I read over my column when it saw print this week in CBG and was rather surprised to find about a quarter of it missing. While running a section about Howard Stern and censorship that was basically a reiteration of stuff I said earlier in this blog, I then went off on a further tangent which I thought might get some controversy going, since CBGs been pretty quiet lately.
Well, apparently it’s gonna stay quiet, by choice.
Below is the entire section of my column that was deleted without my being informed:
“And every time you see articles about censorship lately, they all keep referring to Janet Jackson
• 
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 šlûŧ, 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 hëll 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 hëll 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 dámņëd 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 hëll else would you mention “the birds and the bees” if not for automatically assuming that nudity = pørņ = 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 “dámņ 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 hëll. 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 bøøb 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 bøøb? 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:
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 hëll 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 ™, 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 hëll 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 hëll else would you mention “the birds and the bees” if not for automatically assuming that nudity = pørņ = 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 dámņ 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 bøøbš (the female mamary type, nobody seems to care about man-bøøb) 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 GØÐÐÃMN 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 bøøbìëgáŧë 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.