Third Party & Independents: Archives

V. Edward—

It was in fact only a breast, and as such, nothing that most of us haven’t seen. The news media tends to focus on “issues” which have a degree of salaciousness to them, as well as notoriety. This, in my opinion, is why Janet Jackson planned what she did—-she knew the media coverage would be incredible, and even though much of it was negative, it increases her star power significantly nonetheless.

The problem with this all is that it lowers the bar one more notch for what is acceptable behavior. This process is called incrementalization—the process of changing standards one small step at a time so as to not engender any great fuss over any single step. Yet when you look at it from a distance, you finally understand how far the standard has changed, even though you might not have had a problem with any single step.

That is where the issue lies.

Personally, I don’t care if she shows them. She can call a press conference and flash anyone she wants. But this wasn’t a press conference, it was the Super Bowl and she made a decision to “spice up” the halftime festivities. She made the decision to “push the boundries” (along with that weird n’sync guy) and oops, she did it again.

We have rules in this country when it comes to what’s appropriate to show on TV and what isn’t. These rules exist because a majority of people find it either offensive or lacking any certain redeeming qualities to show on prime time television to the vast audience (of which I’m sure a good portion were under the age of 13). While there is a minority of people who think “Showing the Breast” is perfectly acceptable, there is a larger majority of people who do not (including myself).

If Miss Jackson wants to hold a symposium on “Boob Flashing 101”, there are a number of outlets available which could “raise the social awareness” which are available to her. Instead she did it a cheap publicity stunt during the most watched television show worldwide. Anyone who sees it as “educating the culturally challenged” is missing the obvious.

I was watching the show when the “event” occurred. Due to the camera angle and distance, I couldn’t really tell if she was truly exposed. The station cut very quickly to commercial. It wasn’t until I saw the news later that I knew what really happened. Of course, no one else watching even noticed.

So, it seems that the media gave Janet far more “exposure” than Justin. I’m not condoning what they did, but I think this has received far more attention than it warrants.

“While there is a minority of people who think “Showing the Breast” is perfectly acceptable, there is a larger majority of people who do not (including myself). “

Actually who is in the majority is not very well defined. Take a look at

http://www.pollingreport.com/media.htm#Content

Interesting stats, but notice the trend. As the age goes up, the view of it being “inappropriate” goes up. IMHO, 18-34 is too wide of a group to use for a question like this. Most 18 year olds don’t have kids and are most likely to enjoy pissing off the parents. Most 34 year olds have small kids and now are the parents. Tell me how their opinions are going to be brought together the same way.

While 18-34 year olds mght have somewhat similar shopping habits and choices, it’s too big of a difference when it comes to obscenity on television. Your 18 year olds are not mature enough to know that their 3 seconds of fun will also be 3 seconds of “oh shit” to the parents of a clueless eight year old.

Most people don’t think CBS should be sanctioned because they know CBS did not plan this or know about the change in the performance. This I agree with. But to think that the country should ignore what happened because we need to increase our cultural awareness is full of it.

Woody—

Thanks for your response, and I can understand your problem of getting worked up over a single breast, in these times of terror attacks, war, joblessness etc.

However, that’s precisely where incrementalism works the best. Apply the concept to varying issues, and you see how incrementalism has led to accounting scandals, political mudslinging, and even war.

50 years ago, any movie showing two people in a bed required that at least one foot from each person be on the floor. Obviously incrementalism has worked through the last 50 years to change that standard. Perhaps in 5 years we might see frontal nudity at a Super Bowl, which some will proclaim is only mankind’s natural form… and what could be wrong with that. And perhaps a future Super Bowl extravaganza will feature actual sex, which some will claim as a natural expression of love, and after all, what could be wrong with love. And so it goes.

Now,back to the much smaller issue (C-cup size, if I am correct) of Janet Jackson’s right breast. By itself, this is a non issue. But history shows we are on a pathway and each small issue is a connector to the next pathway.

Hope this makes some sense in the overall context

Oh Gawd the watah-woiks, I wish I had taped that hearing it was such a great collaboration of kindergarteners boohooing and stuffed shirts decrying it a moral outrage, not by the entire half time show (Nelly unable to keep the crabs under control in his sweatpants etc.)but the boobie, Oh god the boobie.

COME ON, WE ONLY SAW ONE BOOB AT THE HALF-TIME SHOW-BUT ATLEAST THIRTY OF THEM AT THE HEARING!

God forbid one day men figure out that breasts actually perform a neccessary function. Women breast feeding out in the open!!! Aaaaaooh the watah-woiks! What will the children think that it’s natural er sumthin’!!!

Another thing it was’nt the breast that I was offended by it was the lack of a gag-ball. The word mute next to her head was’nt enough for me. I was offended by her dancing etourage and Justin Timberlake having a career. I was offended by having to see Kid Rock’s crotchshot and any guy named Nelly. I was offended by P-Diddy in a winter parka in the middle of Texas.

I personally think halftime shows should always have a breast, that’s it! just Janet Jackson’s breast nothing else. “And there’s Janet Jackson’s boob poppin’ out back to the game!!” Just give me enough time to grab a beer and a bag of nachos.

If they were more consistent about it, I’d be shocked, just shocked, but this is more of a sign of the Right having to deal with the consequences of letting corporate interests determine content without government interference. I mean, with Girls Gone Wild, Wild On, South Park, and various other hair-raising content going out on the airwaves and the cable channels, it should not be a surprise that things come to this eventually.

The idea that you could have the kind of content that’s going out over the airwaves show up on nightly basis, and then not expect it eventually to spill out onto a live broadcast is absurd. When the standards are relaxed everywhere else, it’s only a matter of time.

But those programs (Girls Gone Wild, South Park, etc) air only on Cable TV and never on Public Airwaves. If something along the lines of NYPD airs, it’s usually after 10:00 EST which most parents know is bad Karma TV wise.

You guys are elevating this whole thing to a level which it should never go to. Janet didn’t show off her tit to enlighten the country, she did it as a cheap publicity stunt. And now she and the stations are paying the political price.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

HOW MANY OF YOU PEOPLE POSTING HERE AGAINST THE BOOBIE THING BEING SHOWN ON T.V. ARE ACTUALLY FOOTBALL FANS OR FOLLOW A TEAM THE WHOLE SEASON??

Because I have a sneaking suspicion, that none of you are Superbowl watchers. How’s about Joey Bagodonuts brought to us by the good people of Hostess snack foods. Ever throw a football joe? I know you are a fan of Dom Irerra the comedian (big petie, little Petie, medium sized Petie) but do you actually watch the Superbowl???

Now hear me good we, actual fans of the sport, do not care about the boobie.

We watch the game.

HOOBRUNGYA

I am a die hard (very hard in the last ten years) Chicago Bears fan. I grew up in the early Walter Payton years and was lucky to be old enough to know how rare a Suberbowl victory was. This year was especially nice since most of the playoffs were in HDTV and I could enjoy my Father’s Day present to the fullest.

Even though “I watch the game”, I’m a dad first and football fan a distant second. While I wouldn’t have minded seeing some nipple-age action fourteen years ago, my ideals have changed since becoming a dad with four kids.

Brian, here’s the thing did you notice it, if no one pointed it out? I for one thought it was a pastie until the next morning when CNN pointed it out. I mean the show was trashy absolutely without a doubt it really did have raunchy overtones and Mtv has certainly crossed the line in taste. You’re right it should’nt have been so gratuitously out to shock especially for younger viewers. But what I recall I was’nt even sure if I saw. And ten seconds later I was paying attention to something else.

But then again in HDTV? you may have seen it better?

Wonders aloud if Hoobrungya has kids!?! I do… and after Ms. Nasty got exposed (overexposed?), my nine year old turned to me and said “that wasn’t supposed to happen, was it?” I agreed with her that yes… that probably wasn’t what the network, the NFL, or the 90 million Superbowl watching Americans expected. To say that it is “okay, get over it” trivializes the greater issue. Much like the frog left in the pot until boiling/the frog that jumps into the pot of boiling water, we are all perched on the treacherously slippery slope of acceptable behaviors. I, however, don’t personally blame Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Nelly, or any other cast member who performed during the MTV halftime show. Instead, I question CBS and the NFL’s decisions and motives. What, exactly, did they expect, anyway? None of these performers, or MTV, for that matter, are known for their upstanding character and moral uprightness! Stupid is as stupid does!

As for my 9 year old: she has recovered… but now she wants to meet Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake… two people I can reasonably guess that she probably didn’t know existed until February 1st! Yes… kids are impressionable! I shouldn’t have to watch something that I previously considered a very wholesome touch of Americana, and then have to deal with the effects left on my impressionable 9 year old! I didn’t ask for a role model, just some entertainment!

Hoobrungya:

Well, I LOVE how you challenge me instead of my message. But to answer your challenge, I played for 8 years after college in a competitive flag football league. About half the players had played at some level of college ball, with a couple former pro and semi pro players involved as well. At one point, our team was ranked 4th in the nation….though in my estimation the ranking was based as much on paperwork as ability.

Now, I can discuss the merits of the zone blitz, or how a good cover corner can alter an entire side of the field. I can also discuss whether the 4-6 Chicago Bear defense was the best ever, and can even point to the fact that it was nicknamed to some extent after Doug Plank, number 46 for the Bears.

Hoobrungya, of course, if you bother to respond, you will undoubtedly call any of my experience into question, but I will nonetheless notice that you have yet to discuss my post. I wonder if that is because you are not up to it, or whether you simply feel it is beyond your level of comprehension.

GunControl—

The Super Bowl is a lot of things, but a “very wholesome touch of America” it never was and never shall be; the violence, the women in seriously tight and revealing outfits; the increasingly obnoxious and offensive commercials; what is wholesome about that? What it is, is violent slugfest for and by young men. It has never been, nor should it ever be about children, it much too violent for that.

As for the breast flash, it was a second, a second, a second! Accident or no, it was a breast, not something dirty, or sorted, but in my eye an object of beauty to be admired and not scorned or held up as harmful to our children if glimpsed by chance by a child.

Yes children are impressionable, and we as parents (yes I have four girls, which collectively have, or will have their won breasts) can do them a great favor by impressing them with the truth at all times, no matter the question or query.

I say again, get over it!

I’ll be honest, I thought I saw something during the halftime festivities, but I was more put off by the actual show itself. What I keep hearing that we should just “get over it” instead of facing the actual problem. Miss Jackson put herself in the situation, and she has to face the consequences. Just ignoring the problem will only push the networks to see what else they can get away with.

If the halftime show was aired at 11:0 at night with a parental warning, then I don’t think anyone would have complained. But we are not talking about late night TV, we are talking about a live event that millions of people were watching.

As for the beast flash, it was a second

Talk about Freudian slips… ;-)

Guncontroliswrong, Ma’m being that you sound armed, let me explain, now what I say in some places is to garner a reaction and I mean them partially as a joke, a lark, satire if you will. I’m not seriously saying porn for everyone. In some conversations I’m quite well thought out when bored I go to other less substantive areas to mess with peoples sensibilities. It amuses me, not amused now it sounds like you are loading a gun.

I’m still trying to call out Joe bagodonuts to argue his theory of incrementalism, not Brian whom I know from previous statements is a football fan, or you due to myself not being a member of the michigan militia nor waiting for Jesus to return and Pat Robertson leading you to heaven. What part of Joe Bagodonuts do you not get.

Now I’m not calling into question your football experience or knowledge I know how to get peoples attention if they are there.

Now you’re theory is in fact saying that social mindset through a fifty year span roughly will evolve (or for that matter devolve) into a place where it is commonplace to see gratuitous sexual acts as a form of mainstream entertainment is what I’m reading in this.

(I have more, give me a minute or two there seems to be a delay in the messaging)

The Super Bowl is a lot of things, but a “very wholesome touch of America” it never was and never shall be; the violence, the women in seriously tight and revealing outfits; the increasingly obnoxious and offensive commercials; what is wholesome about that? What it is, is violent slugfest for and by young men. It has never been, nor should it ever be about children, it much too violent for that.

Oh boy, now we see the real story.

Football = Evil
Crass Commercialization = Evil
Naked Breast = Good

Dude, you are just a whole mix of different emotions. Because football is violent, we deserved to see the tit. What kind of logic is that?

Donuts>The basis of your arguement is that our sexual norms are diverging as a result of stimuli as well as the awareness of what those acts are. What I’m seeing here is a fault in this, granted that our relationships would have to alter, hence it is negating the human condition itself. There is an order to our human sensibilities about relations that are a result of life. Desensitization does not cause the great malnormalities in consciousness that you claim.

See I do agree, but have to differ in your interpretation of the effect. Human nature is such that it has a body of certain sensibilities that are there in all people that prevent this. In some ways PEA in some way the female prevents this as the male heads towards that fantasy. To make say nudity socially acceptible it will certainly through socialization be acceptible but will not make things more amoral but reinforce morality.

(more)

And what I mean by this is you are’nt factoring in it social pendulums and revolutions as society progresses. What is our next phase, I would say one of massive convenience (read into that all the sexual innuendo you want) as well as one of lower populations. Life spans getting longer, an advent of male birth control (already being tested in Britain today and in the US there is a shot available)different economy entirely. So what does that mean for us is that it will actually be prevented by the future conditions. Smaller cities, more tight Knit communities and heres my point, smaller markets, socially PAYTON PLACE essentially.

Even if possible it would’nt happen.

Well now, Mr. Martin… We appear to be at an impasse. Just because it happened, just because it lowers the bar for acceptable behavior, just because “it is a breast,” still doesn’t make it right! If my memory serves me correctly, wasn’t there a streaker that was on the field right before the kickoff of the second half? CBS DIDN’T feel the need to broadcast this display of outrageousness! Was this man “manhandled” and led off the field for a certain booking with the local constabulary? I believe so. Was Ms. Jackson dealt with the same way? No. Why not? Could it be because she was supposed to be on the field? Does that make it okay? Nope.

As for football and violence… I played football in high school, and it wasn’t for the violence… it was for the opportunity to participate for a common goal with my piers. The violence was an accepted part of the game. Today, I have the choice of watching the game or not. And yes… I probably should’ve shut the TV off when Kid Rock came out dressed in a desecrated American flag. But, much as rubberneckers driving by a car wreck, I guess my morbid curiosity made me continue to watch. Maybe I expected it to get better… maybe worse. But what happened later, no matter what else is done or said, is not right. Accountability should be maintained. Someone is responsible!

Hoobrungya:

Very interesting. First you call into question whether I have ever thrown a football, then you try revisionist history to exclaim that you are “not calling into question your football experience or knowledge”. Your revision would suit you well for a career in politics.

My issue was NOT sexual norms, as you seem to think, but rather the idea that the standards of morality change, one small piece at a time. You obviously have a different view of where or what morality should be, and I accept that there are many different viewpoints on the table.

But recognizing how change occurs is important. It is important in a variety of arenas. While Janet’s breast certainly pales in comparison to the evils of WWII, the same process of incrementalism can be seen at work in both instances. If no one raises a fuss over the showing of a breast on prime time television, then television will move on to the next slightly more prurient thing. And moment by moment, things will get more prurient. That, my friend, is the issue.

I hope I have been able to explain it in a format that is easily understandable.

Now what is Beyonce trying to do with this picture? (picture on left hand side)
Go to www.witnessreport.com

Dear Guncontroliswrong, I believe the matter was handled differently due to binding contractual agreements and the decency codes of the FCC. Obviously the streaker had no such contract where Ms. Nasty did and that warrants a different process. But I do agree with your concern.

I do believe that there should be more activism on the part of parents as to sexual and violent content in T.V. shows (NFL not included). Sex and violence seem to be sold almost every within so many sectors of entertainment marketed to kids and within the clothing industry. It’s all levels of merchandising to our kids. There just simply needs to be more to prevent them from using sex and violence to sell their wares. An activism from whatever the source is an activism needed.

If you look at everything from videogames to hip hugger jeans and midrift shirts it’s as if they are marketing our children as their own sexual advertising. Now the Superbowl, which I agree is’nt really wholesome, although I do agree with you needs to be dealt with as pressing upon our rights to moral values especially during primetime on network t.v.

I see an area where we really overlook and that is with violence on tv not only at prime time but daytime as well. The claim is that it does’nt have social and psychological consquences on kids, it does. We need cleaner airwaves no doubt about it.

Mr. Joebagadonuts,Brian and Guncontroliswrong, I am ‘HOOBRUNGYA’ but I am also on other sites as well, such as ‘The Church of the Subgenius’ where I mentioned this site and one other a week or so back. The above statements are by no means mine. I do not resort to poop jokes nor do I used hackneyed lines and if it were my posts they would (and usually do) no doubt take up an acre. Statements such as “any man named Nelly” and “Grab a beer and nachos” are by no means my style. The only post I made yesterday was to the republican column on ‘what it means to be a republican’ granted my posts can be caustic or even sardonic, they are by no means this stupid. I will be using my name until the coast is clear.

My problem is not with the sex, the violence, or the nudity, but the intensification of those things as ends in themselves, without the benefit of humanizing context.

I mean, read your bible, and not everything is G-rated. There is sex and violence to spare in the bible, and not just in the utterly overexposed Revelation of John. Blood, guts, sex, drunkenness- the bible is no more delicate with the facts of life, and the weaknesses of humanity than any modern work.

Granted, it is different to see than to read, but it’s there.

However, the Bible isn’t meant purely to assault our senses, to draw us into addiction to one intensified emotion or physical need after another, which is what our modern media has the tendency to do.

There’s something in good works of art that tends to blend and tie the different sides of human experience together. Practical balance is never found, since all meaningful experience excludes some set of details, but there is a chance there somewhere for people to find themselves in the work, instead of having to yield to some expectation of what their tastes, their weaknesses might be.

Of course, people enjoy simple, direct evocative work, but the situation has been that it’s been all we’ve been getting. People aren’t built to experience the world like that. We are built to deal with a changing world, and world in which genuine conflicts exist, a world that much of the media fails to venture within for fear of endangering business interests.

The Breast episode is just the latest intensification of these things. The question is, how long until bared breasts are just matter of fact things, thrown in to apologize for the lack of any truly dynamic subject matter?

The problem is that the FCC is allowing that kind of content degradation to continue unabated. In part this owes to laissez faire policies, but also in part, to media consolidation.

there are some who would say that media consolidation is a natural result of the working out of competition, and should not be interfered with, and I wouldn’t doubt that propping up competitors does mess with the system somewhat. But the forces within the consolidated media also act with pernicious results. Here we have a genuine conflict, not a good and bad choice. Both choices have their hazards. Which should we choose? I don’t think there is a choice.

We strike a balance. Something today’s parties seem reticent to do. But the reality of most situations is that there are multiple axes of consideration for different phenomenon, and dealling with things from the position of only one set of interests is apt to create horribly imbalanced approaches to our problems. We need to recognize the boundaries at which our policies fail, and note it. Otherwise policies take on airs of infallibility, while their consequences take on the opposite sort of air.

What’s certain is that no amount of hand-waving and exclamations of shock and disgust will set the appropriate policies, not when the FCC is barely interested in enforcing it’s own laws.