads being run on all the other channels at the same time.

I swear, sometimes I think what the abbreviation NCAA really stands for is: National Commercial Advertising Association

No, beo, it's not an anti-abortion rant. It's trying to comprehend the mind of a Democrat. D's too often say, "Government, don't tell me what I can do." But here, this dude is trying to tell TV stations to regulate the volume of commercials. You see no inconsistency?

BTW, I'm not a "nutcase antiabortionist". I'm a pro-life advocate, working to protect the lives of children before AND after they are born.

Loud commercials = bad. Abortions = good.

I'll never understand the mind of most Democrats.