Replies

Yes, well, not exactly a federal offense, is it?: "poor taste".

Well, that is what people are outraged about. Most people wouldn't know what the establishment clause is, but it doesn't change their reaction or their concern for what the vast majority of people consider to be inappropriate for children to view.

the rest of this overhyped, steroid-driven roman coleusem act.

Ok, cut down on the hyperbole. We get it; you don't like football. Fine. It's a free country. Many others do. And while you have a right to intone that all the rest of us are somehow Cro-Magnon because we play or watch football, doesn't mean you are right.

In fact, sir, I played football for over 12 years. I have a BA and an MBA and my IQ (if you believe in IQ tests, which I really don't) was 162, so it doesn't appear that I am of the mindset that you described/intoned.

I don't have any plans to demand the destruction of some people's careers over "poor taste".

Well, luckily, people that didn't like the performance have free speech and the free market.

If Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake (or their handlers) aren't smart enough to know the venue that are performing at and the potential backlash and/or destruction of their own career for doing something that clearly flies in the face of conventional wisdom, that's their problem. The only comments that have been specifically directed at Ms. Jackson or Mr. Timberlake was the run-of-the-mill "slut", "jerk", and "don't buy their album" variety. And, while the "slut" and "jerk"-type comments aren't the most eloquent, they no doubt reflect the visceral reaction that those individuals had. Discount that as much as you like, but it doesn't change it.

Further, is that really demanding the destruction of their careers? I don't think so. It is them excercising their right of free speech and their rights, as consumers, to buy or not to buy their album. Luckily, we also have the right to free assembly and if a common belief is found in that group (such as not to buy the album), then so be it.

Contrary to your comment about the destruction of Ms. Jackson's or Mr. Timberlake's career, in fact, the loudest chorus I have heard was from those calling for action against CBS, MTV, the NFL (which I don't think you would mind, only because it seems to suit your view of football), and/or AOL.

In a way, I could agree with your seeming sentiment about the illegitimacy of the FCC itself, but I don't think that is what many are necessarily calling for. I think that most are using their power as a consumer to tell CBS, MTV, the NFL, and/or AOL that they simply aren't interested in their product because CBS, MTV, the NFL, and/or AOL didn't have the good sense to be involved and/or concerned about the performance that they either broadcast, produced, consented to, or sponsored, respectively.

Maybe calling on the FCC is simply the easiest why to try to accomplish that goal, vis-a-vis fines and/or other regulations? Probably. But, that is what the posts you are seeing here and the dicussions you are hearing/seeing on the radio/TV.

However, most will do the most effective thing: turn the channel. Which, interestingly, gets to the heart of the matter about why CBS, MTV, the NFL, and/or AOL should have be concerned: it is their product.

Now, did the contract to perform include such stipulations? Probably not.

P.S. Where were the "gyrating, half-naked woman (sic)" (cheerleaders, I assume) during the Super Bowl?

I honestly don't remember seeing any cheerleaders. And, neither should you....since, you know, you don't watch that kind of thing.

Which brings up my last point: how the hell could you have seen any gyrating women or Ms. Jackson's nipple if you weren't watching? Hmmm...