Comments on: The fight for morals

By: For the record | KZBlog

For the record | KZBlog — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:40:13 +0000

[...] Wherein I divulge the procedure by which the relected President is honored [...]

By: Asilbek A

Asilbek A — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:52:20 +0000

it all depends on wether it is in west or east ! culture . we should not try to understand why they do ban it .

By: Jen

Jen — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:54:20 +0000

that is why the viewers in Uzbekistan can watch the movies but when it comes to those interesting moments (love scenes) the regional media authorities just cut them off and play some local commercials instead–You have GOT to be kidding me…………That is such a hoot :-)

By: Rumil

Rumil — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:05:42 +0000

Dear Qurol, I beg your pardon for my unawarenes, but where is this Holuwood located and is it that dirty that we need to protect ourselves from it?

By: Qirol

Qirol — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:53:47 +0000

“Iâ€™m saying a lot of things in todays Uzbekistan are the legacy of the USSR. Like there was â€œno sexâ€? in former Soviet Union there is no sex on Uzbekistanâ€™s TV screens. Now the autorities decided to go even further and prohibit selling and wearing fur-lined underwear because they believe that the soft fur can cause erotic fantasies.”

Maybe, we should think it from different perspective. Maybe Uzbekistan traying to protect itself from dirt of Holluwood, or Western civilization. Why we think something that allowed somewhere should be allowed everywhere.

By: JS Narins

JS Narins — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:18:08 +0000

You can not see sex scenes on _either_ regular TV or cable in America, only on pay TV. There you can see lots.

I bet, however, that the US efforts to snip obscene scenes is far more professional, and less jarring to the viewer.

I have a serious question.

The Sikh religion _requires_ furry underwear. Is there any chance this is actually an anti-Sikh move? I wouldn’t think there are _many_ Sikh in Uzbekistan, but they are in NW India (the Punjab) and Pakistan in large numbers, so it isn’t a major stretch.

By: On Tap

On Tap — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:51:13 +0000

Uzbekistan bans fur-lined underwear

No. I’m not kidding.
Can you think of a better reason to vigorously defend your constitutional rights and liberties?
HT: Instapundit.
Cam adds:Is it beaver fur that’s being banned? And can I sign up to be a part of the enforcement unit?

…

By: Nostradamus

Nostradamus — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:26:52 +0000

To prohibit the sale of an article might have a purpose we don’t understand, but to prohibit the use of an obviously harmless item (that no-one would know is in use anyway) is ludicrous. Banning farting in public would be equally ridiculous, but at least THAT bothers or offends people! Nice to know that “The Pressing Issues” of the constituants are being “A-Dressed”!

By: dyscox

dyscox — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:13:34 +0000

Smarthumb is (hopefully) not from America. Sure, roughly half (I kid!) the population doesn’t understand the 1st amendmant. They all probably listen to Howard Stern. While I believe the FCC is one big flaw, no one here is prevented from saying anything they want- only you can’t always do it on network tv or public radio. Howard just banked half a BILLION? Jeez. Nice try Smarthumb.

By: Ali

Ali — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:58:14 +0000

Things are seldom done without purpose in Uzbekistan. I bet someone is making a lot of money thanks to this ban :)