http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 14 May 2004 14:43:31 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/14/144331.php davepellVanity Fair editor and elbow-rubber to the stars Graydon Carter has been taking some heat lately for getting cash (personally) from Hollywood bigwigs. The latest story is that Carter received a $100,000 finders fee for mentioning that the book A Beautiful Mind would make a good movie.I can see why the other folks at Vanity Fair would be irked by these stories. Carter would not be receiving special treatment and cash prizes if it weren't for the marketing muscle of his mag. If there is going to be any payola, it should go to the magazine, not the individual.But as a reader, I don't care. Hollywood stories, like sports, are not really news. It's all marketing. The coverage of movies. The detailed examinations of the personal lives of stars. Relationship stories. It's all about selling product and we all know that. People read the celebrity sections of big time pubs (and the sports pages of major papers) to avoid real news, not to get it.We expect Hollywood to pay for coverage in the pages of these rags. Anyone want to drop a few nickels on me? Your movie (and your love life) will be stretched across this blog as far as the eye can see - as long as it's entertaining and the checks don't bounce.The issue here is whether or not Carter cheated his co-workers and his magazine. Not whether or not he cheated his readers. That just makes another interesting story to take our minds off real news.From Dave Pell at Davenetics: Comments and Responses Here Culture15679@blogcritics.org Fri, 14 May 2004 14:43:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/30/123939.php davepellI don't want to put myself above anyone else here, so let me begin by saying that yes, I hate you. And wipe that feigned look of shock from your face. You hate me too. There was a scene in the season finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm in which Larry David was about to get together with an actress who he had been courting for the several months since his wife gave him (as a tenth anniversary gift) the greenlight for one extramarital interlude. But somewhere between canoodling on the couch and the real deal, Larry noticed that the other woman had a framed photo of President Bush on her dressing room table. And that was it. Larry couldn't do it. Defeated and deflated, he left the room. Let's face it. This is an extremely understated version of the way members of the two parties currently feel about one another. We live in different communities. We react to the same events and announcements in completely different ways. And we shout at each other. The current state of interparty relations could be best described as The Hate. So how did it happen? I mean how did we go from disagreeing with one another to hating each other with such fervent passion (aside from the obvious answer that it is all fill-in-the-blank's fault)? Part of the answer has to do with the insane amount of media coverage now given, not to the issues themselves but to the inside-baseball strategies employed by both parties to discredit, soil and ultimately destroy one another. The sports analogy is probably worth exploring - although most people know a whole lot more details about their favorite sport teams than they do about the political issues of the day. Any sports fan has experienced the rivalry. We go on hating the opposing team and sort of hating the opposing fans long after the games end. Meanwhile, the actual participants in the sport take their showers, put on their street clothes, go home and get on with their lives. Many players are best friends with someone from an opposing team. The same is, or at least was, true when it comes to political pundits. The coverage of politics as a sport is entertaining and it sells. So the pundits rip into one another for an hour or so and then get up, shake hands, tell a few jokes and head off to lunch. The viewers are left with the hate. That's why most political show audience members could never believe that James Carville and Mary Matalin actually touched each other intimately (even though on the perversion scale she is so clearly an S and he is so obviously an M). Right Wing radio exists to blast away at those evil liberals. And Left Wing radio just launched what they hope will be their biggest show, the title of which (The O'Franken Factor) is a clear indication of its chief goals. We have gone from doing the debate to doing the dozens. And we get it twenty-four hours a day. The pundits go off the air. The haters just move on to the next show (often times, we don't even need to touch the dial). The coverage never stops. The game is never over. The hate becomes institutionalized. And now the hate that has been marketed into the very fabric of the American public consciousness is working its way back up (or down) to the pundits and the politicians. If hate sells, how do you (why would you) ever turn it off? There is less hand-shaking at the end of the political shows and less respect among colleagues in the Senate and the House. We don't want compromises or solutions. If someone offered Red Sox fans a salve that would make them feel better about Yankee successes, think anyone would use it? Would you want something wonderful to happen in America even if it meant that the opposing party got all the credit and was, in fact, right all along? Ever sort of hope that Osama gets caught at a moment that is most beneficial to your man in the presidential race? We are in fact addicted to the hate. What gets your juices flowing more: A great, new policy idea From the guy you're supporting or an offensive gaffe by the guy you hate? We thought 9-11 would bring us together. Instead we use it to attack the other party. And that gets to the heart of the problem. This isn't a game. Somewhere along the way the contempt will become too extreme (if it isn't already). Carville and Matalin may stay married, but the creative intimacy will disappear and the metal trunk filled with whips, chains, handcuffs and an industrial-grade buffer will remain un-opened at the foot of their two twin beds. Again, I don't want to put myself in some kind of a category of higher thought or meaning. I hate you even more now that I've written several paragraphs worth of content without letting off some steam and attacking you. I sort of hate myself for hating you so much but I mostly hate you for making me feel this way. I am as much a victim of this disease as anyone and I don't see a cure for any of us anytime soon. If it gets much worse, I may have to hump a Republican. From Dave Pell at Electablog Politics15253@blogcritics.org Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:39:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/24/170824.php davepellShould we bring back the draft?That's a question some in politics and the media want to put back on the table. After all, we are (as we're constantly reminded) in a war that could last a generation. And so far, the massive majority of Americans have had absolutely nothing asked of them. No one has asked us to sacrifice. No one has asked us to take risks. About the only thing we've been told to do is to keep our eyes open for anything that looks suspicious. I doubt any of us will be earning a purple heart or a silver star for performing an occasional glance in the line of duty.But shouldn't we be asked to make some sacrifice in a time of war?While the discussion is interesting and it's patently unfair that a small number of families must worry, obsess and even mourn while the rest of us go about our normal business, bringing back the draft will never happen.So lately I've been trying to think of an appropriate level of sacrifice that should be demanded of the American people. My first idea was to hit us in our pocketbooks. Why should we be paying less in taxes when our countrymen are fighting a war? We should be paying more. We should have a war tax. We should have adopt a soldier programs. How can one get less for risking his life on behalf of freedom than someone else gets for shooting a ball through a hoop? Wouldn't public opinion about a war be more valid if we were being asked to foot part of the bill. Yes, you're in favor of the war, but is it worth say, fifty bucks a week?But then I thought, no, that's too much to ask.So then where should we sacrifice? At least we should be forced to acknowledge that a war is going on and be required to follow along with its ups and downs. Right? So maybe the American public should be targeted where we'll feel it the most. What I'm about to suggest will sound radical even to the most zealous patriots, but here goes anyway.As long as we're in a war, we should restrict America's TV privileges.I have a feeling that my initial strategies around this idea were a bit too extreme. I was thinking that anytime we are in a war, all we should be allowed to watch is coverage and analysis of that war and how it is affecting families and friends here at home. And for the kids in the backseat watching DVD movies, zilch.I've since scaled back the program quite a bit (it's an election year, after all). Here's the official plan:Anytime U.S. troops are overseas and in the line of fire (and more of our soldiers than you can count on one hand have been killed during the prior seven days), none of the top twenty television shows will be broadcast. No American Idol. No Everyone Loves Raymond. And certainly no Survivor. Sure you can still have your syndicated reruns and your sports and news. But nothing in the top twenty. And any reality show that is broadcast during these periods must focus exclusively on the lives of those who were killed in action.Sounds crazy, right? It's such a seemingly small sacrifice for a society at war. But ask yourself how many Americans after a few months and years (even nights if it's during sweeps) of living under this system would still be steadfast in their support of, say, the decision to enter into a war like the one in Iraq. Think it would change the poll numbers?Come on. You know it would.Now think about just how scary that is.Perhaps I'm suggesting something that is still too extreme. Maybe we should just send America to its room with no dessert.By Dave Pell of Electablog.com Politics15062@blogcritics.org Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:08:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/31/202418.php davepellAfter more than a week in the media crosshairs, the White House has now authorized Condi Rice to testify publicly in front of the 9-11 panel. The White House press strategy, once airtight, close to the vest and extremely effective, has morphed into a bad porn movie (unfortunately, one that has been edited for viewing by John Ashcroft). Even when they know something will feel good -- like the fantastic release of nonsensically classified information, the cocoa-butter shine that envelopes the body when leveling with the American people, the exciting group action harnessed by the creation of the Homeland Security Office, the Oedipal (and Clintonian?), climactic splat on the Oval Office window that could be fired off unexpectedly (like an armed Predator) following a sip of wine and the simple words: "All right, forget the weapons. The dick tried to kill my dad!", the the tingling, goosebumped, throbbing thrill that can only be achieved while doing it (testifying that is) publicly -- they still hold out on us. They say no, no, no. No, it's not in the public's best interest. No it's against the Constitution. No, well, because we don't wanna.But by the end of each scene, the Bush administration always winks, flicks us with the wet end of a towel and shares that seductive smirk; the one that says "Aw heck. You're with us," and makes us recall the famous, romantic, and somewhat Bushian first line of Gabriel Garcia Marquez' Love in the time Cholera: "It was inevitable." (That's "Era Invetable" when you're courting the Latino vote).And once they've given in and the deed is done, the administration sits back, smokes a compensatingly long stogie (Guantanamo's locale has its benefits) and asks, "Well, was that a great idea I had or what?"But it's not working anymore. The mystery is gone. The James Dean enigmatic vibe no longer gets our juices flowing. We're tired of the drawn out scenes and we don't want to play dress-up anymore (besides, why do they always get to wear the flightsuits?). The American public is now channeling Tom Cruise (pre-Nicole breakup and sans the freaky L. Ron obsession) in A Few Good Men as we each (at least those not busy looking for work) shout: "I want the truth."More and more, it turns out that the act itself wasn't worth the holding out and the waiting. Think we'll be tapping ourselves in the forehead and saying, "Ah ha, it was Condi Rice who left our nation unprotected and is therefore responsible for 9-11..."?No. What we'll be left with is the memory that, like the Nicholson character in the aforementioned movie, this administration doesn't think we can handle the truth. This administration keeps showing up wearing nothing but fishnets and a camouflaged strap-on and then they tell us they don't want to do it. And once they do it, it's not that satisfying. No cuddling. No real letting loose. Certainly no French kissing. Come November, we just might decide to bring it on with another administration. From Dave Pell of Electablog Culture14274@blogcritics.org Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:24:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/27/002554.php davepellPresident Bush has officially endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. He has already warned Congressional Democrats not to attempt a filibuster (although he later admitted privately that he thought someone had threatened to fill a Buster). Electablog has obtained a working copy of the amendment, along with some additional notes, currently being passed around conservative circles. I can't reveal exactly how I got my hands on these drafts other than to say that I know someone who knows someone who used to clip the hedges outside Roy Cohn's pool house.Here's what we've been able to extract from the pile of paper so far:In these United States, the legal definition of marriage shall be reserved for those legally binding unions between one man and one woman. No state shall set forth its own laws regarding the legal definition of marriage (except in such cases as both participants are female, extremely attractive, under the age of 30, willing to experiment with the addition of third and fourth parties - at least one of whom must be male - and understand that in such cases the Attorney General may see fit to waive all Fourth Amendment rights). Unholy same-sex gatherings among two or more men shall be expressly prohibited except in cases where a militia is being formed or in the case of a closed session of Congress. All associated laws shall also be waived in the case of duck hunting.When Congress is required to determine the legal gender of one or both of the participants seeking a marriage license (The his/her name is "Pat" Clause), gender determination will be legally binding solely with the approval of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives, half of the members of the Senate, and three-fifths of Barney Frank.Of the two oppositely gendered participants, at least one must own either a pick-up truck, a tractor (backhoes excepted) or an El Camino - or fail to see the irony in the character Archie Bunker - and shall find no sign of innuendo, repressed memories or unresolved issues when confronted by the following Tom DeLay quote: "Americans have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it."The Ashcroft Clause: Neither one nor both of the participants may admit to accidentally watching the wrong person during an adult movie screening, and/or having a strange tingling sensation whenever Ricky Martin sings "She Bangs" or when Rick Santorum and Gary Bauer sing Karaoke on Duet-Thursdays at D.C.'s Peyote Cafe.In no cases shall the repealing of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be used as an excuse for same sex marriages, or for that matter experimentation during college.This legislation will by extension include the tenets of the 1997 Defense of Sexual Inhibitions Act which was vetoed by President Clinton on seven separate occasions (four times in the Oval Office, twice in the Lincoln Bedroom and once behind some shrubs in the Rose Garden).Possible criminal charges and sentences being considered: Obscene public displays of affection such as inappropriate physical contact (or the carrying of a placard supportive of Trent Lott) between opposite gendered participants can be a misdemeanor. The same behavior between two same-gendered people (assuming they aren't as hot as the cast of the L-Word) will be a felony and carry a sentence of five to fifteen years. Mistaking stockings for tights and showing up wearing them with no shorts to your fitness center and then getting on the Stairmaster: Fifty to Life.Related to the above: If a male participates in zhuzhing of any kind; he does time.This amendment shall have authority over any and all state laws. Ignorance of the law can under no circumstances be used as an excuse. Neither can confusion regarding Barbara Bush.As with any legislation, there will be changes before the docs are finalized and of course, there will be the requisite pork barreling - heretofore referred to as the other white (and exclusively white) meat barreling. For example, Halliburton has already locked up the contract to supply all the leather and ball-gags for the Republican Convention in NY.Dave Pell is the writer of Electablog Politics13191@blogcritics.org Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:25:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/12/171043.php davepell"Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck. Mickey Mouse ... Holy (rhymes with) Duck." That may have been the tune being hummed around the very prolific hallways of the Disney empire. Imagine the quiet confidence you might feel riding along in your boat as it passes the many Pirates of the Caribbean for the umpteenth time. Then suddenly, from within one of the familiar galleys, out pops a pirate who happens to have the backing of about $66 billion (and brother that buys a whole lot of cannonballs). That may have been the way Disney's head man Michael Eisner felt Wednesday morning when he and the rest of the business and media worlds awoke to a very public offer from Comcast CEO Brian Roberts that read in part, "It is unfortunate that you are not willing to [discuss a merger]. Given this, the only way for us to proceed is to make a public proposal directly to you and your board." As discomforting as that correspondence may have been for Michael Eisner (under whose watch Disney's progress has recently been about as smooth as ride on the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad), what are the broader implications for the viewing public if the deal goes through? First, one must absorb the enormity of the prospect that a cable company might be about to pick up one America's most popular and long-lasting content brands. Have we entered into an age where the pipe owners are truly kings? And what happens to content when it's controlled by parent companies more familiar with building infrastructure than a decent prime time line-up? Perhaps more importantly, are we really willing to cede control of Mickey, Minnie and the gang (not to mention ESPN, ABC, E! Network, Movie and animation studios, theme parks, and several other well-known brands) to the cable guys? How scary would a cable-guy owned Disney be? Well just to start, the Disney theme parks would now inform customers only that they would be open for business during a window sometime between 10am and 5pm. And from now on, anytime Goofy bends over, we can expect to his pants slide at least halfway down his JLo. It's too early to know whether this will become a done deal. First, Disney executives would have to be sufficiently convinced or pressured to take the offer. Second, the union would need to get regulatory approval. The FCC's Michael Powell (during a split second departure from his obsession with Janet's frontage) explained: I don't know if Comcast will get Disney or not ... If it does, a merger of that magnitude will unquestionably go through the finest filter at the commission, I can assure you, as possible." Of course that's the same fine filter that let microscopic particles such as News Corp and AOL-TimeWarner slip through. On one hand the trend of media consolidation is extremely disturbing. We are seeing major mergers in music, movies and most importantly the development of these mega-machines that own both the pipes into our homes and the content that is pushed through those pipes (I don't have that much control over my own digestive system!). That means more and more content in the hands of fewer and fewer distributors. We already have limited viewpoints when it comes to news, ranging from bland (CNN, network news) to absurd (Fox). And it could potentially get worse. (I'm not sure, however, that primetime network television could). But this massive media conglomeration is not taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place in a webified world where the sources of quality and increasingly powerful content continue to emerge at a truly inspiring pace. The coverage of the presidential election process provides a clear case in point. Much of the most interesting, entertaining, analytical and even popular coverage is coming from individual weblogs. There was a time when these individual or group micropublishers spent much of their efforts on linking to the mainstream publications. But increasingly, those big time newspapers are referring to content and stories and angles that are emerging from one guy at a keyboard. There are plenty of webloggers out there who have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of visitors a week (and how many individual reporters from major publications can state the same with confidence?). And it's not just politics. In topic areas such as tech news, gossip, entertainment and even the coverage of media itself, there are individuals and small groups who have an increasing impact on the nature of the discourse. This is not to suggest that the media-merger trend is not on many levels disturbing. We don't want to end up in a world with only two channels: Gospel TV and Midriff TV. And we don't want a media world in which the views of a handful limit what journalistic diversity is still left in the mainstream media. When it comes to the diversity of ideas piped into our living rooms, it's already a small, small world, after all. Dave Pell writes Electablog Culture12686@blogcritics.org Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:10:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/11/033748.php davepellClark Drops Out: A funny thing happened on Wesley Clark's way to elective office. Actually it was two funny things. The first was that he lost his voice, some of the strength of his personality and his previously remarkable ability to communicate (OK, and also his strategy once it turned out Kerry, and not Dean, was the man to beat). Clark bungled many of his early press interviews, failing even to have a good answer to the most obvious question about his position on Iraq (and this is a guy who spent a career running wars and operating under extreme pressure). He was flustered in debates. His delivery at speaking engagements was at times monotone. In an effort to stir enthusiasm, he would often raise his invented voice to a near yell. But when you raise your voice in your introductory remarks ("Sorry I'm late, we couldn't find a parking spot for the bus!!"), there's nowhere left to go for the really important points. The pre-race Wes Clark, even when within a clear line of command, was his own man. Somewhere along the campaign trail he got handled and managed into irrelevance.But then there was that second funny thing. Once the writing was on the exit polls, Clark the person was free to emerge from behind Clark the candidate. With the weight of political possibility lifted, he got better. His performances on the campaign trail, on the stump and in television appearances improved. His eloquence returned on issues such as defense, liberalism and the separation of church and state. He essentially began to become the candidate supporters envisioned when the Draft Clark movement erupted. Just wait and see what a benefit he'll be to Kerry if the two come to terms. It would be easy to say Clark simply needed the time to develop his campaign shtick. But it's more than that. There is something about being in the race and having a realistic shot at success that brings out, well, the politician in a person (remember how we always heard that Gore was hilarious in person?). That's probably the way it's always been. Clark became a great candidate just about the time it was obvious to everyone (most importantly himself) that his run for the White House was over.Dave Pell writes ELECTABLOG Culture12626@blogcritics.org Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:37:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/09/202645.php davepellPrimaries, caucuses and C-span coverage not withstanding, the general election is already in full swing. It began last Saturday night when, with the Democratic returns still being counted in Michigan and Washington, CNN and MSNBC were showing a Larry King re-run interview with Janet Jackson and an episode of Headliners and Legends (I think Fox was showing a special in which a panel of high-powered, telegenic and experienced conservatives were matched up in a war of words against a lone, learning-disabled liberal who spoke no English and had a predisclosed and violent camera-light allergy). The combination of an Iraq sans WMD and the Kerry campaign sans significant competition has put the President somewhat on the defensive. But these are early days. Newsweek's Fineman and Isikoff provide a nice overview of where the first real punches might be landed. In the meantime, here is a Reader's Digest version of a possible first debate between Kerry and Bush:Bush: War on terrorKerry: VietnamBush: Evil doersKerry: Band of BrothersBush: Grave and growingKerry: Imminent?Bush: Let me step back a momentKerry: (sensing weakness) Mekong DeltaBush: (regaining composure) Massachusetts LiberalKerry: I don't like to talk about it, but I'm a war hero.Bush: Bring it OnKerry: No, I have three words for you. Bring ... It ... OnBush: Let's RollKerry: I'm coming, you're going and...Bush: I haven't heard you talk like that since our Skull and Bones initiation week.Kerry: ... don't let the door hit you on the way out.Bush: (pounding a fist on his podium) The Almighty, Faith-based, Mel Gibson, God BlessKerry: Ketchup fortune, good hair, tall, I can still drinkBush: Fake Vietnam storiesKerry: That was Bob KerryBush: DukakisKerry: AshcroftBush: LobbyistsKerry: HalliburtonBush: The South!Kerry: Smart peopleBush: You're rich!Kerry: You love the richBush: Gay marriage, Sodomy, the L word, Carson KressleyKerry: Ralph Reed?Bush: Shadows, caves, murderersKerry: Program related activities?Bush: (with the classic accusatory smirk) SenatorKerry: (taken aback) ... (long pause) ... Flightsuit!Bush: Military spending doveKerry: FlightsuitBush: Votes to cut funding for intelligence agenciesKerry: FlightsuitBush: Bring it OnKerry: Bring it On Politics12566@blogcritics.org Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:26:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/09/014122.php davepellA few thoughts about the President on MTP this morning. Overall, I would say it's the first one of these public, political displays (speeches, debates) in which W surprised on the downside (he also surprised some by not showing up in the flightsuit). He seemed nervous and his thoughts grew more disorganized (along with a visible and steady anxiety surge) as the interview progressed. Bush began with a nearly smooth forehead. Shortly into the Iraq discussion, a single line stretched above his brow. By the time Russert asked the follow up question, "Why do people hold you with such contempt?" the front of the Bush noggin looked like an accordion (and they were not playing his song). Russert was incredibly tough, he stuck with difficult topics, and refused to allow himself to be charmingly drawn into the Bush virtual fraternity (no towel snapping, no nicknames - Timbo, Timmy, T-Russ, T-Bone, Rusty, Pudge...). Among Russert's most pressing questions was the following: "Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?" He was equally probing on questions about the economy. There was even a disturbingly brief aside regarding Skull and Bones. If you missed it and want to get a feel for the overall tone of this grave and gathering interview, the most telling exchange between the two came at the end of the Iraq segment:Russert: We are going to take a quick break.President Bush: Thank you...Dave Pell writes for Electablog.com Politics12540@blogcritics.org Mon, 9 Feb 2004 01:41:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/07/125012.php davepellEditor's note: we are very excited to have Dave Pell join Blogcritics - this post originally appeared here.One of the downsides to writing a weekly column that comes out on Thursdays is that, sometimes, it is almost impossible to wait that long to get in on a mega-proportioned global discussion that sweeps across the nation (and maybe the world), featuring intellectual excitement, deep thoughts, civic energy, grass roots activism, corporate wrangling, media obsessions and warrants, we must all agree, our undivided attention. When society is pressed into such a worldwind of psychic output, it is difficult (after a few minutes let alone a few days) to come up with a meaningful take that hasn't already been took. That being said, I really hope it's not too late for me to write just a few words about Janet Jackson's booby. It is difficult to know where to begin given that the incident hits so squarely (roundly?) in my key areas of interest: Football, Media, Modern Dance, Entertainment, Politics, and Jugs. With that in mind here are a few random takes about the frontal disclosure and the outbursts that followed: Let's get one thing out of the way. It was planned. I haven't used the old "I exposed your breasts due to a wardrobe malfunction" excuse since seventh grade. First CBS blamed MTV. Then MTV blamed Janet Jackson. MTV blaming Janet for a salacious act is like a pimp complaining that one of his employees is freelancing. "No" promised MTV execs when asked if they were in on the exposure plot. Of course not. They merely told the performers to sing suggestive lyrics while grinding their asses into each other's crotches. No one even hinted that things would get inappropriate. If your young child must be exposed to questionable content, which would be worse: Three hours celebrating a game where the core purpose is to aggressively and violently collide with another person and because of which the life expectancy of its participants is somewhere south of 60 years (thanks to the weekly beatings they take on the field), or a millisecond of bare knocker? I wouldn't be surprised if Cialis demanded their advertising money back. They showed about twenty ads for a product that makes sure men are ready for intimate moments. Now the whole country has had a woody for going on five days. During the Pro Bowl, expect to see ads for drugs that treat priapism. Diddy is untouchable. Among the winners in all of this has to be Panther kicker John Kasay. No one has even had time to mention that kickoff that went out of bounds and helped seal the Pats place in NFL history. Colin Powell has spent the last year trying to manage the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now his son, the FCC's Michael Powell, has launched an investigation to get to the bottom of the nipple caper. Knowing this family's recent luck, I'd be surprised if Michael Powell can find the bra clasp. This was the highest rated SuperBowl in six years though it was one of the worst match-ups on paper. Didn't like the halftime show? With numbers like this, next year's halftime show will look like a director's cut of Caligula. After much pressure, Janet Jackson released a statement that read: "MTV was completely unaware of it. It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended -- including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL." Come on. No one could offend a major broadcast network, MTV and an organization like the Coor's Twins sponsored NFL. No one. Not even a Jackson. Due to an unforseen sequence of events, it turns out that a new Janet Jackson single was released to radio stations on Monday. What a weird coincidence. Releasing a song the very day after the incident, what with the folks so offended and all. On the plus side, at least Janet Jackson doesn't have to be nervous about telling her parents what happened. Probably not likely to get a huge reaction in that family these days. AOL paid millions to sponsor the halftime show and now they want their money back. Guess they were hoping for more exposure? The legal angle: Not too much has been made of this yet, but I hear that Lil' Kim just filed a copyright infringement lawsuit. The Grammy Awards? Believe it or not Janet has been uninvited from the show this weekend. Apparently the Grammy organizers and CBS want to avoid anything that could be perceived as sexual or in bad taste. With that in mind, this year's show will feature nothing but a three-hour acoustic set by Neil Sedaka. On Wednesday night, Joe Scarborough devoted his entire hour on MSNBC to the Janet story. Among others, he welcomed the smooth stylings and nonsensical ramblings of Dr. Laura and MTV's former in-house shrink, Dr. Drew Pinsky. These people who have done such massive and irreparable damage to the American thought process actually have the nerve to make a big deal out of the desecration of a halftime show. We really have lost our minds. And why do you think the cable newsies and entertainment hypocrites spent so much time covering this story? For the same exact reason that Double J shook her booty in Houston. Ratings. At least she admits what she's selling. You know, a couple times during part of the conservative coverage I could have sworn I saw signs of some very intense excitement on Scarborough's person. Later he explained away those moments by saying that he fell victim to a zipper malfunction. The biggest loser in an this? By far, Paris Hilton. There had to be a moment within hours after the Jackson incident when she said to herself, "Holy crap, you mean I didn't even have to go all the way?" Wait a second. What about all the people who doled out cash to watch the Lingerie Bowl during halftime and then ended up missing all this? Now that's funny. Speaking of offensive, we shouldn't let the halftime show overshadow the horrors we witnessed during pre-game. Old bands, old songs. Is Aerosmith really still performing live? The pre-game performance finally gave an answer to an age-old rock 'n roll riddle. Is there any downside if your drummer lives? Give Howard Dean this much. If Janet had been raised in his state of Vermont, I'm pretty sure that Medicare would cover mental health-related costs for the entire Jackson clan. Let's not get so caught up in this meaningless little moment in time that we fail to absorb the real lesson of that magical Sunday: America loves Beyonce. Check out: electablog Video12488@blogcritics.org Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:50:12 EST