PeterDavid.net

Did you ask the folks at CBG why the column was cut?

I'm surprised that they didn't notify you. I've always had the impression that you were on great terms with Maggie and the staff there. You just don't cut something like that and not let people know, especially a friend or employee.

I think it doesn't have anything to do with Janet Jackson's color. I think it has to do with the puritanical bent of this country lately. Not that it's been so easy going before, just that with the recent administration pushing their morality on us, I think we've become even more uptight as a nation. For good or bad, we as a country take many cues from the white house. Jackie Kennedy had the country dressing more stylishly. Bush has the country uptight. And scared. And divided.

Interesting piece. I personally had never given it a thought, because not only did I pretty much forget about the "breast incident" immediately after learning about it (not having seen it myself), but I didn't even realize that this was still being talked about. (Don't read enough editorials, I guess.)

Your SnoopDogg/Aguilera example is interesting, because I think you're right about how the focus would have been different in that case ... but note, that could also have something to do with the fact that Aguilera is (like Timberlake) very young, whereas Snoop (like Janet) is older and more "experienced." So that would probably skew people's perceptions of who was the "victim" as much as, if not more so than, skin color.

Perhaps a better substitution would be Madonna for Janet and for Justin ... um, I don't know. A popular young black artist. (I don't listen to the radio these days, so I'm out of it as far as musical pop culture goes.)

Hard to say how perception would skew in that case. At least for me.

Anyway, interesting bit of pontificating, PAD. That Jackson's race had anything to do with the public's reaction had never occurred to me. 'Tis some good food for thought.

Jason

"...although Justin Timberlake, whose inability to grip the correct section of the costume was very likely responsible for the incident..."

Do you really think it could've been an accident? MTV people were hinting that something shocking would happen during the show. Justin sang, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song!" Then the section of costume he did grip tore right off, revealing a decorated boob.

Seems clearly planned to me.

I live out in San Diego, and the reaction to Roseanne's behavior was outrage. Not on a national level (because San Diego is pretty much off the radar to the rest of the country), but people here were pretty angry. I suspect the outrage to Janet Jackson, has nothing to do with her being black, but everything to do with a perceived notion of arrogance on the part of celebrities. An arrogance that says, 'Hey, I'm famous and can do anything I want.' For the last couple of years, the entertainment industry had been increasingly pushing the envelope. Well, they decided to push it during the most watched event of the year. Big surprise then it got noticed by a large audience. Coming from a moderate's perspective, sure, I love to see nudity and sex, but THERE'S A TIME AND PLACE-Superbowl wasn't it. That's why Janet is rightly getting the punishment she deserves and why others who had smartly kept a lower profile, now have to suffer.

Interesting points and an interesting hyothetical.

I also agree with some of what my fellow posters have stated thus far.

To be honest, though, the thought of ones race never occured to me. In fact It never occurred to me that a guy I work with is black until someone else grought it up. All this time I just thought of him as 'Bobby'. What I have focused on in this... fiasco is the overreaction.

I get quite irritated (understatement) whenever someone makes claims as to how civilized or advanced we are as a society. As if we're so much smarter and more in control of out base instincts than we were hundres of years ago. Suddenly a breast becomes visible and our society is in hysterics and actually (blech!!) making decisions based on those hysterics. A BOOB!! Oh, scourge of our time!!

Finally, I have to say that something is beyond horribly wrong when ANY publication is scared to print an opinion that isn't all that inflametory to begin with.

Salutations (except to CBG, in this case),

Mitch

Karen wrote:
Not that it's been so easy going before, just that with the recent administration pushing their morality on us, I think we've become even more uptight as a nation. For good or bad, we as a country take many cues from the white house. Jackie Kennedy had the country dressing more stylishly. Bush has the country uptight. And scared. And divided.

Actually couldn't it also be argued that people with similar views such are yours are trying to push their own view of morality (or lack of) onto people? I think it can be seen both ways. As for your Bush bashing, I hardly think Bush has anything to do with people being uptight -- there are always going to be uptight people and there will always be people who are a little too free spirited. Scared? That's a crock and just an excuse to try to demonize a political party you seem to have a problem with. As for divided, well, it's been that way for a long time. That's nothing new.

Interesting article -- I can almost see why CBG was concerned, but I certainly wouldn't have cut it, and I absolutely wouldn't have carved sections out without talking to you, for pete's sake. (No pun intended.)

As for the issue itself, I think I'm partially with Karen and partially with Jason (which itself sounds like it violates a few FCC regs, come to think of it). A Snoop/Aguilera pairing might have come off more as an assault, but that strikes me as more a perception of Snoop's personality than of his race. I like Jason's idea: make Janet Jackson Madonna (roughly the same age, or at least a lot closer than Aguilera), and make Timberlake ... oh, I don't know ... geez, would someone like Usher work? What very little I've seen of him suggests young and clean-cut, much as Timberlake was perceived for a while.

It's a great thought experiment, though I tend to agree with Karen on this point -- I find it more indicative of some new hysterical puritanism than I do any sort of racial bias.

Back when this first hit, a friend of mine suggested over on his blog that when he takes over the planet, one of his first edicts will be that all actors and actresses on a given series must all play their roles topless for the first half-dozen episodes. As he put it, "that should be sufficient to desensitize people to casual nipple shots so that we can grow the f*ck up already."

Couldn't agree more.

TWL

Um ... Dennis?

It seems kind of a strong leap (not to mention a smidge rude) to take Karen's statement and turn it into an accusation that she lacks morality entirely.

Your supposition's possible, but there's certainly a lot of evidence to show that presidents (and First Ladies) do tend to lead the nation in cultural trends. That tends to support her claim over yours.

I'll leave the political stuff for another time -- it's gonna be a long seven and a half months.

TWL

I was wondering if this is the first time Peter's column's been censored, altered or edited without his knowledge? From what I've heard about Maggie Thompson's integrity, she would have notified you about any changes. Possibly either 1) she was unaware of the editing, or 2) it was a very last minute change before publication? I certainly hope it is not another indication of the Bush/FCC "chilling factor" we're currently witnessing in our media.

PATRICK BUNCH wrote, "That's why Janet is rightly getting the punishment she deserves..."

Janet Jackson's getting punished?

SINCE WHEN?!?

And is it on Pay Per View?

Peter, first let me say I wish CBG had not cut the column. But, in retrospect I almost understand it. I feel you are way off base, Peter. Do I feel this "issue" has been blown out of proportion? Absolutely. Is it because she's Black? You know, I normally don't dismiss such comments. the Snoop Doggy Dog comment made me think for a split second. But in the end, you come of as another white liberal who is trying to make himself feel better by defending the "oppressed", as if Janet can't defend herself. Has she charged racism? Or are you better able to reognize it than she is?

Sorry, but I find the idea that it's Janet's race to be the real problem to be laughable, almost a parody of the way some folks immediately shout "racism!" at any opportunity. Unfortunately I think you're serious.

Bringing up the Lucy Lawless shows how far you're willing to go to try to make this work--a nipple slip at a hockey game seen by a handful of people (I'm sure more people have downloaded the clip than saw it originally) compared to what seems to have been a staged "accident" during the freaking half time show of the Superbowl! My Uncle Leon dropped his pants at Aunt Betsy's wedding and that didn't make the national news either but you don't see me making political hay out of it.

Oddly enough I just recently read a review of some movie that came in for criticism because it unapologetically showed some black women topless--the claim being that this reinforced the stereotype of Black women as national Geographic primitives. So...get upset over a black breast and you're a racist who wants to control their sexuality and DON'T get upset over a Black breast and you're a racist who thinks that all Black women as uncivilized savages...can't win for losing. The only way out is not to play the game.

The truth behind the controversy:
http://www.q102.com/chio/janet2.jpg

Also, if this was so much about race, why did Lena Horne no state afterward she no longer wanted Janet associated with her biopic? Wouldn't Ms. Horne take the opportunity to stand by a succeesful fellow black entertainer if she felt she was being wronged? But Ms. Horne was embarrassed. Does that make her part of the conspiracy? Also, PAD, if you actually followed this story, BOTH Justin AND Janet would have been allowed on the Grammys if they BOTH apologized for the incident. He did. She didn't. Which is her right. So the statement that the white guy can show his face while the black woman has to hide is incendiary garbage that gets us nowhere. If janet apologized and justin didn't, the black woman would have shown her face. OK?

I meant to add that, all that said, they should have run it or at least told you they were going to cut it. Frankly, I think they did you a favor but that doesn't excuse the fact that you deserve better treatment from the CBG.

Further, Justin lost a chance to be co-host a recent Motown special because of the incident because it was declared his doing so "would be an insult to the black community". So this ridiculous event did cost him an opportunity. Or is that okay because it was an "oppressed" group doing the censoring?
Really, PAD, you threw in eveerything but the kitchen sink to make this argument (Halle Berry?) and it just doesn't hold up.

Dennis V wrote "As for your Bush bashing, I hardly think Bush has anything to do with people being uptight" in response to Karen who wrote "Not that it's been so easy going before, just that with the recent administration pushing their morality on us, I think we've become even more uptight as a nation"

Please note that she said recent administration, not Bush. Bush alone is not the administration. In this case, I would think she was referring more to John Ashcroft (remember him - the one who spent a couple thousand of our tax dollars to cover the statue os Justice, because it has a bare breast) and/or FCC chairman Powell, who swore, before the game was over, to start an investigation.

And still, Bush can be included in this because he's the one who nominated/appointed them to their respective offices, which I doubt he'd do if he didn't agree with them.

Dennis,
I'd like you to know I am quite a moral person. I don't drink and drive, I don't cheat on my husband, and I try never to lie. My point was that this country is going hysterical over something that should have just been an embarrassment to Janet. I, and many other women, have had the experience of jumping in a pool and having the top of our suits accidently come up. The people who were at the pool with me did not overreact and start banning civil liberties at the pool. They did not tell me I was not welcome to come back. While the superbowl incident may or may not have been an accident (and judging by her reaction, I think it was) the reason it was blown out of proportion is because of the tonor of this country at present. I believe much of this can be lain at the door of the current occupant of the White House. He is running much of his government as an offshoot of his religion. I don't think the reaction would have been so drastic with another person sitting in that office. And the FCC would not have been so eager to mete out punishement for so many more minor offenses.
Tim,
Thank-you for your support.

"because of the tonor of this country at present"

TONE of this country. Sorry.
And Thanks to you Michael B for putting this more in perspective.

It never occurred to me that the whole brouhaha was about racism. Switch Janet with Madonna, let the same thing happen, and I gotta believe most people would have reacted the same way they did. Of course there's been a huge over-reaction and of course the more puritanical among us have used the incident as an example of how sinful and wanton this country has become. Myself, I just thought it was crude and inappropriate, much like the way DragonCon in Atlanta has become.

Maybe it's me, but I just don't get it. How can anyone say that the Bush administration is not using the JJ boob incident to further their goals.

I have been watching the Super Bowl every year for the past 5 or 6 years and some years I watch it alone and some years it's with friends and family. And every year for those past 5 or 6 years, when ever the half time show started everyone up and left the room, which is the same thing that happened this year. No one who was at my place that night ever actually saw JJ's exposed boob. We were either in the bathroom, getting refreshments or stretching our legs and talking about the game. In fact I didn't even know something had happened until I heard about it the next day on the radio.

Based on my experience watching Super Bowl games, I think more people heard about the exposed breast than actually saw it.

Now the government through the FCC wants to impose fines and put limits on free speech by declaring certain types of speech indecent. If the JJ boob incident isn't a way for the Bush administration to further restrict our freedoms and instill fear in the American people then I don't know what is.

Remember, people do not get ideas from books any more, they get them from TV and radio. The Nazis err... I mean the Bush administration already controls a good part of the media and the next step towards fascism is to "burn" off the media they don't control, which may be used to voice opinions against them.

And remember all of this is being done in the name of decency and to protect you the American people. I think that the fact that JJ is black is not a factor, because the blacks are not the untermench that the middle eastern community is...yet.

Karen-- no joke-- that was truly an excellent rebuttal.

P.S. Can I join your pool? (Okay, now I'm joking.)

We did what so many "concerned" people should have done - we turned the show off. We found the bumping-and-grinding in the first few minutes offensive enough that we just turned it off.

People watch shows like that to be titillated (pun intended). While that's fine for adults, we don't find that to be especially appropriate for our 9-year-old.

I still don't see how a 2-second exposed breast is somehow more offensive than the rest of the dreck on that stage.

Insideman,
Now I'm blushing....

People watch shows like that to be titillated (pun intended). While that's fine for adults, we don't find that to be especially appropriate for our 9-year-old.

So, I take it because you let your 9-year-old watch the game, you feel that the ritualized, glorified violence of two armies of millionnaires pounding one another into paste for control of an oblong ball is especially appropriate for him/her?

Reminds me of some lyrics of a song called "I Was Confused (About the Television Set)" by a sadly defunct local band, Ten Hands:

I watched this show
Just the other night
And I must say
Something was not right.
How come people on television's weird in the head?

Well, they won't show sex
But they show a lot of killin'
I guess it must be better
To show blood spillin'
Than to let little Junior see two naked people in bed.

As so often seems to be true, I agree with Tim. I can certainly see why CBG would be worried, but it's quite something that they didn't clear the cut with you, or at the least warn you.

And I think the section of article itself has a valid point or five.

And I'm ducking the politics.

I think the whole uproar over this errant "boobage" is hilarious.

When I was but a wee lad, my father took me to see "Dirty Harry".

Then, a short while later, he took me to a strip joint-- while telling my Mom he and I were going out to have steak. (Maybe he meant we were going for a "N.Y. Strip"?)

Anyway, a couple of months after that-- he grabbed my Mom's hand and my hand and dragged us both out of showing of "Play Misty for Me" because he was "offended" by Clint Eastwood's extremely tame sex scene with Donna Mills in the forest.

What eventually came of all this debauchery?

Why, I've dated women who look like Donna Mills my whole life (of course).

Moral? We almost always want what we can't have.

Those who turned off half-time screaming at their children "Bad show! Bad Show!" or reacted to a little Janet peepage by choking on their "Kitchen Fried Chicken" need to realize one thing:

They've just started a whole new generation of Janet Jackson worshippers.

Go put that in your pseudo-Freudian pipes and smoke it, fellas.

Nytwyng,

Actually, my daughter hates football, so she wasn't even around during the game. However, she likes music and dancing and was starting to gain interest at the halftime show.

Even if she were interested, though, she understands that football is a game. She has played soccer and knows that you have fun when you play and shake hands at the end.

"I don't think the reaction would have been so drastic with another person sitting in that office."

Well, I dunno. I remember Al "finger on the pulse of society" Gore attacking that source of all that is evil The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers as "sugary and sociopathic." This was also the administration that had Janet Reno telling the Senate that if the entertainment industry didn't voluntarily reduce the amount of violence on TV, "government action will be imperative."

You're setting yourself up for a huge letdown if you think Kerry will improve things (though if he doesn't pull his head out of his ass soon that will not be much of a possibility anyway).

Bill wrote: "You're setting yourself up for a huge letdown if you think Kerry will improve things (though if he doesn't pull his head out of his ass soon that will not be much of a possibility anyway)."

Bill-- speaking for all Democrats everywhere-- thanks so much for alerting us to John Kerry's dire rectal condition.

In the spirit of two party diversity-- would you mind helping Senator Kerry out of his delicate situation?

You sound like a strong, stalwart man who has experienced this condition before.

WE SURE COULD USE YOUR HELP!

Maybe they cut it to save you from the embarrassment of you using the race card.

Good G-D.

You're becoming a sterotype.

No ... if he became a stereotype along the lines you imply, he'd be insisting that skin color MUST be the reason for it.

He didn't. He said he was curious about whether it was a factor, and if so how much. He proposed a thought experiment.

How exactly is that becoming a stereotype, or even "playing the race card"? Acknowledging the card's in the deck isn't quite the same thing.

TWL

Ok to begin with i actually missed the actually nipslip but was shocked to find a local newspaper with the breast in question on the front page of the morning edition.Nice ,wonder if what Britney or christina would have the same coverage.
The point of it was Snoop and Christina is dead on.MTV is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to this .Lotsa ass shakin rap videos and angry brothers on the real world but they claim to be all about breaking down stereotypes.
Our current President and his religious fanaticism is the reason behind all this censorship protect our children b.s.
After all al queda,the columbine kids and timothy mcveigh all did their evil deeds as a result of Stern,Bare breasts and music videos.

Mark,

I applaud your daughter's display of taste in her dislike of football. Her interest (or lack thereof) aside, that didn't really answer the question, though...unless I'm mistaken, you seemed to imply that watching the bone-crunching of the Super Bowl is appropriate for a child, while a 2-second (if that) flash of a human breast is not. I must ask...what part of it being "just a game" makes football's inherent violence (Last I looked, soccer - of any age group - did not require the player to wear what amounts to padded armor to protect himself from the other players.) "youth appropriate" while the equally valid argument can be made that the halftime show was "just a performance" doesn't seem to hold water with most folks?

Insideman--sorry to have evidently hurt your feelings. Maybe I was harsh. I was actually trying to point out that Kerry has shown a disturbing lack of concern this past week as his polls have sunk in the face of a well coordinated attack and his own misstatements. (one poll had him ahead by double digits a few weeks back--I see now that Bush is ahead by a statistically insignificant 3 points. A possible 15 point reversal is sort of grounds for concerm don'tcha think?).

But I take it back. John, you're doing great. Keep it up. More of the same. Rope a dope, that's the ticket. Let these precious early months slip by, you can always get back those undecideds that the Republicans secured by portraying you as a waffler. Hey--those "liar" charges sure didn't stick to Gore and look how great he's been doing!

Personally I'd love to have a real debate by two candidates (3 if you count nader) that have different views on how to best do things. But if Kerry lets these early days slip by it will have all the drama and suspense of Clinton vs Dole.

Bill, I cannot possibly see how you think you hurt my feelings. I could not have my feelings hurt by someone I do not know or have a personal connection with.

That said, you bring up many valid points and thoughtful ideas in your subsequent post.

I just disagree with your sense of urgency. This will most likely be a see-saw battle in the early months-- with lots of up and down moments for BOTH candidates.

Keeping recent history first and foremost in my mind-- most polls have shown that the vast amount of truly "undecided" voters in previous elections did not make up their minds about who they were going to vote for until they got near their polling place.

As someone mentioned above-- it's going to be a long 7 and 1/2 months. I don't think Kerry going snowboarding for a couple of days while Bush launches a massive, early (too early in my mind) commerical buy is really going to change a thing.

Like most Basketball and Football games-- I think the contest between two worthy opponents is often best savored in the last few moments.

Nytwyng,

Wearing pads is for protection - and when my daughter played soccer she wore them on her legs. When she rides a bike she wears a helmet to protect her head.

I played football with no pads in the neighbor's yard growing up when I was younger than my daughter is now - but I didn't know squat about "the birds and the bees". Competetive sports have physical exertion and contact as a given. If she had wanted to watch the football game I would have let her.

Would I let her watch "Braveheart" or "Saving Private Ryan"? No. However, contact sports don't have that level of violence. It's like the difference between a kiss on "Seventh Heaven" or letting it all hang out on "Sex and the City". One you allow your kids to see, the other you don't.

"But in the end, you come of as another white liberal who is trying to make himself feel better by defending the "oppressed", as if Janet can't defend herself. Has she charged racism? Or are you better able to reognize it than she is?"

Okay, I've reread this several times and still don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I'm not trying to defend anyone. I'm speculating that white America is reacting differently to the sexual display of a Black woman being denuded by a White male than they would to the sight of a White Woman being denuded by a Black man.

Has she charged racism? Not to my knowledge. If she is thinking it, I doubt she'd say it; that'll just set off a whole 'nother mess I'm sure she doesn't want. On the other hand, a black columnist in the NY "Daily News" less than a week after it happened opined that her skin tone was factoring into the degree of backlash (although he didn't bring up the White Male/Black Male angle). I dismissed the notion out of hand at the time, but the staying power of this idiocy makes me now think he had a point.

As for Lena Horne, she may simply have thought the entire display in such poor taste that she didn't want to be attached to it in any way. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with my observations as to how White America is reacting.

"Further, Justin lost a chance to be co-host a recent Motown special because of the incident because it was declared his doing so "would be an insult to the black community". So this ridiculous event did cost him an opportunity. Or is that okay because it was an "oppressed" group doing the censoring?"

It's not "okay" particularly, but it certainly would seem to indicate that there are some in the Black community who indeed feel that there are unfair racial aspects at play. In other words, they agree with what I posted initially. So thanks for providing back up to what I said and blowing a hole in your own argument. That was considerate of you.

PAD

"Maybe they cut it to save you from the embarrassment of you using the race card.

"Good G-D.

"You're becoming a sterotype."

See, whereas *I* thought that, in order to play the race card, one usually has to be *of* that race. Far more stereotypical is the type of person who disagrees with me, not by actually addressing the validity or lack thereof, but rather going straight for the old reliable ad hominem attack.

"How exactly is that becoming a stereotype, or even "playing the race card"? Acknowledging the card's in the deck isn't quite the same thing."

I know that, Tim, but apparently he doesn't. It's a pretty stereotypical response.

PAD

Peter:
First off, I believe Janet Jackson being hounded by the media is more about her actions, considering most of the arguments I've heard involve morals and family values, especially with this being a presidential election year.
Secondly, when I first saw BID this week in CBG, I did not originally notice anything amiss because the column has varied in length before.
But did someone at CBG try to contact you and were not able to before this issue went to press?
And are all the other commenters certain the decision was made by either Maggie or someone below her? I would be more inclined to suspect someone above her connected more directly with Krause Publishing itself in this case.
Just my opinion folks.

I don't think race had anything to do with it. To use an example with Madonna (since you brought her up first, PAD), in her "Like A Prayer" video a black statue of a saint came to life and kissed Madonna. I don't even remember the name of the actor playing the, er, statue, but Madonna lost her Pepsi contract because of the video. I'm not sure how race enters into it -- in the video Madonna was dancing in front of burning crosses too -- but I don't recall an uproar against the black actor.

For a contemporary parallel, every time Britney Spears does something racy, it's big news. There's no race, simply watching someone who's ostensibly a singer pushing the limits of decency/prurience/t&a more and more to keep getting headlines and keep selling records. I'm surprised Janet Jackson had to stoop to this level -- she hadn't been escalating the amount of skin over the years and she's been doing fine -- but I don't think the outcry would have been any less if we'd seen Christina's or Britney's nipple.

I think this outroad is *definitely* because of politics. Bush (and, by extension, the Republican Party) is aiming to get the votes of the convervatives and/or Christians who want all this gosh-darn immorality stopped. (Note: This is not ALL Christians, so please don't start posting how you go to Church but you loved the nipple, or you're a convervative who listens to Stern. I'm referring to those who feel government should stay out of people's lives, unless it's to stamp out what they consider indecent.) The amentment to ban homosexual marriages is still being written. Howard Stern is under attack (and I haven't heard specifically what he said to warrant the fines; was it worse than what he's been saying for years?) and there's a push to up the fines for good ol' indecency. Apparently no one can choose to flip the station from Howard Stern (like I do -- hate the man, hate his show) or let some people get married elsewhere. Sigh.

Tony Isabella stated in one of his columns that he was asked to concentrate more on comics than some of the social issues he was bringing up. Could this be a case of wanting Peter to stick to the subject of the Guide? Personally, I loved Tony's social comments and didn't mind, but some readers may read for comics info only.

By far the best commentary I've seen about the entire Janet Jackson controversy was how SOUTH PARK handled it on its season premiere last week.

SPOILER WARNING: For those who haven't seen it yet and want to wait for when its rerun, please skip the following synopsis:

The kids manage to buy real "ninja weapons" at a fair and go out to "play ninja," with each of the four main SP characters depicted in a more realistic "martial arts" (not quite anime) style. Eventually, they battle Butters' Dr. Chaos alter-ego. Kenny uses his weapons, throwing stars -- and hits Butters in the eye with one. The kids are so terrified over what their parents will do to them that, at first, Kyle actually agrees with Cartman on a course of action! And they try to disguise Butters as a dog so they can take him to a vet instead of the hospital.

Everything leads up to Cartman getting TOO into his ninja character and deciding to use his "power" of invisibility to sneak across a stage where an auction is going on. He then strips off his clothes (which don't become invisible), and walks stark naked across the stage. Just about this time Butters comes out on the stage and faints.

There's an immediate town meeting, and the kids are sure they're all going to be grounded forever for Butters' injury. But the parents completely ignore the violent play. They're more incensed over Cartman walking around naked in front of everyone, including the public access channel covering the auction. Cartman explains it was a "wardrobe malfunction," to no avail. The rest of the kids walk out of the town hall, relieved and ready to play ninja again.

Oh, and they did also have Cartman, having seen THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, making some cracks about Jews in general and Kyle in particular.

Oh, come on. I'm not going to defend CBG cutting part of the BID out. I won't say that they can't either. But maybe they did it because you've never said anything quite this dumb in print before. Is it because she's black? No. It's because people who wanted this "culture war" took the ball that they were given and ran with it. It's because a less then two second flash that almost nobody saw at the time was shown over and over and over and over and over again by conservative pundits on FOX, CNN and MSNBC and talked up more then the game by the conservative chat guys for a week after it was done and gone. It wouldn't have mattered one wit if it had been a white singer or not.
Just look at other things that came from race being a factor in something and how whatever it was played out. If something starts from race it most often continues down that road. This started from a dumb stunt and has since snowballed into something that's jammed up a number of people who aren't black. Bubba is white. Stern is white. Most the other DJs that have gotten smacked on the hand and told to tone it down or else have been white. Five second delays don't care about color. Nothing that has stemmed from this has had to do with color. Most of it has had to do with sex. Showing it in some way or form or talking about it. Or about words. Bono is getting threatend with huge fines for saying a word he shouldn't have. Last time I looked, Bono was white.
If this had started with Janet and continued to progress with mostly black singers, groups or pop entertainment I might go with you on his one. But it hasn't. It's nailed and is nailing everyone. Her color didn't matter. It was just the last straw for some people and those that wanted to use something like this to do exactly what they're doing found their weapon and their public support in her boob flash. The tempest in the c-cup as it were.

"I don't think race had anything to do with it. To use an example with Madonna (since you brought her up first, PAD), in her "Like A Prayer" video a black statue of a saint came to life and kissed Madonna. I don't even remember the name of the actor playing the, er, statue, but Madonna lost her Pepsi contract because of the video. I'm not sure how race enters into it -- in the video Madonna was dancing in front of burning crosses too -- but I don't recall an uproar against the black actor.

"For a contemporary parallel, every time Britney Spears does something racy, it's big news. There's no race, simply watching someone who's ostensibly a singer pushing the limits of decency/prurience/t&a more and more to keep getting headlines and keep selling records. I'm surprised Janet Jackson had to stoop to this level -- she hadn't been escalating the amount of skin over the years and she's been doing fine -- but I don't think the outcry would have been any less if we'd seen Christina's or Britney's nipple."

Okay, but this is another case of someone pretty much supporting the point I was making without seeming to realize it.

Madonna did something outrageous. Christina or Britney do something outrageous. And people react, and then it's gone. Pepsi dropped Madonna. Okay. But it's not as if Pepsi, Coke, Dr. Pepper and 7-Up all said, "That's it, no more female rock stars!" and investigations were launched.

The Janet Jackson situation has gone way beyond proportionate response. We're seeing a nationwide crackdown that movie producers, TV producers, radio producers, are all saying specifically relates to Janet Jackson. It is completely over the top (no pun intended), so much so that I am prompted to wonder whether something truly fundamental to white society is driving it, perhaps even without consciously being aware of it.

I'm not willing to say it's politics as usual. Politics taking swings at the entertainment industry is nothing new. But everything from "E.R." and "NYPD Blues" deleting nudity to Howard Stern being clamped down on as never before are being tied by spokesmen to Janet Jackson.

It's as if it's developing a life of its own, building upon itself. People who are being censored are citing Janet Jackson, politicians are blaming her to use as a rallying point for hearings. Citing handfuls of instances of White Women Behaving Badly can't begin to compare to the lynch mob mentality of every aspect of the entertainment industry apparently using her as a whipping girl.

And what is, as I said, the dividing line? What's different about her from Madonna, Britney and Christina (aside from her brother being, well, kinda weird.)

You folks really believe that if a black singer rips the blouse off a white singer, the focus isn't going to be on her nudity, but rather on glorifying predatory males and sexual assault? I can just see it: "The Superbowl half time show was nothing but a dramatization of the objectification of women so prevalent in the hateful lyrics of gangstas!"

If you really believe that the news coverage and slant of the investigations would be exactly the same as they are now, okay. But me, I'm not so sure. And if the race of who's doing what to whom really would have an impact, as I suspect it might...then who's to know for sure how much skin color is playing a part here?

PAD

"If this had started with Janet and continued to progress with mostly black singers, groups or pop entertainment I might go with you on his one. But it hasn't. It's nailed and is nailing everyone. Her color didn't matter. It was just the last straw for some people and those that wanted to use something like this to do exactly what they're doing found their weapon and their public support in her boob flash."

And again, my point is being made for me. I'm speculating that maybe what *made* the "last straw" is because it was black breast being flashed. That what enables Stern et al to blame her is that she's Black.

It does kind of fascinate me to see minds slamming shut on this, though...and hurling insults to boot, as I expected (the "dumb idea" crack, yes, that was very nice.) I generally find that any idea that's so repellant that people won't even consider it is an idea closer to the truth than people care to admit.

PAD

"Ok to begin with i actually missed the actually nipslip but was shocked to find a local newspaper with the breast in question on the front page of the morning edition.Nice ,wonder if what Britney or christina would have the same coverage."

Is this irony intentional? Britney with coverage? Not gonna happen!

CJA

No, it doesn't support your idea. It wasn't because she was black that it was the last straw. It was the time and place. (I may get this name wrong. Sorry.) I think it was Lil' Kim that came out on an MTV awards show a few years ago wearing a purple pasty and nothing else on one boob (and God knows she's worn worse stuff on TV since then). Then Diana Ross fondled her boob on national TV. This program aired several time on MTV and was never edited. The photos of this were in the pop culture mags for months after and in their year end wrap ups. This got frowns from the right but nothing this huge came out of it because, duh, it was MTV. That seemed to be the way of saying, "you know what they do on that channel. It's expected."
MTV, VH-1 and BET all show vids all the time with black woman flashing more body parts then Janet did for far longer. And then you move to the next vid with the same thing. People and parents gripe about it but, hey, it's cable and they do that on those channels and you should know better etc.
This happened on network TV, in the early hours of the evening and on a "family" event. We can argue the whole sex vs violence thing later. Violent or not, the Super Bowl is considered a family event. You add all that up and you get an event that would have been used by the culture war crew no matter the color of the singer's skin.
This has been coming for a while now. There has been a growing feeling of backlash for modern pop culture brewing for a while. The conservative chat shows have been pushing the "culture war" hard for a little over a year now. It had to happen and she just gave them the thing they wanted.
Look, I think it's dumb as a brick that this garbage is happening. I think the outrage expressed by many in the conservative movement was about as real as a three dollar bill. It's about politics and power. It's stupid that so much is being made of this flash that most people didn't know happened until the were told about it the next day.
But I think it's just as dumb to drag race into this. I didn't shut my mind to this thought right after reading your posting. I read this in other places weeks ago. The local free press is aimed at the black community in Richmond and tried to run this one by its readers. They didn't go for the idea either. I've talked about this with a few people I know as well before seeing it posted here. I didn't see it then and I don't now. To me, the idea that this is about race is just dumb.

Just as a note:

Calvin Broadus performs under the stage name Snoop Dogg. At one point, he used the stage name Snoop Doggy Dogg (note the double "g" in "Dogg"), but he dropped the "Doggy" some time in the mid-'90s (after being tried for and acquitted of murder charges).

Ms. Aguilera's correct first name is "Christina," not "Christine."

Sorry, but I'm too much of a music geek not to offer the correction. Otherwise, I found the article quite thought-provoking, and am saddened that CBG chose to edit it without consulting you.

Also, Tim Lynch posted:

"As for the issue itself, I think I'm partially with Karen and partially with Jason (which itself sounds like it violates a few FCC regs, come to think of it). A Snoop/Aguilera pairing might have come off more as an assault, but that strikes me as more a perception of Snoop's personality than of his race. I like Jason's idea: make Janet Jackson Madonna (roughly the same age, or at least a lot closer than Aguilera), and make Timberlake ... oh, I don't know ... geez, would someone like Usher work? What very little I've seen of him suggests young and clean-cut, much as Timberlake was perceived for a while. "

Usher was indeed the first person that came to my mind when I read Jason's proposal, though Usher's new album is a bit on the controversial side, as well, amid allegations that it's about his relationship with a member of TLC, including that relationship's demise due to infidelity on Usher's part. Still, he's the closest I can think of as a Justin Timberlake for this analogy, unless you want to skew REALLY young and use, say, Bow Wow or Lil' Romeo.

Oh, and I think in this example, Madonna would have been blamed, simply because she's Madonna and she's been desperately trying to "shock" audiences since the start of her career. No way anyone would believe it was a "wardrobe malfunction" were it her, and the young black male would almost certainly face little if any flack. Think about it: who was seen as the instigator of the infamous lesbian kisses between Madonna, Britney, and Christina?

Of course, Madonna would have just resulted in a collective yawn from society. Rosie O'Donnell had a great line in A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN that sure seems to apply here: she said of Madonna's character (who was planning a similar "wardrobe malfunction"), "You think there are men in this country who ain't seen your bosoms?"

In general, I do tend to agree that the reaction is more "hysterical puritanism" (great band name, that) and less racially motivated, but I do find Peter's piece very thought-provoking, and I am not 100% convinced he's wrong.

Also, Kevin 251 asks:

"Do you really think it could've been an accident? MTV people were hinting that something shocking would happen during the show. Justin sang, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song!" Then the section of costume he did grip tore right off, revealing a decorated boob. Seems clearly planned to me."

The "something shocking" that was planned was Justin's appearance. Justin was not announced or promoted as part of the show, his appearance was a surprise. Whether or not "the boobie incident" (as I like to call it) was planned, what they were hinting at was Justin's guest appearance. (Which really, wasn't that big a shock -- most pre-show speculation was that the surprise was going to be Michael Jackson joining his sister on stage).

Julio Diaz wrote: "Whether or not 'the boobie incident' (as I like to call it) was planned, what they were hinting at was Justin's guest appearance. "

I keep hearing this, and I find it impossible to believe, mostly because I didn't watch the Half-time show, walking away saying "MTV? Janet Jackson? Justin Timberlake? I'd rather bash my face into the wall." If I knew about it, and I knew about it before all of this mess, then it can't have been planned as that shocking a surprise.

I generally find that any idea that's so repellant that people won't even consider it is an idea closer to the truth than people care to admit.
Or it could just be that people have considered your idea, but they don't give it much credibility and thus dismiss it. It seems to me that it may be you who can't admit that maybe your idea is simply offbase and not plausable.

But everything from "E.R." and "NYPD Blues" deleting nudity to Howard Stern being clamped down on as never before are being tied by spokesmen to Janet Jackson.
Actually NYPD Blue decided not to trim their steamy love scene (although there was a rumor out there that they may have did this in one time zone on the west coast). Anyway, things will blow over soon enough so you can count on seeing more of Dennis Franz's ass in all its full glory! :)

One more time for clarity. The problem with the boob flash (and I don't believe for a second it was accidental), was that it was during PRIME TIME BROADCAST TELEVISION. There are established rules for broadcast standards at different times of the day. Nudity is not OK on any BROADCAST program, without special permission. Mostly it's PBS stations that get the special permission because of some of their National Geographic programming and some of the British dramas, or on news programming. That's it.

Cable/satellite is a differnt story. You have to ask for and pay for those channels. Off air stations don't leave you that option. Yes, you can always use the "if you don't like it, turn the channel" arguement, but there was NO WARNING to parents that there was to be partial nudity. It was a big "shock" that MTV, Janet and Justin cooked up. Finally it was a sporting event, not a concert series. Musical performances are traditionally part of the Super Bowl halftime show, but not nudity.

PAD makes valid points about the black/white issue, but I don't feel it applies entirely to this situation. It's about pre-established FCC guidelines that were violated (all puns intended).

Dean wrote:
Our current President and his religious fanaticism is the reason behind all this censorship protect our children b.s.
Where in the world do you get that the President is some sort of religious fanatic? Just because he believes in God and attends church? Bush is hardly pushing any "religious fanaticism" upon anybody. People need to stop being so afraid of religion and blowing things out of proportion so much. It coming to the point where if you simply say you believe in God you can almost count on being labeled as a fanatic.

>

Sorry to nipick (and go off-topic), but as a fan, I can't let this go... it's "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers." No 'The', no 'g'on 'Morphin'

Alan.

"I generally find that any idea that's so repellant that people won't even consider it is an idea closer to the truth than people care to admit."

Or just plain wrong. Besides, we considered it and, upon solemn contemplation, came to the reasoned conclusion that you were having an off day.

You can bring up all of the past transgressions by pop idols you want, what made this different was the venue. The reason it has staying power was that it infuriated those who,rightly or wrongly, have increasingly felt that they are losing the ability to choose what they can watch or listen to.

If this had been the MTV movie awards...huge collective snore. Superbowl=brouhaha. Simple as that.

Insideman,

I don't think that Dole ever recovered from the early, Dick Morris led attack ads. They minimized his convention bounce and set the defensive tone for the campaign.

I agree that this will be a close race and could easily go either way--I am astounded by folks like PAD who say that they don't think Kerry has a chance--but I think Kerry is making a huge mistake right now. If he loses they will all point to this time as one of the big factors.

Interesting post, Mr. David. I myself have considered this possibility, as it was forced in my face by a woman who hinted that my being a white male is the cause of society's problems. As for the actual issue, though...

I think it's likely that her race plays a *part* in why Jackon's received so much more flack than Timberlake, but I don't think that it's the only reason. Let's face it - the media loves to harp on anything one of the famous Jacksons does. Would she be receiving all this presumably unwanted attention if Michael Jackson weren't in the news right now due to charges of child molestation? I'm inclined to doubt it.

I also think that the fact that she's a woman is what has made her more the object of criticism than Timberlake. The unfortunate truth is that women are still not 100% equal to men when it comes to the corporate and entertainment worlds.

Though your post, PAD, was thought provoking, especially the hypothetical Snoop-Dogg scenario, I think that to boil all of this down so that it is only a race issue is to ignore all of the other factors involved.

Although I disagree with your assessment, I fear that it may espouse from my optimistic view of society. Every time I meet someone with strong convictions of anti-somebody for a stupid reason, I just can't wrap my head around it.

[b]"You think I’m wildly off base about this? Think there’s not the slightest kernel of truth?

"Consider this, and give yourself a very honest answer…

"If it had been Snoop Doggy Dog ripping the blouse off Christine Aguilera…

"Do you think the skew of the subsequent coverage would have been on a white woman’s breast?

"Or would it have been on a helpless white woman being sexually assaulted by a Black man?"
[/b]

I think you're off base about Janet having to hide, but you might have a point about the color issue. Problem is, I see it differently from you. I think a lot of people (not everyone, but a significant number) who are spouting the "it's only a boob! Get over it" line, would be inflicted with OJ-itis if Snoop Dog did something similar to Christina or Britney.

I think the calls for controls would be much worse. After all, white men have raped, killed, and abused black women for centuries and gotten off with a slap on the wrist or a stern warning. Black men, on the other hand, have been lynched for just looking.

Maybe they thought what I did about your shoddy race theory: If it had been Madonna and not Janet Jackson, the SAME DAMN BRUHAHA would've happened.

I'm not saying the whole thing isn't stupid, but it's not about race.

These are the kind of issues that are most important to this country? NUDITY and WORDS! I cant believe that we live in such a puritanical and oppressed country. What happened to the attitudes and feelings of almost 3 years ago when the most important thing was for all of us to take care of each other and hug our kids? Our country really did change that day. Now instead of hope and dreams that faced us each day all that I can see we have to look forward to is the fear and doom and gloom of a repressed culture, a weak economy and a government that treats us all as children. Gay marriage, the FCC, Patriot Act all things limiting our personal rights as Americans. If I wanted to be told what to watch, who to marry, what religion to believe, and a government keeping secret files on citizens there are a few countries I could move to that are like that. I think Peter is on to something. I didn't think so at first. But, all we are looking at is the surface. The headline. He's looking deeper than that. The big picture. Why is this happening? Martha Stewart, Howard Stern, Janet Jackson are the headlines. I want the story. The real story. I am so frustrated that the government is coming closer and closer into my home and they have no right limiting our Rights. And that is what this is. BIgger picture people. I wish I knew the end result but I am definately seeing the steps being taken to lead to a different and not for the better country. They won. For whatever reasons they crashed those planes they have changed our lives, our country, our freedoms forever.

Well, I'm sorry they cut your article, but I think you're starting with a few faulty premises:

1. I don't know anyone who buys that the "wardrobe malfunction" was accidental. Unlike Lucy Lawless, Janet Jackson didn't react with any surprise over what Justin did. A lot of people snickered and laughed at Lucy, but everyone knew that what happened to her was an accident. Both CBS and MTV gave advance hints that something "hot" was going to happen at the half-time show. People gave Lucy a pass because it was a legitimate accident. Janet isn't being forgiven because it was obviously staged.

2. As for Roseanne's rendition of the National Anthem, I don't where you were, but she was pummelled in the media for months after that, including demands that she publicly apologize to the descendents of Francis Scott Key.

3. Remember the Madonna-Christine-Brittney liplock at the Grammies? They also got hit in the media for weeks after. True, it died down after a only a few weeks, but I think Janet's stunt is being used as shorthand for a lot of media events that many feel have crossed a line, including this one.

4. Howard Stern isn't blaming Janet Jackson for his most recent issues, at least not entirely. For the past couple of weeks, he has focused on the message that the FCC and Clear Channel have targeted him for attack because he criticized Bush.

5. Lest we've forgotten, Michael Powell, one of the first people to jump on the soap box and launch an investigation, is black. So, there is definitely more to the outrage over this than just uptight white America freaking out of a black woman not knowing her "place."

Personally, I think the reaction to a bare breast in the middle of an event filled with commercials about farting horses and erectile dysfunction to be ridiculous and I think a lot of people, both in and out of the Bush administration are using it to further their agendas, but to say that the reaction is racially motivated is a bit of a stretch. Most people I talk to aren't all that outraged anymore and have moved on to other issues. Only media pundits are really keeping alive in the public's mind.

Janet, race and AL queda

Interesting twist PAD's got, where there may be a racial angle to the Janet mess. I just don't think it's the real fuel that's keeping this culture war fire a blazin'.

Again, I don't know that PAD thinks this either b/c he seemed to indicate CBG needed some controversey. It might be one of those things where it's a possible take - let's hear what everyone has to say. Then again he may believe it. All I can say is that I believe it was the nipple that broke the camel's back. What a prudish camel then, huh?

I think if we interchanged similar celebrities in this whole ordeal the result would have been the same. It was OBVIOUSLY a planned stunt. She just "happened" to have nipple jewelry? It just HAPPENED to coincide with the "naked by the end of the song" line? WHo was buying the accident thingy? And it's women's clothing and a teen idol like Timberlake who is probably more
adept at removing women's clothing than most women. This was NO accidento. And for those that believe it - yikes. I thought this level of pinhead was limited to the 12 people who sat on the OJ trial.

Of course, if it had been a Snoop Dog orsomeone similar - the media shift might have been different. Bill O Reilly and women's groups everywhere would have charged the gangsta rapper with being a mysoginist - it was all his idea
- it degrades women etc. Even if the Snooper had blood red eyes, his muzzle half buried in a bag of Pringles and with no recollection of where he even WAS at the superbowl - he would have STILL been portrayed as the evil Gangsta Rapper who defiled a lovely lady.

And of course if underneath Jackson's faulty wardrobe were revealed the following:

- pen written, JT wuz here nizzle
- Snoop's wuz here, nizzle-fizzle
- a makeshift "Take a Number" dispenser, now serving #1,001

She'd STILL be portrayed as the hapless female victim. But it didn't happen that way. IF we replaced Janet with a lighter skinned substitute - we'd have the same problem. If it was Christina Aguilera - it'd be the same uproar. I doubt race had ANYTHING to do with it.

If it was Madonna - it would have been simply spun that the entertainer that made MTV trashy in the 80's is back to her old tricks. It would've produced the same results no matter who it was. Well okay, that's not necessarily true .. .if it was Golden Girl, Bea Arthur, there would have certainly been outrage and public tumult, but not of the same vein. SuperBowl parties around the world would have been decorated with regurgitated bufallo wings and Doritos.

A large portion of America is uneasy with the envelope that has been pushed over time. I say TURN THE TV OFF. But others want to santize it to their likings or for the approrpiateness of their 4 year old child who they plant in front of it for hours a day because it's cheaper then a babysitter.

Babysitter - $1,000 a month plus gum.
TV - $150.00 - $185.00 with porn.

It's economics.

I guess people overreacted because of WHERE Ms. Jackson showed her nipple. People have to be more aware of what's coming up. I have an insane radar for this stuff. If I'm watching Seinfeld or a Bond movie - if I sense a sexual moment coming up and there's a parent in the room - I FLIP THE CHANNEL to the Muppets or something. If it was going to be a REALLY GOOD and STEAMY scene I flip the channel to the Muppets and run upstairs to the other TV.

If there is a child in the room? Well if they are under 12 a good whack with a semi-stiff pillow usually puts them down for 45 seconds and enough time to savor any TV skin.

Now if I'm watching Spongebob Squarepants and a cartoon Britney perfroms falacio on him (is that even possible?)- then yes, it was out of the blue and all should be outraged. . .well except Spongebob.

But before the nip-slip - the half time show was pretty raunchy anyhow. Is it any more harmful to a child that Jackson showed a nipple as opposed to the usual bump and grind stuff? If no nipple was ever shown was it appropriate for a 7 year old to hear the lyrics and watch the stripper like dancing. Probably not - so these puritan parents should have just CHANGED THE CHANNEL before the while "WARDROBE MALFUNCTION" since the entire production was raunchy and innappropriate. Why did they wait until the nip-slip? People this stupid seem like the exact kind that would BELIEVE it was a wardrobe malfunction anyway!

Go WRITE to Viacom - boycott - use your money - don't use the government, though. I want the government on more important tasks, like fining Osama is and the rest of AL Queda - not who was behind Janet's "faulty wardrobe."

Yeah, I'll feel safer if we have a commission and public trial where Janet and a gaggle of French designers squabble about an errant button or snap.

But if the governemtn is destined to get to the buttom of it - then so be it. If they ever find out who was responsible for the faulty wardrobe - I want that information PUBLIC. I want the designer make and brand because that nipple popped out of that garmet VERY EASILY. My wife will be mandated to buy only this designer's clothing b/c I can't stand FUMBLING with bluses and bras for endess minutes because I can't find the clasp, the thingy, the hook, the ladder, the combination, the skeleton key - whatever.

So at the end of it we may be living in a nuclear holocaust - but I'll be able to get to second base easily.

That's the government at work for you.

Where in the world do you get that the President is some sort of religious fanatic? Just because he believes in God and attends church?

No, not because of that. It's more things like:

(1) he puts everything in stark Manichean good-vs-evil terms, which tends to be the mark of a fanatic (religious or otherwise)

and

(2) he tells foreign parliaments that "God told me to strike at Saddam and so I did".

That's the sort of thing that causes me worry, not his churchgoing.

TWL

Janet Jackson's BLACK??????

Den posted: "3. Remember the Madonna-Christine-Brittney liplock at the Grammies? They also got hit in the media for weeks after. True, it died down after a only a few weeks, but I think Janet's stunt is being used as shorthand for a lot of media events that many feel have crossed a line, including this one."

For the sake of accuracy: The infamous liplock took place at the MTV Video Music Awards -- on cable -- not on the Grammys (note correct spelling) -- which go out on broadcast television -- though certainly, broadcast outlets replayed the tame kisses ad nauseum for weeks to follow (and frankly, I don't see a problem with that, but then, I support the legalization of gay marriage and think there's no reason TV shouldn't show any two people kissing that want to, as long as nobody's getting hurt or being forced to do it against their will).

Also, Cheesey E. posted: "It was OBVIOUSLY a planned stunt. She just "happened" to have nipple jewelry?"

Believe it or not, thousands of people wear nipple jewelery in piercings every day, without any intent to expose their breasts on national television. I'm doing so right now (sorry if that's too much info). Whether or not the "boobie incident" was an accident, the fact that she has a pierced nipple shouldn't be taken as evidence one way or the other -- that's simply a personal choice, just like piercing any other body part or getting tattoos.

I'm not saying it wasn't planned (I believe that they at the least meant to partially remove Janet's garment, though I'm not sure whether the lace was supposed to keep her covered), and I certainly don't believe MTV was unaware of the plans. But claiming her choice to have a piercing as evidence is simply uneducated.

I don't think it has anything to do with race for MOST of America, but maybe SOME of America, though the thought had never occurred to me.

I'm surprised Maggie didn't tell you. Was it, perhaps, a mistake as opposed to an intential no-notification?

Personally, I think the idea is spurious. I was kidding above, but (and I suppose this IS racist) I've never considered JJ black. Not that it would matter if I had.

Thank you Dominic, I said days after 9/11 when Bush and crew started announcing their evil ideas (patriot act, no nail clippers on airplanes, etc.) that the terrorists accomplished their goal, and did even more damage to America than they could have ever expected... They allowed Pope Bush to push his Jesus-freak agenda on America and most Americans were ignorant enough to thank him for it....

Well, to be honest, if it had been Madonna instead of Janet, I don't think anyone would believe for a moment that it wasn't staged. Especially with her track record.

I don't have a problem with the FCC enforcing it's rules and fines. What's the big deal? So a few shock jocks can't say a few expletives on air any more and people have to put on a few more clothes. OH MY GOD! The world is going to end if that happens!

If it shuts up a few more trash talkers like the idiot that suggested someone should kill four more civil rights leaders so we could take the whole week off for Martin L. King Day, so much the better.

And of course, no one seems to have a problem with the government telling stations that they HAVE to enforce the Fairness Act, or that you can't run certain political commercials about candidates during a sixty-day window, exactly when most people are actually making their final decisions about who to vote for. No, pointing out things that you believe is wrong or even right about a candidate is campaign corruptness.

I guess it's not censorship that bothers people , it's what kind and who you're censoring.

After read all these posts I think that Insideman and Bill Mulligan should have a current events debate show on CNN or MSNBC --- oh, and on HBO late-nite: "Karen's Pool Party" Woooo Hoooo!

I have to disagree with you on the whole race card thing, I think this was just another MTV oriented mess that got blown out of proportion by right wing wacko's. Was it an accident, or "Woredrobe Malfunction"? I really dont think so, because Jackson clearly is wearing an appliance to cover the nipple, and i think it was another attempt by MTV, like the Britney/Madonna/Christina Kiss, to cash in on sexual innuendo. But it backfired on them, or at least the media took notice that some people (probobly the same people that say the Football players pants are to tight or a Doritos commercial was too provocative) complained and they made it sound like a bigger deal than it is. And because its an big Election Year, then you got the politicians going nuts stepping over each other trying to please these people who were morally offended by seeing a boob for half a second. And all this going on as the President and key members of his Administration are refusing to testify to an Independant Comission on 9/11 that might show they ignored warnings from certain people (like the "out of the loop" Terrorism Czar) that lead to the attack happening. Gee, I wonder which story I feel is more important to the welfare of the country?

Nivek posted: "I really dont think so, because Jackson clearly is wearing an appliance to cover the nipple"

Are people really this sheltered about piercings? The jewelery is called a nipple shield, and it's a fairly common piece of jewelery to wear in that type of piercing, even among folks with no intent to bare their breasts on national television. I simply don't see the jewelery as evidence of intent, and I think that declaring it as such shows ignorance of the so-called "modern primative" movement (piercings, tattoos, etc.).

Again, folks, I'm not saying this wasn't planned. I'm just saying that the piercing and Ms. Jackson (if you're nasty)'s choice of jewelery are not compelling evidence one way or the other. Google "body modification" and you should find some enlightening results.

Wait... Christina's white? I thought she was of some sort of Latino persuasion.

For the sake of accuracy: The infamous liplock took place at the MTV Video Music Awards -- on cable -- not on the Grammys

Like there's a difference between one idiotic award show and another. :)

Never once thought about the race thing. I have thought about gender bias though. There were two of them involved. Haven't heard of [i]him[/i] getting taken to the wood shed like she was.

I suppose we just need a person to stand up to the "religious freaks" and quote the Man himself "He without sin, cast the first stone".

(Because I believe there were two people involved in THAT one also, in THAT one we only hear about them wanting to stone the woman too...OH YEAH that's just a fictional account made up by more religious crazys...never mind).

No I don't have a problem with the "exposure" but then I don't have kids.

My brother-in-law was relieved he had just sent his kids off to bed though. I suppose he was relieved mostly because he didn't have to discuss Janet's nipples with his 6 year old son yet, but I'm sure that day will come.

Peter,
You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take. When the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: "Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth" is asinine. Rush Limbaugh said the same thing when he made his comments about Donovan Mcnabb, citing the indignation of his critics.When talking about "The Truth", Kyle Baker said we spend too much time talking about race; that it isn't a large factor in most people's lives. Do you think he might know a bit better than you?
Your comment about Janet was silly. if she claimed it was about race, well, then, we would have to take her seriously! But she didn't, but that's probably because she's afraid of making this thing even bigger! Again, it's the "Maude" mentality. We must say and do for Black people what they are unable to say and do for themselves!

I suppose he was relieved mostly because he didn't have to discuss Janet's nipples with his 6 year old son yet, but I'm sure that day will come.

Did he have to explain "erectile dysfunction" though?

>

No. He just waits to ask his Aunt (me) those questions when I'm not quick enough to change the channel. (His father's much better at that one).

I was never offended at seeing an surgically enhanced breast flashed (My parents had no problem taking me to the beach in Italy when I was ten, where there were exposed breasts—I was fascinated to see them, but certainly not traumatized, and sometimes womens’ tops come off in the water here in the U.S.—and hell, I saw way more during Drawing classes in art school), but I was offended at the arrogance at their lie (“Oh, it was a wardrobe malfunction!”), as if we’re all just too dumb to realize from contextual clues that it was planned as a publicity stunt for the imminent release of her new album. I’m also angry at how this little flap on her part, which she did for her own little selfish reasons of personal career advancement, has now had the backlash effect that it has. Take a bow, Janet. The media has gotten more uptight because of you, but hey, ya sold a few more albums, right?

Jerome Maid: But in the end, you come of as another white liberal who is trying to make himself feel better by defending the "oppressed", as if Janet can't defend herself. Has she charged racism? Or are you better able to reognize it than she is?
Luigi Novi: Which in true Rorschach fashion, probably says more about your own psyche than anything about Peter. Peter says what he does for the same reason we all do here: Because he’s expressing an opinion. Not because he thinks he’s coming to someone’s rescue. Race never occurred to me as a factor in this little flap, but that’s how Peter saw it.

hemisphire: The truth behind the controversy:
">http://www.q102.com/chio/janet2.jpg
Luigi Novi: I’m not surprised to see that. I knew it was staged and that that “cup” was rigged to come off. Neither Justin nor Janet appeared surprised when it happened, and I don’t buy the idea that she (or anyone) is in the habit of wearing that elaborate sunburst nipple ring under her bra. It doesn’t strike me as the sort of thing you wear under a bra. It looks as if it would be uncomfortable underneath it, and pretty pointless as well. It does, on the other hand, look like something you’d wear if you were planning on deliberately flashing your breast, but felt a bit shy and didn’t want to show entirely everything unobstructed.

Peter David: The Janet Jackson situation has gone way beyond proportionate response. We're seeing a nationwide crackdown that movie producers, TV producers, radio producers, are all saying specifically relates to Janet Jackson. It is completely over the top (no pun intended), so much so that I am prompted to wonder whether something truly fundamental to white society is driving it, perhaps even without consciously being aware of it.
Luigi Novi: Because in the case of Madonna’s video, there was no nudity, and it wasn’t a live broadcast, which robs the suits of control.

In the case of the lewd getups worn by Britney and Christina, their quasi-nudity is confined to their magazine layouts. Even when they show a lot of skin in their videos, the networks have the power to control their airing because they’re not live, and can choose not to run them. They couldn’t do that with Janet’s tit, and because there’s something about nudity makes the Standards and Practices people lose all sense of reason and calm, the Superbowl incident is being treated as it is. If a magazine took a chance at a layout that later caused an uproar, at best it would cause that magazine to reconsider its standards, and at worst, the ramifications would be confined to the magazine industry, and would not affect the electronic media. Hence, when Vanity Fair published that cover with a pregnant Demi Moore, there was some controversy, but it didn’t affect the electronic media.

Jerry in Richmond, Va: No, it doesn't support your idea. It wasn't because she was black that it was the last straw. It was the time and place. (I may get this name wrong. Sorry.) I think it was Lil' Kim that came out on an MTV awards show a few years ago wearing a purple pasty and nothing else on one boob
Luigi Novi: The fact that it was cable vs. network is one possible reason, but there’s another difference between the two:

First, the pasty was itself sufficient coverage that her breast was not exposed, and second, she showed up on the red carpet that way. MTV could’ve told the red carpet cameraman not to shoot her, and when it came time for her to present her award with Diana Ross, the suits could’ve asked her backstage to cover up. (Hell, MTV even did a behind-the-scenes pre-show showing Lil’ Kim preparing for the show with her friends, in which the showed her with that outfit.) The point is that the network suits didn’t have that ability with Janet not only because the Superbowl was a live show but because they had no prior knowledge of what she was going to do. Because of this, the two are not analogous.

Dennis V.: Where in the world do you get that the President is some sort of religious fanatic? Just because he believes in God and attends church? Bush is hardly pushing any "religious fanaticism" upon anybody.
Luigi Novi: The fact that he unapologetically pandered to Bob Jones University (which bans interracial dating, forbids visits by alumni who are gay, and is so anti-Catholic that material on Catholicism in its bookstore is listed under the heading “Cults”—echoing the attitudes of not only its founder Bob Jones, but also current school President Bob Jones III, who continues to refer to Catholicism and Mormonism as “cults”) may be one reason. Speaking at BJU, Bush said, “I look forward to publicly defending our conservative philosophy.'' To be fair, Bush criticized the school’s racial policies, but only after the speech, not during it and not directly to the students.

The fact that he sided against the federal court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to lead students in public schools in a recitation of the version of the Pledge of Allegiance that contains the words “Under God,” inserted into it, calling the ruling “ridiculous,” and saying that "America is a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty," and that the altered version of the Pledge in question is simply “a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God”, may be another.

His pandering to the Religious Reich with things like his Presidential Prayer Team, or Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship (which has designed work-release programs in which prisoners graduate only if they attend church regularly), or his desire to fund religious organizations with federal money with the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI)—which gives money to some churches but not others like the Nation of Islam—which is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, may be yet another.

Julio Diaz: Believe it or not, thousands of people wear nipple jewelery in piercings every day, without any intent to expose their breasts on national television. I'm doing so right now (sorry if that's too much info).
Luigi Novi: Do they (or you) wear ones as large and elaborate as the sunburst design Janet was wearing? I tend to think that people who wear nipple rings wear simple rings, and that something as large as was Janet was wearing would not only be uncomfortable under clothing, but cause an unsightly bulge. In addition, wouldn’t the points on the sun “rays” potentially rip the fabric of what you’re wearing over it?

EClark1849: I don't have a problem with the FCC enforcing it's rules and fines. What's the big deal? So a few shock jocks can't say a few expletives on air any more and people have to put on a few more clothes. OH MY GOD! The world is going to end if that happens!
Luigi Novi: Would it end if it didn’t? Newspapers in England, Italy and other countries have topless women in their newspapers and on TV, and it doesn’t appear that those countries have collapsed.

EClark1849: If it shuts up a few more trash talkers like the idiot that suggested someone should kill four more civil rights leaders so we could take the whole week off for Martin L. King Day, so much the better.
Luigi Novi: Why stop there? Why not expande the FCC’s power to include the Internet, so I could do the same thing with some post of yours that I find offensive, Clark? Would you have a problem with that? Or does your suggestion only apply to things that you personally find offensive, and not other people?

EClark1849: And of course, no one seems to have a problem with the government telling stations that they HAVE to enforce the Fairness Act, or that you can't run certain political commercials about candidates during a sixty-day window, exactly when most people are actually making their final decisions about who to vote for.
Luigi Novi: The Fairness Act prevents one candidate from monopolizing airtime over the others, which has political ramifications for voters. This has nothing to do with speech considered offensive.

EClark1849: No, pointing out things that you believe is wrong or even right about a candidate is campaign corruptness.
Luigi Novi: A Straw Man Argument. The Fairness Act doesn’t prevent you from doing this. It concerns the monopolizing of airtime, not the content of what you say when you have it.

That has nothing to do with censorship.

"You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take. When the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: "Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth" is asinine. Rush Limbaugh said the same thing when he made his comments about Donovan Mcnabb, citing the indignation of his critics.When talking about "The Truth", Kyle Baker said we spend too much time talking about race; that it isn't a large factor in most people's lives. Do you think he might know a bit better than you?
Your comment about Janet was silly. if she claimed it was about race, well, then, we would have to take her seriously! But she didn't, but that's probably because she's afraid of making this thing even bigger! Again, it's the "Maude" mentality. We must say and do for Black people what they are unable to say and do for themselves!"

What I find incredibly arrogant is people attacking PAD for a straw man position...after he's repeatedly said what his position is.

And while I don't find the race as a major factor explanation to be credible, I don't find it inherently silly. It's the automatic rejection of it that I find silly. As someone who did research (the publishable kind) on race, media and communications, I don't see it as far fetched that race has played a factor in how long this has played out (Again, as I said, it's ultimately not credible, but that's not the same thing as being far fetched).

Jerome:

I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take.

To misquote an acquaintance of mine: "Irony, thy name is Internet."

Your comment about Janet was silly. if she claimed it was about race, well, then, we would have to take her seriously!

You know, I have a hard time figuring out exactly what you think is going on here. PAD asked one question and produced one hypothetical scenario.

Let's review the original, shall we:

[E]very time you see articles about censorship lately, they all keep referring to Janet Jackson’s breast as being some sort of (pardon the expression) flashpoint...how much of this stems from her being Black?

Everybody is yelling and screaming about Janet's actions--Janet's actions, mind you; I've heard very few people chalk much blame up to Timberlake--from the censors to the pundits to the professional loudmouths. And, remarkably, this issue seems to be longer-lasting than when similar incidents occurred with white women, such as the Lucy Lawless incident: Is this issue getting so much constant press because Janet is black?

The answer could be yes, and it could be no. So PAD brings forth a hypothetical situation for comparison.

Where in the depths of your twisted mind do you have the machine that turns this question into a "white liberal who is trying to make himself feel better by defending the 'oppressed,'" a "conspiracy," someone "saying and doing for another"?

The Madonna/Pepsi flap.

The way I remember it, Pepsi had arranged a global premiere of the video, on broadcast television round the world (at least the advertising claimed.) Then got the Like a Prayer video and played it.

Middle America revolted over the video, especially over its religious imagery, and that was that.

This was what, the mid-80s? That kind of imagery on prime-time, burning crosses? I think that particular situation had less to do with the race card, but my memory of it is sorta hazy. Heck, the only reason I remember it was because Pepsi run commercials promoting it that had Bushmen coming into a bar in Alice Springs to watch it...

Jeff posted:
"One more time for clarity. The problem with the boob flash (and I don't believe for a second it was accidental), was that it was during PRIME TIME BROADCAST TELEVISION. There are established rules for broadcast standards at different times of the day. Nudity is not OK on any BROADCAST program, without special permission. Mostly it's PBS stations that get the special permission because of some of their National Geographic programming and some of the British dramas, or on news programming. That's it."

Actually, Janet's breast exposure is NOT "nudity", even by many network standards. There is a great deal of the female breast which can legitimately be exposed, even in prime time hours on the major broadcast networks. The only part that cannot be shown IN ITS ENTIRETY is the areola and nipple--and that part was mostly covered by the little decoration. (Gene Roddenberry was able to get away with quite a lot on the original "Star Trek" in costuming many of his alien females. If I recall correctly, in one of his memoirs, he's quoted as being very concerned that some garments had occasional tendencies to reveal certain portions of the nipple/areola area and rather than going back and redoing the costumes, he tried to make sure he had several camera angles filmed to avoid any unintended exposure.)
Further, the FCC's own guidelines on indecency and obscenity do not actually agree with the outrage that ensued. From the FCC's own website:
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. Indecent programming may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
Given the fact that several of the Super Bowl's advertisements consisted of male potency enhancers and farting horses, the baring of Janet's breast is NOT remotely "indecent". If the FCC is going to get all aflutter over Janet's breast, it needs to go after the NFL for accepting ads which are no more suitable for children. Note that the "indecency" must be "in context".

As for Den's assertion that Janet's wardrobe malfunction was intended, it's funny but all the pics I've seen following the incident don't look at all as something that had been planned. As a local newspaper entertainment reported noted Janet's not that good an actress. She was definitely surprised after the incident. Also, noting Den's comment about Michael Powell's being black--so what? I heard a comedian who joked that Powell was upset because it was Janet's breast--Powell wanted to see a white woman's breast.

As for those who expected Janet to apologize on the Grammy telecast, what are you people thinking? In fact, what right did the Grammy people have in demanding she apologize in order to appear as part of a tribute to Luther Vandross? She'd made apologies for several days following the incident (with more sincerity than Justin's apologies/explanations--as I recall, one of Justin's first comments seemed more of the proud frat-boy "dude, did you see what I did" category; only after the "outrage", did he start to seem a bit contrite about it), and there was really nothing more that she could have said. Janet deserved to be part of that tribute--she'd recorded with Luther (the early 90s song "The Best Things in Life Are Free")--regardless of anything else, and the Grammy people in charge were doing little more than committing extortion ("apologize on our show or you can't come"), and for an organization which has been routinely opposed to any censorship efforts IN ANY FORM, this was nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. (Before anyone pulls out the "only the gov't can censor" line, the Grammy organization has opposed record labels interfering with artistic creativity.)
Also, a comment about Justin's lyric: If some people would listen to a little bit of the current pop music that's out there, that "naked by the end of this song" was a lyric from his Top 10 pop hit, "Rock Your Body" which was recorded way back sometime in 2002--the album, "Justified", was released in November of that year, and the song couldn't have been recorded after then to be included on the first release. Of course, the song also seems to suggest that Justin has a one guy/multiple girls fantasy--"so grab your girls and you grab a couple more"--but he also admits that "I came to romance with you". So, all in all, I don't think that the "indicting" lyric holds much weight when taken in context--unless one just wants to read something more into it. (Somewhat like Amy Grant had to defend herself over the lyrics of "Baby, Baby" to her Christian music fans who were appalled by the sexually suggestive/playful nature of the song. Amy claimed they were inspired by her baby daughter--though how the "no muscle man could sever" lyrics relates to a daughter escapes me. Was Amy lying? I don't really care--it was still a nice song.)

Actually, regarding the Madonna/Pepsi deal, Madonna had been hired by Pepsi to do a commercial and video for her upcoming single "Like a Prayer". The *commercial* would air on commercial television (if I recall correctly, it was supposed to air first on NBC, on a Thursday night during or after "The Cosby Show"), then the video would air in its entirety on MTV the following night. The Mary Lambert-directed commercial was a very mild deal involving a group of young girls at a Catholic school and some appropriate product placement, and Pepsi was quite pleased with it. Then the Mary Lambert-directed video aired with its anti-racism message and Black Jesus and burning crosses and Pepsi's people essentially saw red. They claimed that Madonna had duped them, but Madonna apparently had the idea that the commercial and the video were two separate projects (not entirely unheard of), and still managed to get Pepsi to buy her out of the contract.
If I recall the public outrage, it came mostly from the Christian community but had differing points. Some were upset by the burning crosses, feeling they seemed to connect Christianity with the KKK. Others were actually upset over the notion of a Black Jesus (even though that was hardly a novel idea, even in 1987). There were some who objected to the implication when said Black Jesus laid Madonna down on a church pew (nothing else happened beyond a very chaste kiss, but some found the idea a bit suggestive of something more).
Too many people wanted to put their own spin on the imagery that they neglected the underlying moral against prejudice, especially racism.

I remember the Madonna/Pepsi flap (yes, I'm an old geezer). The outrage wasn't over the burning crosses - it was the fact that Madonna kissed a black Jesus, and they both seemed to enjoy it!! How shameful!

Incidentally, does anyone remember who won the Super Bowl (tm), or what the score was?

That was supposed to include a mock tag after "How shameful!", indicating the end of sarcasm. I guess the system thought it was supposed to be a real tag...

I find the whole "the erectile dysfunction ads were worse" argument specious as well, all anyone has to tell a kid about erectile dysfunction is that it's a medical problem that older men get. End of story. You don't have to go into the gory details. Just tell them the truth: it's nothing they have to think about. Until they start showing some guy's flaccid unit in those ads, there's no comparison.

Kids aren't little adults, and most of them understand that.

That argument always bothered me, it's crap, if you got a problem with male members in general(like most feminists seem to), I guess maybe it offends you.

That said, I hate the prudishness that makes the whole breast thing a big deal. And the hypocrisy of the way men on TV can be sexualized and topless, but not women, god no, that would be offensive.

Screw that. I want boobies and bare ass on my TV, now.

I thought cable and Satellite TV/Radio were "immune" the the FCC scumbags by virtue of the fact that you can't "accidentally" see them, you have to pay (or work hard to descramble the captured signals) to see/hear them.

MTV should be completely safe from the FCC, and it's their advertisers they live in fear of...

Y'know, I never thought about it until I read the point, but I can definitely agree. The fact that there was no nudity involved in this incident still bothers me.

I remember watching the movie "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark" on Fox years ago. Near the end of the movie, Elvira appears in a scene where she only wears tassled nipple covers. Fox aired it. Where's the outrage?

I personally see the issue being less about Janet being black but more about Janet being black AND Justin being white. That was out-right interracial sexuality. Something America still fears. (Having seen the looks I get when out with my black wife, and mixed child, I want to hear no disagreement about that. It's damn true.) Janet gets the flack instead of Justin because of her age and her skin color. If this was Britney and Usher, Usher would have been ripped to pieces, not Britney, as America still has the blame a minority mentality.

Think a few years back when a woman claimed a black man had stolen her car and her children. Millions of Americans were outraged that anybody could do this, and several racial assaults occured. Less than a week later, we found out she drove her kids in to a lake. Don't tell me that Americans don't automatically blame minorities whether the case really points to them or not.

This entire situation is a joke to me. America needs to grow up.

I played football with no pads in the neighbor's yard growing up when I was younger than my daughter is now - but I didn't know squat about "the birds and the bees".

Ok. Nobody else seems to have addressed this.

But I find it utterly pathetic and disturbing that a FRIGGIN NIPPLE automatically equals SEX with people.

Why the hell else would you mention "the birds and the bees" if not for automatically assuming that nudity = porn = sex?

This entire situation is a joke to me. America needs to grow up.

America needs to grow up about alot of things.

About sex, about race, about tits and ass, about 7 fun words you're not allowed to say on air, and other things.

""Think a few years back when a woman claimed a black man had stolen her car and her children. Millions of Americans were outraged that anybody could do this, and several racial assaults occured."

Obviously the assaults are inexcusable but why WOULDN'T millions of American--black or white--be outraged that anybody could do this???

"Less than a week later, we found out she drove her kids in to a lake."

And Americans were outraged that anybody could do this. So your point seems lost.

"Don't tell me that Americans don't automatically blame minorities whether the case really points to them or not."

If by Americans you mean all of us, I will tell you that. You can choose to believe it or not--it will remain true regardless. If you mean SSOME Americans...that seems rather too obvious to say. You can pretty much fill in the sentence "Some Americans_____________________" with anything you want and it will likely have some truth to it.

I'm sorry that some idiots make life difficult for your family. You're far from alone--I think of my family as just your average one but on reflection I remember that my step-son and sister have significantly different ethnic heritages than my own (my step-son could be classified as a completely different race but that is so goofy it's hard to take seriously). Don't let the turkeys make you embittered.

CBG *should* have contacted Peter in advance to notify him of the column change.

But... I otherwise respect their decision to pull the material.

The thing is... whether Peter's right or not doesn't factor into it. It's the choice of topic matter. Honestly... how does debating the rascist elements of the Janet Jackson boob incident relate to comic books? Not at all, insofar as I can tell. And linking it to a greater debate about censorship seems tangental at best. If the column didn't hurt for its absence, then it was surely expendable.

Call me crazy, but when I open CBG, I expect to see material about comic books. I wouldn't expect to see discussion about issues of race and Janet Jackson's boob in there any more than I would in "Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine" or "Better Homes and Gardens."

Luigi,

Your post from 1:36 today where you quote me seems to miss a big point about this. You point out all the reasons that the Lil' Kim thing and Janet don't compare and state that you can't use the two as side by side examples in this debate.
That they were so different is just the point and they do compare for this debate. Lil' Kim, as you said, showed up in her outfit hours before the actual show. MTV did its pre-show and had Kim showing off her boob then. Of course, it could be pointed out that only the target audience of the show would be watching the pre-show. They could have had her cover it if they wanted too. But, MTV being cable is not under the FCC'c control. And, as I said, the idea so often with MTV is, "that's what you get with them". Janet did what she did on a network, in the "family" hours, on a "family" program with lots of people watching who aren't in her target demo. My point was showing how different the two events were to show cause for the different reactions. Both singers were black women. If PAD's point was right; the MTV show would have been the kick off for all of this garbage. It wasn't skin color. It was time and place and the enviroment created by this political season.
The two events do compare. The two events (and lots of others in the rap world) show very clearly that the reaction wasn't do to skin color or it would have gone down long ago.
Also to PAD. I like you a lot and respect most of your debating skills. But this line of yours that the proof of your being so close to the truth is in the level of arguement being thrown against it? Yeah, right. That's right up there with the FOX News line that if you don't mindlessly support Bush and his war then you must be a supporter of the big bad evil guys in the world and you hate America. I really expected a little better from you.

Ditto by the way with some of the other posts. I think it was a dumb comment but I still think CBG should have run it or talked to Peter first. There was no reason to blindside a vet writer of the CBG like that.

I wouldn't expect to see discussion about issues of race and Janet Jackson's boob in there any more than I would in "Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine" or "Better Homes and Gardens."

Hey, the more coverage (or is that uncoverage?) of Janet's breasts, the better, I say!!

Beats the hell out of the coverage of the other Jackson boob - Michael...

Joe Goforth: "on HBO late-nite: "Karen's Pool Party" Woooo Hoooo!"

Ok, what percentage of the gross can I look forward to? Residuals?

Den posted: "Like there's a difference between one idiotic award show and another."

Though I realize you're just making light, the salient difference between the two is that one is on broadcast (and therefore, under the FCC's thumb) and one is on cable (and therefore NOT subject to the FCC's decisions).

Luigi Novi asked: Do they (or you) wear ones as large and elaborate as the sunburst design Janet was wearing? I tend to think that people who wear nipple rings wear simple rings, and that something as large as was Janet was wearing would not only be uncomfortable under clothing, but cause an unsightly bulge. In addition, wouldn’t the points on the sun “rays” potentially rip the fabric of what you’re wearing over it?

I, personally, wear a simple ring. But elaborate pieces aren't uncommon, nor are they uncomfortable under clothing, though they could cause bulges, unsightly or otherwise (so can simple rings -- it all depends on the individual's anatomy and on the clothing they choose to wear). And yes, the potential is there for ripping, especially if the jewelery has points, but Janet was wearing leather, so I don't think that was a major concern. Aside from that, who says that every woman with a pierced nipple will choose to wear a bra? Under most shirts, jewelery like this shouldn't be a problem. Even under a bra, I would assume it would be a snug fit that would prevent too much wear and tear on the garment.

Will "Scifantasy" Frank,
Why do you (and many other posters) have to resort to name-calling? What, because I have a different opinion and have done my best to support it, I have a "twisted mind"? I feel the argument is and was specious. Peter stating that the "white guy" was able to come to the Grammys while the black woman "had to stay home" is just WRONG. He apologized when asked to so he came. She didn't so she didn't. Whether you think she should have had to or not, it was still HER choice. If Peter made a good enough argument, fine. I'd be willing to listen. But putting race into every conversation, no matter how warranted, does none of us any good. Then when a true racist incident occurs, even fair people are less empatheteic, because it has been thrown in their face so many times. And I'm sorry, to see a racial motive when Janet herself has not saod so once does smack of arrogance.

Does all of this have anything to do with Janet Jackson being black? I don't know; I don't want to think so. I'd be more at ease that this began because it involved a "family-friendly" singer, the "normal," "sane" member of a "crazy" family, on a "family-friendly" show (despite the commercials, as so many have pointed out). A white man married to a black woman, I'd like to think that this has a different cause than that a black woman showed a nipple, but there is a lot of truth in a member of the minority only being equal within the limits set by the majority.

However, the Puritanical roots of this country are so deep that they may never be killed. A stray nipple may cause little Debbie to become a slut, but, hey, get the kids, Faces of Death is on. It is kneejerk to complain when sexuality is displayed beyond the accepted norm in a defined arena; had the event happened on the MTV Awards on cable, less hillbillies would have been watching and less pitchforks would have been out. IMO, while I can see why it cold be seen that the problem was because a it was a black woman showing her nipple, I believe that it was more that a female nipple was shown.

However, caveat to that. I fully agree that had it been a black man who bared the chest of a white woman, all hell would have been raised, a hundred worse than what is happening now. And replace Christine Aguilera with Mandy Moore (more virginal), and Snoop Dog's career would have come crashing down for at least a year.

From day one I have never understood what the hell all the noise, consternation, and hand-wringing has been about with reference to Miss Jackson's starburst-surrounded nipple. Yes, I am a cynical, apathetic tubby-boy, but I still don't see the harm in what happened, intentional nipple bearing or not. How is what was shown during the halftime show any different than any number of prime time or basic cable shows where a woman is on screen and her nipples are noticeably hard under her shirt? Is it that, somehow, the visible nipple is more morally dangerous than the covered, but obvious one? Is the latter easier to explain to this generation of children (a generation more impressionable than previous generations it seems), as a pair of symmetrically lost raspberries or Milk Duds?

My favorite thing to hear in this whole world is "How am I going to explain this to my children?" Well, (a) why explain if they don't bring it up, especially if they weren't around; and (b) take the duct tape off of everyone's nipples in your household, say everyone has them, they should be covered because they can be tender, mistakes happen, and move on.

What problem there is about the incident was, of course, exacerbated by the very technology that allows these protectors of my morality the opportunity to watch there closet collection of dirty movies, the VCR and TiVo. Twenty-five years ago, this would have been a Charles-Rocket-saying-the-F-word-on-SNL incident: "Did he really say?" Home recording now allows us to replay every and anything we want over and over again. To quote:

"Typically if TiVo users watch a particular moment in a given broadcast nearly twice as many times as any other moment in the show, that will make it the broadcast's most popular moment. Such was the case with the infamous kiss shared by Britney Spears and Madonna during the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards.
"On Sunday, TiVo subscribers hit rewind on the Jackson-Timberlake incident nearly three times more than they did on any other moment during the broadcast. That makes the moment the most rewatched ever during a broadcast in three years of measuring audience reactions, a TiVo representative said. The findings were based on an anonymous sampling of 20,000 TiVo subscribers who watched the Super Bowl."

source: http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-5152141.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news

In other words, people of such a bent could look at the event with the intensity of Oliver Stone watching the Zapruder Film, counting the seconds until the "malfunction" occurred, the motion of Timberlake's arm as he pulled, the seconds her nipple was bear. And after they clean up, they can do it, becoming more and more outraged that such filth was allowed on television.

Why has no one asked the reason for this huge fallout? Am I the only one who thinks that the response is way overboard when compared to the event itself? Things happen, intentionally or unintentionally. Years ago, I was walking down the street with my girlfriend at the time, who was wearing a wrap-around skirt. Or she thought she was. As we were walking, it came lose and, well, north-bound cars had a south-bound view. Embarrassed, she went behind a tree and corrected the malfunction. For the FCC to suddenly decide it needs to crack down harder on people like Howard Stern, who were not even involved, is like the police citing someone for showering naked because my girlfriend's skirt came loose. There is no connection.

Do I want to say that it is election year posturing? Yes. Morality is always a good platform to ride on and if this had happened next year, probably the tempest would be less the complainers more in the vein of the woman who tried to take down Married with Children."

As for CBG making an editorial decision based on controversial content, who would have thought? I had subscribed to CBG from as far back as when all the ads were handwritten, but since Mark Evanier left, he last few years have just been painful. Actually, I think it started to go downhill after Don Thompson died, but it took Evanier's departure to underscore the change in the paper for me. CBG is nothing more than a cheerleader for the comic industry, all bright-eyed and "its morning in America, nothing is wrong," cheerfulness. Of course, the theory about Janet Jackson was cut: it didn't fit into an editorial policy predicated on everything being "o-tay!"

CBG is an anachronisim; I think in this day of Internet news, there is nothing of any importance to the paper editorially. Generally, I enjoyed the columnists, but the reviews should have become the focus of the paper were haphazard and random. I need to read a reviewer consistently to appreciate his opinion in reference to mine. Seven different reviewers didn't help me make any decisions.

A Couple of Things:
Mr. Helm, sorry you feel the way you do. In Philly, I see a lot of interracial couples (and have been involved in a few interracial relationships). Very few people give them a second thought. I can honestly say the only people who had a serious problem when I was dating Black women were BLACK. The one serious relationship I had with a Black woman, she was amazed at how accepting my family and predominantly white hometown was. They all accepted and loved her as a human being. What a concept

Also, I just have to mention this: It's amazing that during a discussion on free speech, many people seem perfectly comfortable with calling many who disagree with them names like "Jesus freaks" - including our President - and bash Christians in general. I am agnostic, but it seems more people would be outraged if the people posting were bashing Jews or Muslims. But bashing Christians seems to be encouraged. Isn't the term close-minded - if that's what you think they are - good enough?

Finally, Two Things;
Peter, the thought that because some in the "black community" felt having Justin co-host the Motown would "insult the black community" does not make your argument more valid. It is a childish argument: "Other people agree with me so I must be right!" There are plenty of people who believe mel Gibson's extremely anti-Semitic and outlandish views on the Holocaust and Jews in general. Does that make his arguments have more merit? There are plenty of hateful, fearful people in this world. To constantly make issues black and white, us against them, members of an "oppressed minority" versus White America. What exactly are White America and Black America anyway? Do you ever hear about Mixed America? Or Asian America? or Latino America? But no, it is much simpler to make issues about Black America versus White America than to find common ground and debate complex issues with intelligence, fairness and candor. Can we please stop dividing our nation unnecessarily? Let's concentrate on working together. It's very easy. Hate and bigotry take a lot of energy.

Dennis V asks:
"Where in the world do you get that the President is some sort of religious fanatic?"

Here's a couple in addition to what's been posted above by others:
1) Restricting stem cell research because the religious right opposes it
2) Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because the bible says it's wrong
3) Changing the CDC website from saying there is no link between abortions & breast cancer, to saying that "studies are inconclusive"

Jerome:

What, because I have a different opinion and have done my best to support it, I have a "twisted mind"?

No, that would be because you put words in other people's mouths and say what you think they're saying, when they say exactly what they mean in plain language. Truth be told, that's more like "willful ignorance," but there it is.

But putting race into every conversation, no matter how warranted, does none of us any good.

You really should read what you object to. He's merely asking a question.

Incidentally, you never seemed to answer said question. Was this brouhaha worse because Janet is black?

If the answer is no, and if you have evidence to back it up, that's all you need. Instead, you bypass the question and start flinging epithets.

Peter, you see, didn't know if the answer was yes or no. But he had some cases (like the incidents previously discussed), and a hypothetical to highlight the question.

No offense to posters who have gone before... But I personally think it is time to "hi-jack" this thread and find out what people are bringing to Karen's HBO Televised Late-Nite Pool Party!

I'll bring the lemonade because I'm a P-I-N-K-O with a CAPITAL "L"-- just like "Bill Mulligan" thinks I am.

What exactly are White America and Black America anyway? Do you ever hear about Mixed America? Or Asian America?

Well, yes, I do. All the time (given that I work in the Asian American community, have founded an Asian American theatre and done work in mixed race dynamics, I can say that without fear of contradiction). And I think it's important to consider if race has anything to do with this incident.

That I ultimately consider race to be, at best, a minor component (and that I didn't take that long to decide that) doesn't change that. Automatically rejecting race in a discussion is equally bad (I think the proper response is "Eh; interesting thought, but I don't really think it's a big component").

I do find it curious that Janet Jackson has been taking FAR more artillery fire for this than Justin Timberlake, who was her "partner in crime" in the staged incident.

I personally don't feel it's a racial issue, but more a gender issue. Timberlake gets away with just a little slap on the wrist because he's a guy, and guys do stupid stuff like that all the time, and it seems to be more accepted.

But Jackson gets raked over the coals because she's a woman, and women aren't supposed to do "naughty" things like that.

Will "Scifantasy" Frank,
Maybe you should read the column again. Peter wasn't asking a question. He was stating an opinion. To wit:

"I'm starting to THINK that maybe the color of her skin is the major point of demarcation. Lawsy, lawsy, a Black woman is overtly displaying her sexuality. Where does she get off?"

Unless Peter is seriously wondering where Janet got off (kind of a personal question, isn't it?), where is the question in there?

"Black women can have equality, sure..but only on our terms, and when we're ready to give it to them (such as when the predominantly white voting body of the Academy awards bestows an Oscar on Halle Berry)."

Again, where is the question here. Peter is obviously expressing a point of view, not a question. He made it about EQUALITY of black women. BTW, OUR terms? When WE'RE ready to give it to them? I personally treat everyone equal, and I resent being lumped in with the "oppressive white majority".

"

Peter wasn't asking a question. He was stating an opinion.

It's my belief that an opinion is a question, namely, "do you agree or disagree, and why?"

In deciding to insult someone for holding an opinion, you're being a moron. Of course, the same rights to expression and speech that allow him to say what he said allows you to insult him, and in Voltaire's words I will defend to the death your right to fling your insults, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect you at all for it.

Will "Scifantasy" Frank,
Again, what really gets me is that Peter wrote this piece with the obvious intention of provoking debate (not necessarily a bad thing). But instead of just asking a question, he made some statements that were inflammatory ("Lawsy, lawsy?")

"But if they're aggressive about it, or get in people's faces about it, then it's time to call out the defenders of decency and beat them back into submission"

Tell me that STATEMENT (not QUESTION) wasn't intended to provoke people. BTW, there are a lot more black activists, and entertainers who "get in people's face. The difference is they don't do it in front of 80 million people. And "beating back into submission" conjures imagery of riots and lynchings and making sure "black women know their place". funny how leaders like Condoleeza rice haven't been beaten back into submission. A Black woman in charge of national security! Holy crap! The co-chair of the last Republican convention is a succesful black businesswoman who I know well. Far as I know, she's never been beaten into submission. Nor my countless other successful Black female friends. Which is a huge reason I find the statement insulting.

Will "Scifantasy" Frank,
Look, you accuse me of namecalling, but have called you, Peter or anyone else a moron? Why don't you just respond to my statement instead of insulting me?

Finally, an opinion is a question? Is that what they're teaching in English classes these days. I have tried to debate this topic point by point. You may not agree, but by attacking me you are revealing a lot about yourself.

And for the final time, because it's one of Pter's important points, the STATEMENT "Make damned sure Janet Jackson doesn't show up at the Grammys" implies a conspiracy by a white organization, or at least unfairness. They wanted justin and Janet Jackson to apologize. He did. She didn't. I personally don't feel either should have had to. But the Grammys were CTA. She wasn't blackballed. She made a choice, and Peter's STATEMENT is therefore inaccurate.

Jerome - The Jesus-freak christians (so dubbed because they insist on forcing their religion on everyone else) don't get the uproar that Jew- and Muslin-bashing gets because:

A) They deserve it, they brought it on themselves. Keep your religion to yourself, stop trying to make you religionous beliefs the law of the land.

B) Jews and Muslims are a minority in this country, especially in the government...

Secondly, Justin "got off lightly" because he a pussy who apologized for the incident when there was nothing to apologize for, so CHOOSING not to apologize was the right action, and she was alackballed from the show...

"Ok. Nobody else seems to have addressed this.

But I find it utterly pathetic and disturbing that a FRIGGIN NIPPLE automatically equals SEX with people.

Why the hell else would you mention "the birds and the bees" if not for automatically assuming that nudity = porn = sex?"

Based on the lyrics of the song, and the attitude by the performers, as well as Justin's promise to "have her naked by the end of the song", I would say the context in which the nudity took place was a sexual one, yes.

Just as we shouldn't equal nudity with SEX (OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!), we shouldn't shout people down for pointing it out when it DOES happen.

What I want to know is why no one talked about the river dancing streaker who showed up on field at the start of the second half? True, they cut the cameras away pretty quickly, and the announcers didn't really acknowledge that it was going on other than a poor pun which I can't remember. I think the guy got on field in a ref's uniform, since I saw another ref carrying the shirt off the field when the cameras came back, and my brother seems to think he saw one of the Patriots tackle the guy in the view of the field behind the announcers in the broadcast booth.

Monkeys

Bladestar - You seem to have a lot of animosity toward Christians. Our Constitution grants us freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. This idea that "they deserve it" is very similar to the view of a lot of Southern whites who did not want the Federal govt. telling them to desegregate their schools, diners, etc. in the same way you don't want Christians "telling" you how to live. So either you're for freedom (in which case you can respectfully disagree with their beliefs) or you're not. And be careful what you wish for. In France, there is currently an uproar because their obsession with secularism now means that Muslims and Jews can no longer wear their religious symbols like burquas and yumulkes in public. Sort of the opposite end of the spectrum, but a warning of what can happen if we're too quick to slam or scapegoat a group of people we don't like.

Bladestar,
Also, to tell someone to keep their religious views to themselves is the antithesis of freedom. Should a "radical" feminist like Barbara Boxer? What about the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore and Sean Penn? Their statements were offensive to a lot of Americans? If Pat Robertson has to be quiet, what about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are both REVERENDS, but almost never referred to as such? Every law we pass - whether it's against drunk driving, against drugs, for taxes, anti-smoking, seatbelt laws, or WHATEVER - "tells us how to live" to some extent. Only by engaging those with which we disagree in meaningful dialogue in which common ground is sought can we all coexist peacefully.
And you still fail to acknowledge that the way Peter presented the Grammy situation was wrong. Nobody made "damn sure Janet jackson didn't show up at the Grammys". She made a choice, and one i applaud her for. This is really a RIDICULOUS incident. But if Justin had made the same choice, he wouldn't be there either. So they were BOTH unfairly held to a ridiculous standard. Race was not the issue, which was Peter's contention.

Jerome,

While I agree with you that telling someone to "keep their religious views to themselves" is inconsistent with a free-speech viewpoint, I'd also argue that there's a big difference between sharing your religious views and claiming they are (or should be) the law of the land.

The only reason religion's come up on this particular thread is that Ashcroft et al. seem very strongly to be basing policy on little more OTHER than their religious views -- and that is not something I'm going to let stand given even a tenth of a chance to change it. I'd have the same opinion regardless of which religion was at issue here.

As for your running battle with Will ... while I don't think race is really the issue here, I also don't think the views Peter presented were so far out of line as to draw the sort of fire you and others here are giving him. Saying "I think that's a reach" is one thing; saying he's a whiny liberal who can't see anything but closet racism is itself a big reach given that he was mostly raising the question and provoking discussion.

TWL

I think the France issue (I'm not sure on this, I don't live in France, nor have I extensively read up on the subject) was to stave off potential in school religious persecution of sorts. If you don't wear any overt symbol of your religion, it's tough for someone to say "hey, look, there's a dirty jew/christian/muslim, let's beat the tar out of him/her at recess". I don't know if that's the reasoning, but it's reasoning I could understand, if not fully agree with.

As far as "keeping your religion to yourself", I personally don't say that in order to imply that people of faith should be hiding in secret basement rooms to practice their religions. I just don't want people trying to convince me that their religion is right, and what I believe is wrong, and when I fail to convert, they say they'll pray for me or that I'm going to hell. I also don't want to be forced to adhere to the tenets of their religions or be told what to do and what is right and what is wrong because their god tells them so.

As for the boob incident, I sort of agree it was inappropriate for the time and place and all, as long as you ignore the content of the sponsors of the game. But what really irritates me is that the media (who, as a whole, I have a big issue with their lack of tact and respect and their overall vulture-like mentality) blew this up as so horrible and dispicable...yet they couldn't go five minutes without mentioning the incident and replaying video of it. If it was so wrong and distasteful that it shouldn't have been seen by anyone, why continually show it, even with the little pixels over the boob? The Daily Show did a great bit on that.

Monkeys.

I've read every post on this thread, and there are a lot of valid points. One person's responses I look for is Jerome Maida's. He brought up a number of good points, and I support most of what you say Jerome, I do. But to feel that PAD was grouping all whites in the paragraph where he writes:

"Lawsy lawsy, a Black woman is overtly displaying her sexuality. Where does she get off? Black women can have equality, sure…but only on our terms, and when we’re ready to give it to them (such as when the predominantly white voting body of the Academy Awards bestows an Oscar on Halle Berry.) But if they’re aggressive about it, or get in people’s faces about it, then it’s time to call out the defenders of decency and beat them back into submission before it’s too late. Make damned sure Janet Jackson doesn’t show up on the Grammys (although Justin Timberlake, whose inability to grip the correct section of the costume was very likely responsible for the incident, it’s okay for him to be there. The white guy can show his face; the Black woman has to hide.)"

you may have been a little to quick to get an emotional response from it.

I think you need to look at this from another viewpoint. I'm not saying you're wrong for being offeneded and resenting the statement, just I don't think you're looking at the source correctly. PAD is a writer, it's what he does for a living. And in writing, you have to put yourself in other people's shoes sometimes. That paragraph wasn't PAD's personal look on it, but how he feels the predominantly white government is looking at it. Now I'll admit, I know politics as well as I know tech specs on the Mars Rover, but I do know that the majority of the decision makers and law makers are white. Is PAD saying that all white people feel this way? No. But in choosing to take a racial look, not view, at the JJ Boob incident, it is perfectly acceptable for PAD to make a comment like that.

It was meant to strike a nerve, but not to offend. It was meant to show a possible response from a race influenced white American, not meant to group all white Americans into that mind set or to even show how PAD himself thinks about it personally. Nothing I say in this post will change how you feel or make you any less resentful to the comment, but I felt it needed to be said. I felt it was unfair to PAD to be bashed for simply presenting another look at the issue. I expect you to say you were not one of the ones who bashed him, since it may not be apparent to you that you did, but by saying:

"You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded..."

and then later in the same paragraph you state:

"...the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: "Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth" is asinine."

Whether or not you meant for these comments to be attacks or not, they were. Using words like arrogant and asinine when addressing someone's look at something is an attack. They are strong words not meant to show how passionate you are about the topic, but to demean whom you are debating with. PAD has done this as well, I'm aware of it, but not until after others took the "attack route" on his opinion.

I just wanted to say that I thought that your hypothesis about the situation, PAD, is an interesting one, even though I don't think I agree with it. But it certainly has possibilities that I hadn't considered. And I don't think its necessary to call you names to disagree with you.

~Lanabanana

Huh? The hubub is because she's black??? What the f***? The hubub is because she's a she. No one would care if a man showed his nipple. Race has nothing to do with it, and it ranks right up there with the "aliens are controlling the world leaders" type of bulls*** to even come up with such a notion. Not everything that happens to a black person happens because they are black.

I don't think that race was the main motivating factor of the controversy, but it's just a part of the "recipe" of the whole incident. Mostly, it's this new aggressive "puritan push" (sounds like a bad 70's dance) that's going on now. I definitely think that there's a tinge of sexism involved. But I definitely agree that if it were a black male artist pulling open the top of a white female performer, the outcry would've been against the male.

I find it strange that I constantly hear more negative comments pointed towards Janet than Justin. In fact, most people refer to it the Janet Jackson incident incident now instead of the Janet and Justin incident. By the media naming it that, they've slightly divorced Justin from a portion of the blame. "Gasp! How dare she be naked underneath her clothes?!?!?!? How was he supposed to know that? Aw, poor Justin!"

Insideman sez:
"I'll bring the lemonade because I'm a P-I-N-K-O with a CAPITAL "L"-- just like "Bill Mulligan" thinks I am."

Jeeze man, I don't know you from Adam. Couldn't pick you out of a police lineup. I don't even know your gender or name. Not liking Bush doesn't make you a pinko--the black helecopter crowd at Freerepublic.com certainly have their share of Bush critics (something about the trilateral commission in cahoots witht he skull and bones society to,,,oh, who the hell knows).

But you don't have to put quotation marks around "Bill Mulligan"; it's my actual real name. I have no problem with people who use fake names but personally I always thought it would detract from my ever being taken seriously if I presented an argument without putting my name to it. It's hard to get worked up over a stirring call to action when it's signed by "GodzillaFan12".

So go ahead and call me Bill, I'll call you In, we'll be pals. Coffee and croissants on sunday mornings during Meet The Press (or Press The Meat, if Bill Clinton ever does get that long awaited TV show).

(the other) Jonathan asked: "Incidentally, does anyone remember who won the Super Bowl (tm), or what the score was?"

The day after Superbowl Sunday I posted a lengthy essay at Jump The Shark (and later reposted it at my Yahoo group "poppaspanksb2p2") entitled "Crackpot Theory." I was, of course, being facetious.
I proposed that the Superbowl Show itself had a racist message because of the following reason:
The PATRIOTS beat THE PANTHERS. (I trust enough of us remember the '60s that I don;t have to explain that.)
So I do recall the result, if not the score.
I also predicted a huge feminist outcry because of a young white male symbolically demeaning and degrading an older black female artist.
But I was being facetious.
I actually raised about nine different points. I don't remember it all - it was what, a month and a half ago. Old news. (Actually I dismissed the event as old news the moment it happened. If you want to see a MIchael Jackson's sister's nipple, go pick up the LaToya back issue of Playboy from about a decade ago.)
But I still think that no one has located the key piece of evidence. Whatever happened to the bra cup?
Obviously Janet's dominatrix suit (variously reported as being black leather or rubber) had removable snap off breast plates (clearly a garment intended for use by dominatrices who are also breast-feeding mothers). Allegedly Just'n "accidentally" tore off her bra cup as well.
The fetish supply store that sold Ms. Jackson the red bustier has gone on record as stating that the garment had to have been tampered with or it would not have torn in the way it did.
So was it planned or an accident? Find the cup. If it's ripped, acident; if there's velcro or sticky tape on it, it was rigged.
Man, is she lucky he didn't snag the ornament. That would have been shocking.
(Though still not that much more violent than two gangs of neanderthals fighting over the right to carry a dead pig.)
And I'm still being facetious. But I am concerned about the FCC crackdowns and the wave of censorship and repression the "wardrobe malfunction" and "nipple slippage" seems to have triggered, including PAD getting part of his BID trimmmed.
Gordon Clapp of NYPD: Blue had to wait for a dozen years for a chance to do his nude scene, then it got cut. Though the scene as it ran was well edited and quite funny. And I loved that after doing a decade of revolutionary TV nudity, then being told to knock it off, Steven Bochco went ahead and made the cuts - on an episode that opened with a parrot shouting the expletive "Douchebag!' about a dozen times.

Actually Jerome, freedom of religion DOES include freedom FROM religion.

Part of the whole idea behjind the First Amendment's "Freedom of Religion" and the concept of "Separation of Church & State" is to prevent America from becoming Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any number of countries where religion is the rule of the entire nation.

Bush is trying to force everyone in America to abide by his christian beliefs, and this part of the contitution is something he and his evil legislature branch bunch are conveiniently ignoring.

You can talk about your religion and go to church all you want, but I don't have to listen and you sure as hell cannot make laws that effect the entire nation based on religious beliefs. The contitution forbids it, and intelligent people should forbid it as well.

I wonder if the people of Earth will EVER take responsibility for their own lives and actions or if we'll be stuck with the whole "It's god's\allah's\yahweh's\budhha's\zues'\odin's\etc's plan\will\desire\command" forever.

Bush loves to talk about how this is "god's nation", a "christian nation", god's on our side" and similar garbage.

America is not "god's nation", it's American's nation, you know, real people that exist and are here in the real world.

Craig J. Ries wrote: But I find it utterly pathetic and disturbing that a FRIGGIN NIPPLE automatically equals SEX with people.

Why the hell else would you mention "the birds and the bees" if not for automatically assuming that nudity = porn = sex?

I didn't. I guess you missed the post where I said that we turned the entire program off before that point of the show. It was obviously meant to be a sexually suggestive bump-and-grind fest. Since we don't typically enjoy/approve of that as entertainment, we shut it off.

What I'm amazed at in all of this is that the most common phrase I hear during TV/free speech debates is "If you don't like it turn it off". Well, as soon as I said that was exactly what we did, I get attacked as being "pathetic". I guess you think it's just horrible that in this day and age not everyone shares the same liberal views as you. So much for diversity.

In case you misunderstand, I didn't harp on anyone for leaving the show on - or for enjoying it. I haven't called the FCC to complain. It's just not something we wanted in our living room.

So, when I exercise my rights as a citizen and parent to control what's in my home you have the gall to call me pathetic?

The next words I would like to use would probably step over the line, but suffice it to say that I think you crossed over the line.

Mark, you did the right thing by turning it off if you didn't want to see it. I don't recall where Criag J. Reis called you pathetic, and frankly I'm not going to go back and dig it up, but I'm going to geuss it's not in the part of his post you quoted in you message of 3/25/04 9:10, as he didn't call you pathetic there, he called the whole uproar over the the incident pathetic, which I agree with whole-heartedly.

All these ignorant whiners would die if they went overseas and saw the things they show on broadcast TV over there... Maybe England does have the right idea in requiring citizens to buy a license to have/watch TV...

Bladestar,
1.) "Evil legislature branch bunch"? You know, I find it ironic that the same people who bash Bush for daring to call Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "Axis of Evil" find no problem calling Bush, Ashcroft, etc. the same? Because they're Christian"? Are they really more "evil" than Hamas? The Taliban?
2.) The most obvious response when people see or hear something they don't like is "don't watch it", which I usually whole-heartedly agree with. I'm a writer for heaven's sake. But at least give me warning that this may be inappropiate for my children or grandmother, like NYPD Blue does. If all of a sudden I'm watching "7th Heaven" and they start throwing the F-word around like the Sopranos, that's an ambush, and that's unfair.
3.) Are we really that weak anymore we can't just, you know, DEAL with each other? Jehovah's Witnesses may be annoying at times, but most I've met seem like nice people. I just say "not interested. Have a good day". But there's people who have pushed laws not to be bothered by Jehovah's Witnesses! And we already have a telemarketing bill. Whatever happened to "I'm not interested. lease take me off your list?" Is that so hard?" Why are we constantly either in people's faces while shutting people up?

I just read your last post. Thanks. In retrospect, I did get a bit emotional, especially early on. I was just angry because a lot of Peter's original column was a.) inflammatory and b.) just plain incorrect, like stating - or at leat implying - that the White Guy was FORGIVEN and therefore ALLOWED to come to the Grammys while Janet was PUNISHED. They were both given the same option - apologize and you can come on - and he took it and she didn't. If the reverse happened, Janet would have been on the show, and probably gotten a ten-minute standing ovation on support from her fellow entertainers, and Justin would have been at home.

Dan,
Was so intent in replying to your post it looks like I used your name.
Sorry.
Jerome

Bladestar,

Craig said he found it "utterly pathetic and disturbing" and proceeded to quote from one of my previous posts. So, yes, I take that to mean that he was referring to me, specifically, not just the uproar in general.

"All these ignorant whiners would die if they went overseas and saw the things they show on broadcast TV over there"
First, ignorant whiners? That's really engaging in constructive debate.
Second, and you would die if you went somewhere where they REALLY controlled the press and media.
Third, what does it matter what other countries do, anyway? Why not stick to the topic? For the umpteenth time, you choose to lash out at people Bladestar. you seem like you have a lot of anger. If you used it in a more constructive manner than calling people names, we'd all be better off.
Also, if not allowing nail clippers on flights is one of the best ways you can portray the Bush Administration as evil.... What do you call what happened in Madrid then? Or child prostitution in Thailand? Or blacks killing white farmers in Zimbabwe? Or Palestinian children used as martyrs?

Based on the lyrics of the song, and the attitude by the performers, as well as Justin's promise to "have her naked by the end of the song", I would say the context in which the nudity took place was a sexual one, yes.

And yet, Janet Jackson wasn't naked by the end of the song. I bet that disappointed alot of people (although I'm not one of them).

Well, as soon as I said that was exactly what we did, I get attacked as being "pathetic".

I said *I* found it pathetic. But then, I find the human race pathetic. Do you take that personally too?

The next words I would like to use would probably step over the line,

Be my guest. I've already been called worse by others on this forum and I haven't left yet.

but suffice it to say that I think you crossed over the line.

No, I haven't. Maybe if you didn't think the world revolved around you, you wouldn't be insulted so easily.

People in this country are so damn afraid of sex and their own bodies that it's a wonder our heads don't explode at the mere thought of it.

*I* find that pathetic. If you don't, well, that's your perogative. But civilization hasn't collapsed yet from naked people.

I couldn't have been the only one having had a sex ed class by the age of 9 either. But it really makes you want to peer inside a 9 year old's head to find out what they really know.

I should add that my comment about nipple = sex is based on the fact that nobody would have said a thing about that show if NOT for the nipple.

That is where the full-blown complaining began.

Craig said he found it "utterly pathetic and disturbing" and proceeded to quote from one of my previous posts. So, yes, I take that to mean that he was referring to me, specifically, not just the uproar in general.

Wow, you DO think you're the center of the universe.

Craig,

I agree that the complaining about "just the nipple" is overblown. I'm just amazed people that were offended by it stuck with the program for so long, but that's me.

As far as me being the "center of the universe," I harldly believe that and my friends tell me I'm one of the most unassuming people they know. I would suggest that if you are going to call a comment out of a person's post "pathetic" that you be a bit more explanatory about what you are talking about.

Toby,
The France issue is NOT to protect people, although that may be part of what they're saying to have what is taking place go down easier politically.It is simply the inevitable result of what happens when a large number of Socialists (close to Communists=religion is the opiate of the people) and even larger number of secularists in general are in control of government. They are totally infringing on these people's religion. As far as protecting them goes, well, that would be the same as telling a black student he can't wear a do rag or dreadlocks because it might inflame a bunch of rednecks. It is religious discrimination by France, which should be a warning and concern us all. Because it's not a long leap from banning religious expression "that inflames" to banning political expression "which inflames". What many of us fail to do is engage in critical thinking; we fail to see how "shutting up" a group with a point of view we disagree with hurts us all in the long run. Engaging each other, finding common ground, and working toward solutions is the only - albeit very difficult - answer.

I haven't read all the commentary in this thread, so forgive me if I cover things which have already been said. It really is just "us" that has a problem with our bodies, isn't it? My wife and I just got back from a vacation to the Dominican Republic and let me tell you, there were plenty of boobs (the female mamary type, nobody seems to care about man-boob) out on those beaches as well as children and not one of those kids heads exploded. There's a period of adjustment sure, but if you treat it like no big deal, it becomes no big deal.

Okay, time to set the record straight here -

I am the center of the Universe, and I'd thank all you pretenders to step away from my Throne, please.

As regards the Dominican beach, I'm reminded of an old saying of dubious attribution - "Nudity is often seen, but seldom noticed."

Bladestar,
In one of my posts I accidentally used your name, too.
Sorry.

Jerome, I see you already called yourself on using my name, so can't take you to task there.

But I am SICK AND GODDAMN TIRED of PEOPLE LIKE YOU who want to ban everythng they don't like!

I'm a firm believer in freedom and I have no patience for fascists who want to ban things. I say comment all you want on what you don't like, but the minute you try to ban it, you become evil and the enemy of all free people.

Nail clippers on airplanes was just an example of the stupidity of the TSAs "security plans" that Bush USED 9/11 to push through, as if a terrorist could do anything with nail clippers on a plane...

Interesting how you whine I brought up other countries, You whined : "What does it matter what other countries do?" then you turned around and talked about what's happening in OTHER COUNTRIES!

Make up your mind!

What happened in Madrid had nothing to do with airport security and government supression of people's rights...

Child prositution in Thailand? If the kids are being forced into it, then it's terrible. If the kids are doing it of their own free will to earn a buck, then so what (although anyone below 13-14 is too young to make that decision themselves, and should be banned, but that's not a problem in American, that's Thailand's peroblem, I don't live in Thailand, nor do i want to).

Blacks killing whites in Zimbabwe? Didn't you know that in America it's only a ace crime if a white attacks a black, latino, asian, etc? When whites are attacked it seems to be perfectly fine in the media's eye...

Palestinian children used as martyrs? Another example of how stupid people are because of religion...

Not that a single one of your silly examples had a SINGLE THING to do with the topic at hand: CENSORSHIP.

How does showing a naked body on TV have anything to do with Terrorism in Madrid (or anywhere else for that matter), Child Prostitution in Thailand, or Blacks killing whites in Africa? Plaestinians teaching their kids to be walking bombs?

Simple, it doesn't. Your argument falls apart there...

Posted by Craig J. Ries:
"I should add that my comment about nipple = sex is based on the fact that nobody would have said a thing about that show if NOT for the nipple."

No, people would have complained about the crotch grabbing and the ripped up flag poncho. Actually people did, but the nipple incident was worse in many people's eyes.

If NOT for the nipple, or crotch grabbing, or flag poncho, or the ambush of the audience by CBS/MTV about the content of the halftime show, no one would have said a thing. But alas, those things happened and the uproar is still going on.

If NOT for the nipple, or crotch grabbing, or flag poncho, or the ambush of the audience by CBS/MTV about the content of the halftime show, no one would have said a thing.

Oh, c'mon, the content of the Halftime Show has been getting raunchier for years. This isn't an "ambush" by any means.

Everybody knows sex sells. Just don't show a nipple and you can get away with it. :)

I have to admit, Peter's got me rethinking about the Janet Jackson boobiegate incident -- while I was ready to dismiss his suggestion that Janet's race had anything to do with the issue, I think he nailed it with the Snoop Doggy Dogg hypothetical. If that had happened, I think a lot of folks would have been howling about Snoop's "aggressive rape tendencies." Certainly something worth further pontification, IMO.

And on that note, I'm rather disturbed by the possibility that the column was trimmed without any sort of feedback between CBG/Maggie Thompson and Peter. It is both disrespectful to Peter and uncharacteristic of Maggie, and I'm still undecided which aspect bothers me more.

"...who want to ban everythng they don't like!"

Be careful. Once one starts screaming intolerance they become that very thing against the people they are accusing of such. That hardly seems fair.

My Ancestors came to this country because their fellow believers were being burned at the stake for praticing their religion in a different manner then the religious establishment. And yes I see it was "religious" people presecuting them. My point is that THIS country was a sanctuary for them because they were now able to practice their religion WITHOUT fear of persecution.

My fear now is that my descendants will someday suffer the same persecution, only this time not from other religions but from those who say their right to freedom FROM religion is being tramped on. People ranting and raving in obvious hate perpetuate my fear.

As someone previously stated, it is becoming obvious to me too that it's socially aceptable to bash Christians but definitly NOT any other religion. That trend scares me.

It makes me wonder what Christian hurt some of you so badly that your soooooo bitter. I'm sorry if someone did, but lets not persecute and right off the whole bunch for their actions. (I certainly don't blame all Muslims for Bin Laden's actions.) As we all know, historically horrendous things have been done in the name of Christ, but MANY modern Christians are trying to heal those wounds by public pleas of forgiveness and reconcilation. I suppose that don't mean jack to many of you but maybe just maybe it will to someone.

Hey my family tree is packed with survivors, my children will survive too, persecution or no. Of course I'd much rather have to see them suffer...

sorry I meant NOT to have to see them suffer!

As for Den's assertion that Janet's wardrobe malfunction was intended, it's funny but all the pics I've seen following the incident don't look at all as something that had been planned. As a local newspaper entertainment reported noted Janet's not that good an actress. She was definitely surprised after the incident.

How so? She did did not act surprised in the least. Watch the tape of Lucy Lawless. She was obviously surprised. Coupling her non-reaction with MTV's advanced notice about "something" happening at the halftime show, I can't see how anyone could believe that it was an accident.

Also, noting Den's comment about Michael Powell's being black--so what? I heard a comedian who joked that Powell was upset because it was Janet's breast--Powell wanted to see a white woman's breast.

Yes, I always refute an argument by quoting comedians, too. /sarcasm

My point is that PAD proposed the idea that all the furor behind this is white America being uncomfortable with a black woman asserting her sexuality. The fact that the leading man behind this "investigation" is black is relevent to that argument then.

Historically, those who came to this continent for "religious reasons" weren't escaping persecution back home, so much as they were looking for a place to practice the persecution they wanted to, rather than the variety prescribed by the Establishment. The so-called Puritans were a classic example of this - their intolerance got them booted first from England, then Denmark; they came to the Americas so that they could treat each other, and the indigenous locals, in the fashion that the Europeans wouldn't put up with.

Bladestar,
The comments you attack - which seems something you like to do - about child prostitution in Thailand and the like was simply to contrast your comment that banning nail clippers is "evil" and show there are a heckuva lot more important things going on that can more justifiably be called evil.
And you honestly think 13 year-olds prostituting themselves is a healthy thing for any society?
I do have to respond to the "I am goddamned sick and tired of people like you who want to ban everything they don't like!"
Again, very angry, and not even accurate. First, people "like me"? You don't even know me. Second, I have never been in favor of banning anything. Just some common sense, courtesy and respect for others' opinions and sensitivities. That's all I've espoused. I am, in fact, very libertarian.
Just as the FCC is using the Janet incident to crack down on some people, you are using this post to bash Christians, religious people in general,whiners, and basically people who disagree with you. The topic at hand was not censorship, but whether Janet Jackson was treated unfairly because she's black. And I don't feel restraining ourselves to respect other people's sensitivities, or at least WARNING them in advance about what's coming (like NYPD Blue) is a bad thing. It's simply being fair to all people. I like "Nine Inch Nails" and "Lords of Acid". But I won't play their CDs when my grandmother is around. Should they be banned? Never! I love them! At the same time,a label simply warns people that what they are buying may not be acceptable to THEIR standards. Ironically, music warning labels, which were supposed to be the death knell of bands wo pushed the edge, have actually helped them sales-wise,since teens and others will now eagerly seek CDs with the labels on them. It's made the raunchier acts even more "rebellious" and "cutting edge". At the same time, a mother doesn't have to be embarrassed because she bought a CD for her son or daughter that uses the word MFer every 5 seconds.
What's the problem?

My family were anti-baptist. (You call them Mennonite and Amish now). They believed that one should not be baptized as babies but older when they fully understood the meaning of baptism. This was against the established churches belief (Catholic, even "Lutheran" I believe. And they were being persecuted because of that NOT their intolerance.

Zeek,
Thank you. That is the point I am trying to emphasize. We all lose when we are so angry at those we perceive to be "oppressors" that in lashing out, we become that which we most despise.

Bravo Alex Clarke.

I have been disgusted with the way everyone refers to it as the Janet Jackson incident, Howard Stern et al blaming Janet Jackson, Congress investigating Janet Jackson, blah blah... and no one mentions Justin Timberlake. I saw it. He was there too. He loses one lousy booking, while she becomes the patron devil of government censorship in the name of so-called morality.

Did America freak because she's black? I don't think so, with all due respect, PAD. I think if Timberlake had ripped off Christina Aguilera's blouse, there would have been the same ridiculous outcry.

But I won't go so far as to say race has nothing to do with it. I think you're absolutely right in your flip-the-races hypothetical: if it had been Snoop Dogg ripping off Aguilera's shirt, he would be bearing the brunt of it, and she would be seen as a victim. Which is just as unfair as the unbalanced reactions we're seeing now.

I just think the "tempest in a C-cup" comment from way up top is pretty damn funny. My compliments to the author (can't remember, don't have time to search).

I posed this question to a friend last night and he said that this event became such an issue because of who Janet is. Or rather, because of who her (freak of a) brother is. Some of it is attributable to "Whackco Jacko by Proxy" syndrome.

I am unhappy that CBG decided to edit your essay. After all these years, one would have hoped that they would have given you a 'heads up.'

I am always surprised when I read of others openly supporting thought control, whether it be language some consider unsuitable, or concepts that others feel threatened by. I suspect there are a great many closet facists and stalinist out there 'bwah-hah-hahhing' out there, waiting to make their move on an ever growing apathy present in the free world. Meanwhile, the PC movement has done a great deal to help nullify the English language to the point that "plus plus ungood" is not far from replacing "bad!" in a standard child repremand.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Meanwhile, the PC movement has done a great deal to help nullify the English language to the point that "plus plus ungood" is not far from replacing "bad!" in a standard child repremand.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yes, you're wrong.

Everyone knows it's "double plus ungood", not "plus plus ungood".

;)

There are so many factors at work in this story, and (although I haven't read all the posts here) I don't think they've been considered.

Like Justin Timberlake being the one to do the ripping of the blouse. This is the most graphic illustration of rape I can recall in a supposed bouncy, happy pop music video. And yet no one has called him on the carpet for it. They blame the woman.

Janet Jackson being a black woman is an important factor. Doesn't the fact that a white man is assaulting her tweak some memories, even if they aren't rising to the top of your awareness? Would it be more clear if the band was playing "Dixie" or "That Ole Rugged Cross" in the background, and Justin were dressed in flowing white robes?

And stepping away from symbology and more into practical affairs, assuming Jackson was a willing participant in this (no matter what she's saying to avoid lawsuits), isn't it rather pathetic? Her career hasn't been exactly on fire, and neither has Timberlake's. Perhaps someone sold her (or she sold herself) on the idea that this might bring her the dose of popularity that her so-so musical and performing talents hasn't.

Finally, Mr. David, I think it regrettable but predictable that this column would be censored. CBG has always seemed to me to be a very carefully controlled magazine, avoiding anything that might make it seem like pornography to the more censurious-minded. I'm sure they never ran any covers for "Verotica" comics or anything like that. And although what you wrote could appear in just about any other magazine, I can see how your editors might feel alarmed. After all, comics are for kids, right? (?)

Historically, those who came to this continent for "religious reasons" weren't escaping persecution back home, so much as they were looking for a place to practice the persecution they wanted to, rather than the variety prescribed by the Establishment.

Not entirely true. The Quakers were persecuted in England, so William Penn brought them to the "new world" where they established the first colony where religious freedom was a 100% guarantee.

I didn't say I was for banning anything.
I didn't say you couldn't have your religion.
You can dance around an eff'n pine tree and chant Druid rituals for all I care.
Just don't try top ban that you find offensive.

I disagreed with Peter's idea about Janet's "blackness" figuring into the equation, altho the Snoop Dogg "alternate reality" comparison someone made earlier does make an interesting point.

As for why Janet gets the blame and everyone forgets Justin?

A) She's a Jackson, related to the whacko with the child-fetish Michael (Whacko-Jacko by Proxy [thanks Jim])

B) How much controversy has surrounded her through-out her life compared to how much has surrounded Justin?

C) Justin apologized.

Frankly, while Janet being black may not be behind the uproar, historically speaking it makes sense, America has a history of pointing out blacks, even when they've not done anything, or focusing on the blacks even when there are whites involved too.

Hell, in this culture, let's really stir the feces, it wasn't because she's black, it's because she's a woman! After all, if it'd been Justin's chest exposed, no one would've batted an eyelid.

Frankly I'm more surpriesed that anyone even wastes time watching the half time show...

CBG has always seemed to me to be a very carefully controlled magazine, avoiding anything that might make it seem like pornography to the more censurious-minded.

It's funny... back in 1995 the cover art of a CBG issue showed what appeared to be an exposed nipple on a woman, which caused a little controversy. I wish I could find a cover scan but here's a newsgroup discussion about it from back then...

http://tinyurl.com/22l5x

Corey

No you didn't say you're for banning. And I'm not either. I never agreed with shutting down Stern for exactly the reason that I know it'll be turned around to shut down my voice.

Suffice to say you have your freedom to leave it and you have your fear the religious freaks are going to infringe on that, but I have my fear that rabid tolerance monitors will infringe on mine. So we're even....although I would never berate YOU for being an atheist as you do us for our beliefs.

Yes, we are a bit uptight as a nation, but before we reflexively bash Bush, "conservatives", and zealous Christians, let's not forget that the extreme Left likes to shut people up, too. Many feminists would destroy Playboy if they could, because to this way of thinking, this "objectification" helps perpetuate a glass ceiling, to the point where I literally can't put a photo of my girlfriend in my own cubicle because it's considered a form of "sexual harassment" to do so. To me, Playboy spreads are tastefully done. But I know many models and dancers, and let me tell you, women who are confident and proud of their bodies and have high self-esteem are seen as an incredible threat to not only close-minded men but women who have none of the aforementioned qualities.
One thing Bladestar and I agree on: The human body should not be viewed as dirty.

Let me get this straight, Jerome. You've got a cheesecake pic of your girlfriend? And the only reason you don't have it proudly on display at work is because of company policy?

Jeez - and my wife won't even let me get the cheesecake shots of her developed, much less let them leave the house! Some guys have all the luck, I guess...

Bladestar posted: "C) Justin apologized."

So did Janet. Both apologized publically before the Grammys. CBS then instituted this demand that they must apologize again on the awards show or be uninvited (which the Academy should never have agreed to!), and Janet refused. Justin accepted, apologized a second time, and that was that.

Also lost in this is that Janet would have agreed to appear and apologize again had it not been that the Academy misled her to believe that Luther Vandross and his family had requested she not be part of the tribute to Luther. To the contrary, Vandross demanded she be allowed to participate, but the word came too late.

Aside from that, Janet's appearance was not to promote herself, nor was she nominated for any awards. She was scheduled to pay tribute to Vandross, and to have that moment turned around and made all about her by forcing her to apologize again in the middle of it would have been a tremendous insult to Vandross -- it was his moment, not hers. In that regard, I'm glad she chose to stay out.

Julio Diaz posted: "So did Janet (apologize).
Both (Jackson and Timberlake) apologized
publically before the Grammys. CBS then
instituted this demand that they must apologize
again on the awards show or be uninvited (which
the Academy should never have agreed to!), and
Janet refused. Justin accepted,apologized a
second time, and that was that."

Actually Janet Jackson apologized almost
immediately after the event. With a written
statement. Then the following day she apologized
a second time with a videotaped apology
distributed to the news media. At which point
she was criticized for making the second apology
in order to garner more publicity from the event,
Then she was invited to apologize a third time,
on live TV, but she declined to do a third time
what she was already being criticized for having
done a second time.
Darned if you do and danged if you don't.

One persuasive argument against it being an
accident and for it being a preplanned publicity
stunt was the fact that it got the name Janet
Jackson and the word "nudity" into the headlines
a month before the release of the new Jackson CD
"Damita Jo", which happens to feature a tasteful
nude photo of Ms. Jackson on the cover.
Coincidence?... yeah, sure, why not.
But, again, I'm being facetious.

"Toby,
The France issue is NOT to protect people, although that may be part of what they're saying to have what is taking place go down easier politically.It is simply the inevitable result of what happens when a large number of Socialists (close to Communists=religion is the opiate of the people) and even larger number of secularists in general are in control of government."

Of course, you know that the current french government is lead by a neo-capitalist party(or whatever they're called)? They are everything but socialists.

And you know, the law in France that forbid all religious symbol is a century-old. It was created because the government and the people of the time were tired to have to listen to catholics(they kept pushing their ideologies)...

"They are totally infringing on these people's religion. As far as protecting them goes, well, that would be the same as telling a black student he can't wear a do rag or dreadlocks because it might inflame a bunch of rednecks. It is religious discrimination by France, which should be a warning and concern us all. Because it's not a long leap from banning religious expression "that inflames" to banning political expression "which inflames"."

Every religious expression is banned, but every political symbols are banned too. And the law was hardened because of the growing tension between muslims kids and jewishs kids.

Leave it to the david. My biggest dissapointmentwas the grammies punishing her and not him .funny that huh.

And you know, the law in France that forbid all religious symbol is a century-old. It was created because the government and the people of the time were tired to have to listen to catholics(they kept pushing their ideologies)...

Sigh. I'm starting to wonder if anyone here checks their facts before spouting off.

No, what people are talking about here is a new law that bans the display of regilious garb or jewelry in the public schools. It just recently passed the lower chamber of France's parliament.

"You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take."

Hunh. Putting forward a theory, wondering whether it had occurred to most folks, and throwing the floor open for debate is some curious definition of arrogance and close-mindedness that I wasn't previously aware of. Thanks for mentioning it.

"When the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: "Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth" is asinine."

I agree. Where exactly did I say that? I know I said something like, "If you think the concept hasn't the slightest kernel of truth, then consider this," and I said "An idea that's so repellant that people won't even consider it often is closer to the truth than they care to think about." But I didn't say what you claimed. Then again, my not having said something has never stopped people before, so feel free to attack it if you wish.

PAD

First, PAD, the posts you cite arecrelatively old.
Second, I know you're busy, but you didn't just throw the floor open to debate (whioch has been pretty successful, mind you). Here is what you said, "I'm starting to THINK that maybe the color of her skin is the MAJOR point of demarcation."
Which is still opinion veering into " I really think this"
But you followed that up, PAD, with this,
"Lawsy, lawsy, a Black woman is overtly displaying her sexuality. Where does she get off?"
That was over-the-top Peter. I realize to some extent the point you were trying to make, but it really was.

"Sigh. I'm starting to wonder if anyone here checks their facts before spouting off.

No, what people are talking about here is a new law that bans the display of regilious garb or jewelry in the public schools. It just recently passed the lower chamber of France's parliament.
"

And let me tell you that the new law is a rewriting of the old, only hardened. I know, I'm french, And I'm not spouting off. As a kid I was not allowed to wear a cross,etc... What happened is that in the last 10 years, more and more religious group(mostly muslims) wanted to come to school with religious symbols. Now it becames so tenses between religions at school, that for exemple a young jewish kid had to change school because of the threat by young extremist muslims.

I realize you may have been simply stating what you think OTHER people are thinking, but check again and you may see how it may not be read by some people that way. You start with the statement "I'm starting to think" and then go on for three paragraphs. There is no buffer of "other people may have thought", or "this may have resulted in the people who think that".
You stated what was clearly (with no indication otherwise) your opinion, I responded. Now Bladestar, yourself, and others are accusing me of attacking you, which is not the case. I felt your reply to my Justin point WAS a bit arrogant "

PAD,
To wit, you stated, " In other words, they (black groups who wanted to boycott Justin Timberlake) agree with what I posted initially. So thanks for providing back-up to what I said and blowing a hole in your own argument. That was considerate of you."
Again, if you made a statement that the Holocaust never happened and then stated that mel gibson's father and other groups supported your view, does that mean you would be correct? A misinformed (or worse) group is just as bad as a misinformed individual. I hate when people use "well this group agrees with me so my argument has some basis" to justify their opinions.
I have heard "a lot of Black people agree with me that Nicole Simpson was killed by drug dealers" and "Black people will always stick together against you. You can't trust them." Does it make a difference how many people i cite who share that viewpoint.
No, because the number of people who believe an invalis statement doesn't make it any more valid.

Now it becames so tenses between religions at school, that for exemple a young jewish kid had to change school because of the threat by young extremist muslims.

So, maybe you can then explain to me how punishing the Jewish kid by forcing him to violate his religious beliefs helps in this matter?

It doesn't violate his religious beliefs. Him and all the others kids(be it muslims, catholics, etc...) can pratice their religions anywhere(at home, in temple/church/whatever...) but in school.

Spot on Frog kid, the free PUBLIC schools are there to teach (supposedly), not referee religious wars. The families need to keep their kid's religion out of school.

If they want him to wear religious garb in school and get religious in school, then pony up the dough to send him to private school...

By the same token though, the "young extremist muslims" need to also keep their religions out of school, and if they are threatening other students, then they need to be removed and sent to whatever the modern equivalent of reform school is. And if they actually assault anyone, they need to go to prison.

Quit coddling them.

Would it be nice if muslims, jews, christians, etc all got along peacefully?

Sure, it be great, but it'd also be great if money just magically appeared on my desk every morning.

Both are equally likely considering human nature...

"By the same token though, the "young extremist muslims" need to also keep their religions out of school, and if they are threatening other students, then they need to be removed and sent to whatever the modern equivalent of reform school is."

Well said, Bladestar. I should have added that. Rereading my post, I'm afraid It could be read like if I blamed the young jewish kid. I do not. I blame the stupid kids who were threatening him.

Bladestar,
Why do you have to be so intolerant? How does wearing religious garb - which is something that is fundamental and important to a lot of people's lives - hurt anyone else? For someone supposedly so obsessed with "freedom" you seem awfully anxious to take away that of others. As long as they're not bothering anyone else, why can't they abide by their teachings. Our public schools have much worse problems than people who choose to wear what is required by their faith. Oh, and great point about if parents want their kids to practice their faith, they ca "pony up the dough" to send them to a religious school. So only the rich can display/practice their faith in public without repercussion? That's sort of class bias, isn't it? Given the state of most public schools, those who can do already.
Bladestar, you are a real zealot about this. Don't you realize your way of thinking makes you just as fanatical as the hateful "religious" people who hold up "AIDS KILLS FAGS"? Kind of a strange way to support a "loving" god! And your wanting to keep people from even displaying their faith - not even SAY anything - is a strange way to support "freedom".

They blame the woman.

it wasn't because she's black, it's because she's a woman! After all, if it'd been Justin's chest exposed, no one would've batted an eyelid.

Both of these are pretty spot on, although I don't think it's a case of "man's chest vs woman's chest".

Maybe with asses it would the case, but not chests. Like, say, you don't see many ass-shots of women classifying as "comic nudity" or anything".

People wonder why rape victims don't come forward.
When the blame is on the female, or, in the case of the Kobe Bryant situation, your whole sex life will be on public display, it's pressure from society as a whole.

Talking about rape fits in there with the rest of our society's taboo with sex and nudity, and that's A Really Bad Thing.

How does wearing religious garb - which is something that is fundamental and important to a lot of people's lives - hurt anyone else?

Let's replace "religious garb" with "gang colors".

Now you guys argue.

Let's replace "religious garb" with "gang colors".

Or replace it with "rotten garlic and onions", because that has as much to do with religious garb as your ludicrous suggestion!

Ken, if you don't think that gang colors are "fundamental and important" to certain groups, you must have managed to avoid living in high gang-activity areas.

Just a tip - don't wear a blue bandana in northern Omaha, NE, for any reason. The same applies to anything red or bearing a Raiders logo in Vista, CA.

(Please note: travel advisories are subject to change without notice, or apparent reason.)

Or replace it with "rotten garlic and onions", because that has as much to do with religious garb as your ludicrous suggestion!

It's good to see that my comment immediately went over somebody's head.

As Jonathan said, you can go to some places and find out who belongs to which gang simply by the colors they wear. And these gang affiliations don't end at the front door of the schoolhouse.

It's precisely because of things like this (as well as revealing clothing, piercings, etc) that schools have regulations about what you can wear.

And some schools just outright have uniforms, so nobody appears different in such a way that it would draw attention.

My point is once you start infringing on freedoms, where does it stop? Many chapters of the Nation of Islam wear bow ties and suits. Would that fall under "religious garb"? Or, because it more closely is identified with Western culture, do they become an exception to the rule.
I don't believe in even banning the gang colors. Doesn't it help the schools and those in them to actually know who the gang members (or those inclined to suport such activity) are? A lot of these laws make soccer moms feel better but accomplish nothing and often do more harm than good.

It doesn't violate his religious beliefs. Him and all the others kids(be it muslims, catholics, etc...) can pratice their religions anywhere(at home, in temple/church/whatever...) but in school.

With all due respect (ie, none), that is just stupid. If someone's religious beliefs dictate that they must wear a yamulke or a head scarf whenever they leave the house, you are forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

I'm a firm believer that anything that doesn't infringe on my life is none of my business. How does a head scarf or yamulke harm you. Okay, it may make them a target for morons, but the solution to that is to punish the morons, not the people who just want to practice their beliefs in peace. What is next? Hide your religious garb on the public transportation system? On the streets? Hey, if you're not like the rest of us, why don't you just stay home or better yet, go back where you came from!

It's not a question of intolerance Jerome, it's causing a disruption, Public schools are there to teach, not as an outlet for religious expression. Private religious schools are the place for religious garb.

Why shouldn't schools have uniforms?

Kids go to school to learn, not for a fashion show (damn you Will Smith for planting that reference in your music!).

Why make kids and parents agonize over whether or not their clothes are "fashionable" or "hip" enough for their classmates? If the schools had official unforms, then everyone would be wearing the same outfit, and no one would have to worry about looking hip and trendy, or spending a fortune on the "in" clothes. Not to mention unless they planned it well, Outsiders coming in to the school would stand out and be very obvious as not belonging there.

Children don't have the same rights adults do. By law children are compelled to get an education, they don't have the choice to not go to school.

There are no disruptive clothes when everyone wears the same thing in a classroom.

Does your job let you wear anything you want to work? I don't think so, but at least you have the option to quit. Kids have to go to school. (And homeschoolers need to be very closely monitored as well to make sure they're actually learning something.)

Your intellectually dishonest "Some chapters of the Nation of Islam wear bow ties and suits." is ridiculous as ignores that lots of people wear them for totally non-religious based reasons.

Banning gang colors is good, as gangs primarily exist to BREAK THE LAW anyway! They rob, assualt, and vandalize, but I understand if you think that's benefitial to society in some way... But kids don't have the same rights adults do, and public schools aren't the place for some things, especially religion and gangs...

I see things that way:

If I go to a church, I take off my hat with respect.
If I go to a mosque, I remove my shoes with respect.
When you go to school in France, you remove your religious and political garb if you respect it.

Bladestar and Den,
You still fail to state how someone just peacefully wearing religious headgarb violates anyone else's rights. They're not conducting services. It's what they believe they are supposed to do. And Bladestar, in an earlier post you said you were not for banning anything, yet now you support this? And yes, my workplace has a dress code. people are required to come in in suit and a tie, etc. But people are alwoed to wear attire that is for religious reasons. To do otherwise would be religious discrimination and a violation of their civil rights.

Let's back up a second and remember that we're talking about schools and other countries; that has an impact on the discussion. For one, it's long been accepted that minors are not granted the full spectrum of rights. For another, the extent of civil rights in other countries are not the same as in ours; let's not be so arrogant to assume that the US's spectrum of rights is the ultimate expression of civil rights. If you want to take that position, you're going to have support it more thoroughly than just waving the term "rights" around.

You still fail to state how someone just peacefully wearing religious headgarb violates anyone else's rights.

Hey! Don't lump my with Bladestar! I'm making the point that it doesn't harm anyone.

When you go to school in France, you remove your religious and political garb if you respect it.

And I see it this way: If you respect other people, you don't tell them what they can wear and that they have to keep their faith in the closet. Some faiths do require an outward expression. Now, I am not a member of those faiths, but I don't see how the state has the right to tell people that they have to conform to some kind of societal norm.

If the idea that an individual's right to self-expression trumps the state's desire to have everyone conform to a single identity is seen by some as just a tired "American" way of looking at things, then all I have to say is "God Bless America!"

We may not always be the most tolerant society, but at least most of us here recognize that when a group of morons attack someone for being different, you punish the morons, not the victim.

Thak you Roger, I thought I had explained that in my post but apparently ssome people suffer from reading diasbilities, so let me explain it again:

CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ADULTS!

Children cannot drive, smoke, drink alcohol, or gamble. Why should they have the right to disrupt a classroom with "funky" clothes (or lack thereof in the case of belly shirts and "muscle" t-shirts...)?

A public school is NOT a place for religion, neither, actually is the workplace. If a jewish person can wear his religious gear, then can a Wiccan come in naked? Can an Islamic/Muslim woman wear what is essentially a mask covering her face in public? Most places have laws forbidding hiding your identity with a mask in public.

Just remember, you have the right to worship whatever god you want, but I also have the right to mock your fashion sense.

The law in France was also hardened because of the growing cases of:
-teens(or pre-teens)girls being forced by families to wear a veil(if they don't, it seems some guys thinks they are allowed to insult her and in some case rape her)
-mens not allowing male doctor to touch their wife in emergencies rooms
-women refusing to take off their veil for ID card pictures when laws say you have to show your hairs on this pic
-etc...

In voting this law, french government wants the schools to be a place where kids are protected from outside extremists views(religious OR political).

And I might add we frenchs have not the same approach to religion than americans. You'll never see a "in god we trust" on a euro, because it's not an absolute for everybody.

Just remember, you have the right to worship whatever god you want, but I also have the right to mock your fashion sense.

I suppose that the right to be a total jerk is protected under freedom of expression.

Bladestar, you have to answer the question as to why you find a yamulke so offensive.

Also, while I realize that the rules are different in other countries, in America, the rights of the First Amendment for freedom of religion and freedom of expression have no age limit and there is no clause that says they end at the school house door or the office cubicle.

Your examples are all non sequitors. Smoking, drinking, gambling, and driving are not rights. They are priviledges and subject to the regulation, for good or ill, by the government. Religion, speech, and expression, at least in this country, are rights that are ensconced in the Constitution and protected for everyone, not just those who are considered "mainstream."

Maybe if you would just stop hating everyone who was different than yourself, you'd be a lot happier person.

-teens(or pre-teens)girls being forced by families to wear a veil(if they don't, it seems some guys thinks they are allowed to insult her and in some case rape her)

We have child abuse laws to address that.

-mens not allowing male doctor to touch their wife in emergencies rooms

In America, patients have the right to decide who treats them, not their spouse. Another non-issue.

-women refusing to take off their veil for ID card pictures when laws say you have to show your hairs on this pic

We had this issue in America, too. The courts ruled that Freedom of Religion did not include the freedom to refuse to be photographed for privilege to drive a car. If you do not want to photographed, then you do not get the privilege of driving a car.

Problems solved.

I suppose that the right to be a total jerk is protected under freedom of expression.

Why, yes. We all practice it assiduously on this web page.

Also, while I realize that the rules are different in other countries,

Then stop arguing as if the de fault position are American positions; if you are going to argue for the superiority of American approaches, then you will have to do it vigorously and rigorously,

the rights of the First Amendment for freedom of religion and freedom of expression have no age limit and there is no clause that says they end at the school house door or the office cubicle.

This is, of course, incorrect.

On the school grounds, there are measured exceptions to First Amendment rights (for example, school publications are reviewed by faculty members; for other examples, see Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier). In the private sector, the First Amendment does not apply; while there are some generalized freedom of expression guidelines, the private sector can regulate speech and expression more so than government.

-teens(or pre-teens)girls being forced by families to wear a veil(if they don't, it seems some guys thinks they are allowed to insult her and in some case rape her)

We have child abuse laws to address that.

>>I'm glad you think it's so easy a situation to adress.

-mens not allowing male doctor to touch their wife in emergencies rooms

In America, patients have the right to decide who treats them, not their spouse. Another non-issue.

>>I don't understand what your saying, sorry. How do you solve the problems of the husband who stop MD in helping their wifes...

-women refusing to take off their veil for ID card pictures when laws say you have to show your hairs on this pic

We had this issue in America, too. The courts ruled that Freedom of Religion did not include the freedom to refuse to be photographed for privilege to drive a car. If you do not want to photographed, then you do not get the privilege of driving a car.

Problems solved.

>>I didn't know you could solve social/cultural problems just like that. You should be president.

Also, while I realize that the rules are different in other countries, in America, the rights of the First Amendment for freedom of religion and freedom of expression have no age limit and there is no clause that says they end at the school house door or the office cubicle.

Really? Why, then, do I risk losing my job if I fail to come to work in pressed pants, a collared shirt, and business-type footgear? I mean, isn't it within my First Amendment rights to wear torn jeans, dirty sneakers, and a T-shirt that says, "Don't annoy the unmedicated person"?

I'm not Mennonite (or Amish) (THANK GOD!) but my Gramma is. She wears a "covering" and a different style dress. Once mennonite/amish children join the church in this faith (and, in some sects of it, sooner) they are required to wear these things too. So yer telling me (Laughing!) that they shouldn't be alowed to wear these things if they attend public school? (And some do!)

You realize this is part of the reason why they came here from Switzerland and Germany long ago. Not that their kids weren't allowed in public education but because people said they coudn't practice their faith in the manner they chose too. Are you saying we should go back to that???

Now of course because they are peaceful everyone laughs at this thought. BUT they do have ways of looking at things that can be effected if some people have their way in government.

They are pacifists, my uncles even served as a "conscientious objectors" during the Viet Nam War. Oh and guess what? They don't believe in saying the Pledge of Allegience because they believe they can only pledge their allegience to God, the subversives. Yikes! Some people are really upset about THAT one!

Some use electric and phones, some do not. Some drive cars, some horse and buggys. (The whole liscensing thing here was a difficult thing for them because they have to walk the balance of of this world/ but not of it's systems. They have some sorta system worked out with the government but I'm not sure exactly what. Believe me that pisses people off!)

Yes, no one has set up laws to stop them from practicing their faith the way the want here.....YET, but, in some of both right and left ways of thinking, there should be. Scary. That's taking away the very thing that makes this country good. And it is. (Like I said before, you don't like it? Then for heaven's sake MOVE TO FRANCE.)

As someone once said, "Peter, you have lurched uncontrollably into the truth."

The truth is there IS a double standard at play here. A white male who disrobes a black woman in public is disturbing, but a black man disrobing a white woman in public would likely be arrested for attempted rape.

A bit exagerrated, but not overly so. Race still matters in this country (boy, does it EVER!) and it still pushes a lot of hot buttons in people. Including it would seem the editors of The Comics Buyers Guide.

I'd be more than a little annoyed if a editor mangled my column like that (and I am a writer and have been a editor). I think someone owes PAD an explanation--and a bit more respect.

Blade Star and Frog Kid,
Neither of you has specified exactly why you feel threatened by people who religiously wear religious garb. Should kids also not be allowed to wear crucifixes? What are they hurting? What is the problem? You are trying to infringe on other people's rights. Besides teaching our kids about science and how to read and write ( a job almost none of them are doing very well at, be they in the city or suburbs, but i digress) schools also provide a setting for social interaction. If little Johnny becomes friends with Zoreh - a muslim who wears headgarb - and laughs with her and gets to know her as a person, then he is far less likely to simply think of people who "look like Zoreh" as terrorists or weirdos. Tolerance, guys, tolerance. You don't like it when you feel others are infringing on your rights, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHERS.

Den, I don't find a yamulke offensive, just silly looking. Add a propeller and it's perfect.

Frankly, I like jews A LOT more than any flavor of Christianity. I don't recall the jews ever starting a holocaust and they don't seem to go around insisting everyone else live by their religion...

Who decided they are priveledges? Why is gambling a priveledge? Why is drinking a priveledge? Why is smoking a priveledge? The only thing I named that could be considered a priveledge is driving!

Neither you nor the government have the right to tell people they can't drink, smoke, or gamble. Driving involves a lagre heavy metal vehicle capable of high speeds on public roads. The others are nobody else's goddamn business. Same with drugs actually.

I'm very happy, laughing at people like you who are sao uptight you can't even voice an opinion your afraid my offend someone else. Enjoy your repression, I feel only pity for you.

Perhaps I can weigh in here as a teacher, since I actually DO work with students on a regular basis, unlike some of the people in this particular argument.

I'll also caution at the beginning that I'm neither Jewish, Muslim, nor Wiccan, so it's certainly possible I'm being inaccurate later on. Corrections welcome.

Is allowing a Jewish kid to come in with a yarmulke going to mean you're letting a Wiccan come to school naked?

Um ... no, for three obvious reasons.

1) Indecent exposure laws.
2) Sanitary concerns for both the kid in question and his/her classmates. I mean, in chem lab the kid's GOT to have closed-toed shoes if nothing else, and I've yet to see anyone come to school claiming that wearing ONLY said shoes is acceptable.
3) From what I know of Wicca, it is not a requirement of the religion that one be naked when in a public place. It IS required by some Jewish traditions that a male wear a yarmulke in public, or by Islamic tradition that a girl wear the head covering (the name of which I'm blanking on at the moment).

It's not a "fashion sense" to them, despite Bladestar's usual ability to assume the rest of the planet exists solely for his amusement and scorn.

I think the comparison to gang colors is usually a pretty spurious one -- wearing a yarmulke is not, generally, a political statement that another group is "the enemy" who you're going to fight if dissed. It's a statement of personal faith.

I'm a pretty strong-minded atheist myself, and I'm personally of the opinion that it would be awfully nice if humanity as a species stopped using religion in any way beyond guiding one's own personal code of behavior -- but I think banning the wearing of religious symbols is usually a mistake.

If there are instances where the symbol could somehow plausibly increase the odds of violence (as may be the case in France; I don't know), then school authorities obviously need to deal with the situation, and it MAY be that banning the symbol is the only practical option -- but it strikes me as a choice of later resort, not first.

As for the First Amendment, Roger's right in that they don't apply full-scale to minors in school; there's ample evidence showing that from the past. It's not especially illegal for a country to do what France is doing, even this one -- but I think it's somewhat questionable.

Who decided they are priveledges? Why is gambling a priveledge? Why is drinking a priveledge? Why is smoking a priveledge?

I don't know who all these people are who build outhouses on ledges, but if they don't stop smoking and drinking while they do it they're gonna fall off...

TWL

Who still builds outhouses? (Port-a-potties don't count) :)

I think the comparison to gang colors is usually a pretty spurious one -- wearing a yarmulke is not, generally, a political statement that another group is "the enemy" who you're going to fight if dissed. It's a statement of personal faith.

Sure, it's a statement of faith.

But sometimes you have to think whether it's worth the outcome when you have cases of Jewish kids getting threatened because of their religious-related garb.

Or whether you're going to get shot because you decided to wear red or blue.

I went to high school in a small Iowa town where the biggest uproar with regards to school stuff was that our mascot was a Blue Demon.
But I can see how such rules could and should apply in areas where the above examples are a problem and the safety of the kids is at risk. Regardless of one's faith, etc.

Who still builds outhouses?

Methinks someone missed the pun...

Sure, it's a statement of faith.

But sometimes you have to think whether it's worth the outcome when you have cases of Jewish kids getting threatened because of their religious-related garb.

Well, two paragraphs down from the one you quoted, I did allude to that possibility and say that banning the symbol might be the only realistic way of avoiding violence -- but trying other things first strikes me as preferable. Go after the people actually committing the violence first. (I know, easier said than done if it's so systemic.)

I mean, if someone's getting threatened because they're black, it's not like the school can go with banning black people. Ditto if you're gay.

Actually, now that I think about it, the gay analogy is a fairly good one. Teens get threatened (or worse) for being gay all the time -- the solution is to deal with the gay-bashing, not prevent students from being out.

TWL

"Blade Star and Frog Kid,
Neither of you has specified exactly why you feel threatened by people who religiously wear religious garb."

Jerome,

I never feel threatened by religious garb. I was trying to explain the idea behind the religious laws in France(sorry if I'm not always as clear that I'd like it to be). To resume: When I was a kid(in the 80s) nobody was allowed to wear a cross/kippa/etc in school, and everybody was okay with it. Ten years ago, muslims begans to wear veil, and at the same time we began to notice an increase in religious extremisms(mainly related to the Palestine/Israel conflict). France having the greatest muslim and jewish communities of Europe, you can see where it could become a problem, specially if the extremist muslim community keep using the Israel/palestin problem in the debate.

To conclude, I wanted to say I totally understand your point of view, and in many ways I think you're right. But with extremism growing, I can see the good thing in a religion-free school, too.

Frog Kid,
Thank you for responding to my post and disagreeing in a respectful, intelligent manner (you should try it sometime, Bladestar, it works a lot better than attacking people, calling people who disagree with you names and basic disrespect of others' views and an overall immaturity).
But Frog Kid,my point is that if we oppress people in order to "protect" them, then the bullies, bigots, etc. win. Only by letting people - even children - live their lives as free as possible and confronting people who would pressure/hurt others can we solve problems like bigotry. Though I have had a healthy skepticism of organized religion for a long time but I did go to Ctholic school growing up and a lot of people - but especially young kids, who may feel that by not wearing their crucifix/religious garb that there is something wrong with them or that they have sinned - who would rather confront the intolerant bullies rather than have the school system protect them by having them deny their faith.

Jeff Winbush,
I am currently a writer and have been an editor myself, and I do not feel CBG has committed some act of censorship or shown "disrespect" to PAD. You know stuff gets edited all the time, due to space, content, accessibility to the general public, etc.
Also, PAD has stated he went on a "tangent". Maybe CBG simply felt this went from controvesial to downright inflammatory and insulting to many of their readers. You or I may not agree.
I do feel PAD probably should have been told beforehand, but it is not something they are obligated to do. And his subsequent backtracking from his own statements just on this board leads me to conclude that CBG probably felt this was not worth the headache.

Lots of interesting little tangents, here. Now, the one possibility that I haven't seen, and for the love of WHATEVER you hold holy, let's not go down there, anybody think that Janet MIGHT'VE been trying to take some of the heat off her zombie-skinned brother? And I just think that it's REALLY funny that something that's SOOOOOOO inappropriate for TV spent so much time being replayed on all the cable news stations.
As far as the article that STARTED all this, yeah, CBG should've given you the heads-up, Hey, Peter, we gotta change this.
As far as the whole respect-my-religion-but-not-yours deal...my brother's a Wiccan, when he was my best man, he took off his pentacle before we went into the church, just because he thought some people in my family wouldn't have been as understanding as me. Still dyed his hair dark blue, though. Know what? There are PEOPLE out there. They're DIFFERENT than you. DEAL WITH IT, PEOPLE! Live and let live.

Oh, and BTW, Peter, just want to thank you for Imzadi. It's been a HUGE help in a sideways kinda way with some problems that my wife's having and my way of helping her.

Rat,
Thanks you! Couldn't have said a lot of what you said better myself.
And again, as a writer myself, while it's always preferable if an editor lets you know beforehand of a change, it is not necessary nor is it always practical. She'he may be under a tight deadline, etc. Given the wide berth they usually give Peter to express his views, I feel it is unfair to condemn them in this instance.

William,

The Tempest in the C-cup is a line I swiped from one of my fave chat show guys. Lionel did a riff on how stupid the reaction to this thing was on the weekend version of his show and was using that line to describe it. His website has a photo of the Janet flash that's been changed a bit. It's worth finding.

That site is lionelonline.com.

This may have been posted by now. Sorry but I've been out of town for a few days. Another point to this not being race is that this is hardly the first Janet being sexy thing. A friend reminded me of Janet's hands on boob mag cover from about ten years ago. Not the level of boob flashed at the halftime show but it was a display of a black woman being sexual. And it was on every news stand all over the country and on TV 24/7 for about 2 weeks. No huge backlash. Again, not skin color but time and place of the events and how much was shown.

\\let's not be so arrogant to assume that the US's spectrum of rights is the ultimate expression of civil rights. \\

What I find knee-slappingly high-larious is that if Bush proposed such a law everyone who's defending France tooth and nail would be (rightly) howling with outrage at what an infringement on civil liberties such a law would be...

\\let's not be so arrogant to assume that the US's spectrum of rights is the ultimate expression of civil rights. \\

What I find knee-slappingly high-larious is that if Bush proposed such a law everyone who's defending France tooth and nail would be (rightly) howling with outrage at what an infringement on civil liberties such a law would be...

What I find knee-slappingly high-larious is that if Bush proposed such a law everyone who's defending France tooth and nail would be (rightly) howling with outrage at what an infringement on civil liberties such a law would be...

Missed the point, didn't you?

Hi Peter:
Just out of curiosity, what did the CBG editors tell you when you asked them why they made the cuts?

I'm very happy, laughing at people like you who are sao uptight you can't even voice an opinion your afraid my offend someone else. Enjoy your repression, I feel only pity for you.

Coming from someone who is so obnoxious towards anyone who disagrees with you, I find this statement laughable.

I'm glad you think it's so easy a situation to adress.

Well, explain to me how forcing a child to violate his or her religious beliefs protects them from abuse at home, since you're now arguing that said violations incur abuse. It seems to me that your silly law will only encourage more child abuse.

I don't understand what your saying, sorry. How do you solve the problems of the husband who stop MD in helping their wifes...

Simple: If the husband interferes with patient care, the doctors call security and have him hauled away.

How does banning religious garb in schools protect ER patients again?

Or is Europe just moving in stages back towards the days when if you didn't subscribe to the state-approved belief system, you risk being sent to prison or burned as a witch?

I didn't know you could solve social/cultural problems just like that. You should be president.

Thank you. All it really takes is a healthy dose of respect for every individual's rights. Too bad the default mentality in far too many countries appears that an individual's body belongs to the state, not the person.

Maybe it's because I'm from Pennsylvania, where Amish, Mennonite, and a dozen other faiths that require some outward garb are commonplace, that I just don't find the practice offensive. Obviously, Bladestar subscribes that philosophy that if you don't like he does, you are just a target for his scorn. Where do you fit in?

I'm not a particularly religious person, but I respect other people enough to follow the philosophy that if what someone does isn't hurting another person, it's none of my business.

Imagine how peaceful the world would be if everyone would do that?

Den,
Well said. As I've stated - and what posters like Bladestar seem to find so repugnant - is that if we want liberty in this country, it has to apply to everyone equally. As Alan Keyes said when asked by an ultra-religious, conservative supporter of whether or not the First Amendment applied to "offensive" bands like Marilyn Manson, "You have to be careful, because if today we decide that bands like Marilyn Manson are no longer protected by the First Amendment, then when the other side gets in power they may decide it is illegal for you to sat that homosexuality is an abomination."
Personally, I don't listen to Marilyn Manson OR think that homosexuality is an abomination. But again, once we suppress things we don't like, sooner or later we will lose some of our rights as well.
The Constitution does not say, "Thou shalt not offend".

\\Missed the point, didn't you?\\

Don't think so, really...

Too bad Jerome and Den miss the point every hour on the hour...
Yet they have the nerve to say "The Constitution does not say, "Thou shalt not offend"." yet they whine about my posts...

Sill children, rights are for adults

Bladestar, disagreeing with your hateful position is not whining. You have gone on record as saying that you want all individuals to have to conform to your way of thinking and appearance.

I've got your point. It's just that you're wrong.

Bladestar,
You sure seem to enjoy using the word "whine" a lot. Maybe you should buy a thesaurus.
So, you're admitting you have purposefully been trying to be offensive? Good. You have long ago abandoned any pretense of engaging the rest of the posters in a civilized, intelligent debate in which we may all learn. You ignore whole arguments and respond with vitriol to anyone who disagrees with you, have stated children have no rights;stated that it's perfectly okay and healthy for 13-year old girls to prostitute themselves to make a buck, seem to feel all members of all religions somehow oppress you, even if it's just peacefully wearing garb of their faith (while at the same time calling the FCC "scumbags" for purportedly trying to protect children and others' sensibilities). You have said Christians "deserve" bashing and have mocked orthodox Jews as well - stating a propeller on a yamulke would be "perfect', THAT was really respectful.
You even fail to acknowledge there are points you bring up in which I AGREE with you. You just look for an excuse to attack people. While it's your right, it really doesn't accomplish anything, except have people take even your valid viewpoints less seriously.
Whatever. You are obviously a very angry person who can't bring himself to engage in polite discourse with others. I the enjoyed the respectful,intelligent interaction with the others on this topic.
Too bad you couldn't join us.

No one's whining about your posts, Bladestar -- not Den, not Jerome, and not me. You've got every right to your positions -- just as we have every right to point out you're taking on the role of jerk with enthusiasm and gusto.

TWL

Sorry Jerome, my ignorant friend, but I never said children have no rights, just that they don't have the same rights as adults.

Secondly, any offensiveness in my posts is strictly in your small-minded interpretation. The only things that can be offensive are those the viewer/reader/listener seeks to FIND offensive.

Good for you Tim, you at least have have a brain.

When you get an intelligent thought Jerome, I';ll be glad to discuss it with you. But while you are still so ignorantly focussed on protecting the entire world's feelings, you have no ground to stand on...

It's not the FCCs or the government's job to protect ANYONE'S "Sensibilities"! If it were, then no one would ever be allowed to broadcast ANYTHING!!!!

Actually, Blade, that's one of the FCC's primary defining missions - to uphold "broadcast standards", an incredibly loosely defined goal. Every so often, we're going to get an administration that goes a little overboard on the definition; however, our country's political system is such that, at least every eight years, if not sooner, we're just as likely to get an administration that throws the definition overboard.

Now, the CBG was within their own rights to edit PAD's column any way they wanted. It was discourteous of them to do so without letting Peter know what the problem was, and give him a chance to redact it on his own; however, sadly, being discourteous is a right as well (isn't it, Blade? Den?).

I just don't see the whole thing as being all that apocalyptic, is all...

Orwell was just off by 20 years...

Bladestar,
Yet again you resort to obnoxiousness and name-calling. Why? You actually have some valid points (funny how you never comment or respond to when I agree with you), but your nastiness and lack of simple civility while debating others undermines your opinions and will prevent many people from taking them seriously. "If you had an intelligent thought", "my ignorant friend". Do you get off on being rude? Are you really as angry and immature as you seem? Or does the anonymity and safety of the web give you strength you wouldn't have otherwise? Not that I'm losing sleep in either case.

Bladestar,
Yet again you resort to obnoxiousness and name-calling. Why? You actually have some valid points (funny how you never comment or respond to when I agree with you), but your nastiness and lack of simple civility while debating others undermines your opinions and will prevent many people from taking them seriously. "If you had an intelligent thought", "my ignorant friend". Do you get off on being rude? Are you really as angry and immature as you seem? Or does the anonymity and safety of the web give you strength you wouldn't have otherwise? Not that I'm losing sleep in either case.

Bladestar,
Yet again you resort to obnoxiousness and name-calling. Why? You actually have some valid points (funny how you never comment or respond to when I agree with you), but your nastiness and lack of simple civility while debating others undermines your opinions and will prevent many people from taking them seriously. "If you had an intelligent thought", "my ignorant friend". Do you get off on being rude? Are you really as angry and immature as you seem? Or does the anonymity and safety of the web give you strength you wouldn't have otherwise? Not that I'm losing sleep in either case.

I don't respond when you agree because on those sides of the issue there's not much left to say if we agree on an aspect.

No, I'd be in your face if we're face-to-face too. I don't need you, you aren't in any position of authority, so I have no reason to kiss your ass, so you get the full blown honesty that is missing from so much of public discourse, as people cower behind "fellings" and "social graces" and lie rather than come out speak their mind and tell the truth.

By the way, if you value freedom so much, then why does a young women prosituting her self of her own free will (not being forced) bother you so much? Her choice isn't yours, so suddenly it's horrible?

And Den, when did I say everybody has to conform to my way of thinking? When and where? Huh? Or do I hold so much power over you that you feel that just because I heap scorn on those I consider ignorant that you feel ignorant?

Saying that kids shouldn't be able to wear religioos garb, or gang colors, or dispurtive clothing to school isn't saying they HAVE to confrom to my ideas, it's a simple statement of idea tat would eliminate a lot of problems in schools. Sorry you can't tell the different, but that's your problem, not mine...

Christians who try to force their religion on others DO deserve bashing and contempt.

And look at a yamulke, it looks like the beanie the old propeller-beanies did. Like I said, the Jews are more interesting and better about religion than any christian I've ever met...

Bladestar:
While I agree with some of what you say, I don't like the way you say it. For instance, just because someone does not agree with you does NOT make them ignorant. Ignorance would be not knowing the issues through lack of education or lack of interest. Those who disagree with you know the issues and have some points of their own. Most of us tend to listen more closely to an argument for or against ANY subject if the one arguing has respect for those on the opposite side. No one here is asking you to change your opinions. We do sometimes take exception to the way you present them.

Bladestar, I'm done talking with you. You are obviously so blided by your hatred and scorn for everyone who thinks different than you to engage in any intelligent discourse.

Maybe after you've grown up, you'll learn that other people have the right not have to change the way they dress just to make you happy.

Karen,
Thank you.

PAD,
Since this will be probably be my last post, and you probably will have a new topic after this weekend, I just wanted to reiterate that if I came off as being rude or attacking you in an earlier post, I aplogize as such was not my intention. I am extremely sensitive to issues of race for many reasons, and it does bother me that it sometimes seems that whites DO condescend toward blacks, as if they they are incapable of making it in such a supposedly racist society. Good-intentions by white liberals can be just as damaging as blatant ignorance by rednecks. Anyway, I have listed point by point why I objected to your thesis. I am hardly ever deliberately rude, especially to people who are really rude to me (as some of the posters have been) so I really hope you didn't take it that way.
Take Care,
Jerome Maida

...no time to read all the comments here. Sorry. But in reaction to the article itself: this got huge media attention because there was a breast exposed on national TV during the single-most-hyped television event in this nation. I don't care whose breast it is, *any* nudity during the super bowl (that is actually seen, unlike that of the streaker, whose nudity was not front-and-center on the TV screen) is going to be a big huge deal to some people in the American public. Maybe "a race issue" is food for thought, but it isn't any more than a single cheerio in my mind.

Please Den, say it isn't so!!!

mY poor fragile self-image is shattered by your turning your back on me. How can I go on living without...

Yeah right, like I care....

Just a thought...Perhaps Maggie (or John or Brent) cut this part of Peter's column because of concerns that the next six months' worth of "Oh,So?" might be taken up with letters discussing the Boob Shot Heard 'Round the World--a subject not really related to comics. It is, after all, called "COMICS Buyer's Guide."
I do think Peter should have been informed of the cut prior to publication, though, as a courtesy.

Paul

Paul1963

Hmmm... Wouldn't go with that one. BID has hit topics of race , sex, death and other things that were "outside" the comics field before. And this would sort of tail into comics because of some of the effects that this clamping down could have on the "kiddies" books. After all, comics still get tagged as kid's stuff and people still go on hunts for something that they can get on TV and blame for bad children. Comics could, yet again, become a ripe target in these nutball times. Also, CBG could have had control of the content of their letters page by giving boob letters a limited run time without cutting the BID like they did. No, this seems like something else.

PAD
Did you ever find out why and is it something you can print? Just wondering.

The Super Bowl half time show, at least the little bit I saw of it, was pretty vulgar. But, guess what? So were most of the commercials. And, the game itself, people knocking each other around for the sake of a game, is vulgar and violent. I enjoy pro football, make no mistake about it, but it has aspects which give me pause. God forbid that tv execs put something worthwhile on tv.

Great job guys...

thank you very much for your help. You guys 64745 rock, thanks again.