TDavid, how deep a need there is to check up a source depends on what the use is. This particular issue about public indecency was a simple point that didn't particularly depend on some special credentials. If a site makes some special claim to knowledge, that seems to require more checking. For example, if I'm going to quote some site that claims to know that LBJ set up JFK, then I'd need to see their PROOF.
Yeagley was only making perhaps a broad claim that there are public indecency laws that may have been violated at the Superbowl. I don't think there has even been any dispute whatsoever as to his factual claim that I quoted. That didn't seem like a highly questionable claim to need close checking.
NOTICE: Do not assume that I agree with everything said anywhere and at all times with any person or source I may quote. Duh.
Again, what was it exactly that I did wrong here?
Best I can tell, some of you seem to want me to lead some lynch mob to get the dirty RACIST in our midst- or risk being similarly branded and ostracized. I'm not going to do it however, cause I STILL kind of like Diva.
By the way, I'm out of town this week on what I might call urgent family business. Sorry if I appear to be shortchanging giving a full answer to every thing all of y'all have thrown at me. I'll check back in a couple of days.
Also, Phil cut off comments on this post for no discernable reason, which doesn't help. I do not appreciate that. Apparently he somehow decided to stop MY discussion thread because some of you couldn't control your nasty language and wishes for personal harm to this Indian with a website. Shape up people.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Saleski
her nipple was basically covered up....so how was this different from the lil kim incident a coupla years ago?
nobody was screaming for indecent exposure charges back them.
oh, i forget, the superbowl is a family event.
2 - Ms. Tek
Who the hell cares.
Shame on America. I feel such disgust with my own country right now. This place has gone mad. When did the puritans get total control. Most kids would have forgotten about it by now but we keep going on... and on... and on...
SHAME ON YOU.
I don't blame Europe for laughing at us. We've been the biggest joke on the planet since 2000.
3 - Al Barger
So, then Ms. Tek, you are arguing that this public display should in fact be considered legal?
I'm not even necessarily opposed to this, but I would be kind of interested in knowing what the acceptable parameters are exactly. Perhaps you could give us a post explaining what the proper acceptable standards for public behavior should be. Where is the line, and where SHOULD it be? Enquiring minds want to know!
Am I a bad or "hung-up" person fit only for the mockery of the superiorly sophisticated Europeans for this consideration?
4 - Ms. Tek
They were licking the nipple or doing a sex act with the nipple, then it should be illegal.
The nipple was just there. They weren't doing anything with the nipple. Who cares? She fucked up. Get over it.
Meanwile, American Boys and Girls are dying because of a "failure in intelligence". There are things way more important than a tit shot during a game that had ads advertising pills for broken penises.
"Mommy, what is viagra??"
The only reason why you would take viagra is to commit a sexual act. If we are going to be prudes, lets go all the way.
5 - JR
Perhaps you could give us a post explaining what the proper acceptable standards for public behavior should be. Where is the line, and where SHOULD it be? Enquiring minds want to know!
Physical contact with unwilling participants. If they want to do it in front of a stadium full of people, let 'em. If the public is offended, they'll stay away in droves. That'll put a stop to it. You want to punish Justin and Janet? Stop buying whatever they have to sell.
6 - Al Barger
Alright, JR, fair enough. By "do it" you mean IT, as per the Prince song on network broadcast television?
Seems like that might run somewhat foul of current legal standards with the FCC and such. Should our laws be changed to reflect such a standard?
Would you object to explicit billboards, then, advertising the wares of adult book stores, say?
7 - JR
I'd have more problem with the billboard itself than the content, but that's just me.
First off, I don't believe witnessing a sexual act is going to harm children; it seems to me that children have witnessed sex throughout most of human history. So I'm not too concerned about "protecting the children" in this case. (Except maybe from all those companies pushing drugs.)
But more to the point, if Americans want to set a standard of "decency", they (we) should first act like we believe in it. The superbowl advertisers for some reason thought those obnoxious ads would sell product. What could have given them that impression? And why did the NFL feel the need to bring in an MTV-produced halftime show? It seems to me that the media is only responding to what the people want. I mean, unless you believe the airwaves are controlled by a small number of media conglomerates who are unaccountable to the viewers...
So to go crying to the government to put a stop to it now is pretty silly. Let's actually reject the stuff that we don't like before we call the cops on the people offering it to us.
8 - bhw
First off, I don't believe witnessing a sexual act is going to harm children; it seems to me that children have witnessed sex throughout most of human history.
Huh? I'm pretty open about most stuff, including teaching kids about the birds and the bees when they ask about it, but JR, you're way off the mark on this one. I absolutely believe that witnessing a live sex act will harm some children, in particular, the very young. There is no WAY my 5-year-old could process that scene in a healthy way. Telling children the biology of how a baby is made is very different from *showing* them two people performing a sexual act.
Kids and erotica: perfect together.
9 - Bartikus
Hey JR....if that is what you believe.....then expose your own kids to it....not mine ok?
I can't expose your children to Christ without your permission......do the same for me!
10 - Mac Diva
David Yeagley has been crazy, and extremely racist, for years. He was fired from the only job he has ever had, as an adjunct instructor at a satellite campus of the University of Oklahoma, for instigating race problems on campus. He can invariably be found hanging out with the 'black people are genetically inferior' folks, so I'm not surprised Al Barger is citing him. They share some beliefs.
Yeagley, who has spent much of his life homeless, and, I suspect, in and out of mental health facilities, has a particularly virulent hatred of African-American women. If you think his comments about Janet Jackson are far out, you ought to see him froth at the mouth about Oprah Winfrey. At the core of his craziness is an obsessive jealousy. He can't stomach the fact that African-Americans are the minority that has had the most impact on the United States.
Though aware of him for years, I have purposely not blogged Yeagley because he is so far away from having anything sane to say. And frankly, it embarrasses me to share the class 'Indian' with him.
11 - Mac Diva
As for Yeagley's blathering about the law, please. There is no such thing as a "a mass felony." And, even a misdemeanor conviction under local law would be unlikely since there is no proof the baring of the breast was intentional. I knew it would not take long for the racists to jump on this bandwagon, but even for one of them, this is a ludicrous argument. Shame on the person who soiled the site with David Yeagley.
12 - Al Barger
Yes Diva, Yeagley is an evil, crazy racist with no legitimate point to make about anything- of course, as is basically every person who disagrees with your correct and proper assessment of the world.
Of course, it goes conveniently with YOUR OWN racial pathologies to head this straight into some 'it's because she's black' nonsense, which has not a THING to do with Yeagley's argument.
Now that we've got that out of the way, do you think that we don't have or should not have public decency standards? I'm not necessarily even saying that we should, but we DO have public decency laws in every state that this would fairly much seem to be flaunting, just prima facia.
Is it evidence of wickedness even to consider the possibility that there might should be legal repercussions to flagrantly and purposely flaunting the law in the most directly confrontational way possible?
Even if you think that all of America should become one giant, super sophisticated European nude beach, it is not. Do you believe that laws against public nudity are in fact constitutionally illegitimate, and should not be enforced?
As a good libertarian, I'm pretty strongly predisposed towards tolerance. I'm not real hot on wanting some kind of prosecution. Still, I can see why some people- particularly parents- might legitimately be upset.
I don't know how much I agree with Yeagley, but I object to the implicit message from you and any others to whom it may apply that anyone who would be angry about this incident is just to be contemptuously dismissed, and scorned into submission.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson
Finally, I must politely refuse your offer to feel "shame" for offering for consideration a viewpoint that you disagree with.
13 - Mac Diva
Right, David Yeagley:
*Illustrates his entries about Janet Jackson with a photo of a bare-chested female gorilla;
* Accuses Janet Jackson of being on a campaign to seduce white men;
*Rages about the superiority of whites over blacks ad nauseum;
*Has a long, proud history of being a racist,
and his entry has nothing to do with racism.
Barger, you are being just plain stupid.
And, don't come limping back with a claim of ignorance, i.e., that you didn't read Yeagley's several entries on the topic or didn't see the illustration. Your lazy arse has a responsibility to do that before posting a link.
14 - Eric Olsen
I don't think this should be about legality - she was sufficiently covered to skirt illegality. What it IS about is a violation of trust. The public ingeneral expects certain parameters for a mass, "inclusive" event such as this, and those parameters were clearly violated. The violation is what the uproar is about, not a quick flash of a partially-covered breast.
And even at that it would has passed quickly if not for the new replay technologies available to viewers and the 24-hour broadcast news industry that has arisen over the last decade in particular.
And of course we did our best to fuel the fire, as did everyone else with anything to gain. Nothing gets publicity in this media world like a perceived or real violation.
15 - Mac Diva
Don't miss out on the gorilla's breast, Eric. Just click on Barger's link to Yeagley's site and scroll down a little.
16 - Al Barger
HERE is the Bad Eagle post that Diva's losing her mind about. He does have comments, so feel free to let him know what a no good so-and-so you think he is.
I had not noticed that posting, as it was not what I was responding to here, but so what? She seems to think that it is my responsibility to not only not talk about or consider any post that she might consider offensive, but that I should also be expected to thoroughly check to make sure that I don't give any consideration to anything written by anybody who has ever said anything which she might find objectionable.
I would have made this same post, with this same quote even if I had seen the post she finds offensive. Her continuing attempts at intimidation through accusations of "racism" roll off my back. Again, I answer with the words of Jefferson:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson
Yeagley seems to have three columns relating to the Janet Jackson thing. One of them concerns racial issues. Yeagley makes some kind of argument about black sexual pathologies, and theorizing about supposed feelings of racial inferiority.
Ms. Diva absolutely LIVES to find any conceivable arguable racial slight so she can milk it for victimhood and/or moral superiority points. Given that propensity, I can see how she could perhaps not 100% unreasonably find offense with this posting of Yeagley's.
However, his column and the provocative picture are presented as an argument about how he thinks black people seem to see themselves, rather than as anything about his own proclivities. Whatever.
For my part, I don't have any strong opinion on that one way or another. The topic does not especially interest me.
Nor is the personality of David Yeagley relevant to my point in this column. I quoted five sentences from him making an argument about prosecuting public indecency- which has nothing to do with race. It seems that he would have the same complaint regardless of the ethnic background of the participants. It's THIS argument that interests me here, not Diva's ad hominem arguments against Yeagley.
17 - Mac Diva
Loser.
18 - David Yeagley
MacDiva is not known on the internet for either fact or reason, so, that said, it is easy to understand how McD entirely misses the point of my Jackson posts. (By they way McD was proven most unreliable and superfical by Richard Poe (www.RichardPoe.com) months ago, also "exposed" by GeneExpression (http://www.gnxp.com/).
McD's information about me is so unusually erroneous that it requires no response. McD doesn't have a single fact correct. Mark this, in McD, all. Mark this.
McD's interpretations of me are McD's own, and McD has the right to make those. They are simply not based on fact, so, they are quite irrelevant.
Should McD be sued for libel? Yes. Obviously. On a dozen points. Will I pursue it? No. Just not enough hours in the day.
McD is simply not showing respect of any kind, at any level. McD hasn't shown that desert.
Controversy is easy to creat, with volatile accusations and baseless but provocative allegations. Only those with equal disregard for facts and truth will bother to be "provoked."
19 - Mac Diva
I will not engage in discussion with another crazy man. Al Barger fulfills my quota for that.
However, I do urge BC readers to read this thread thoroughly. It has become fashionable in some circles to pretend that the old, virulent 'other peoples are just animals' form of racism no longer exists. Yeagley, albeit insane, is an excellent example of that sort of racist. Not even at neo-Confederate sites has anyone posted a picture of an ape to depict the lovely and very, very successful Janet Jackson. It takes someone completely off the heezie like him to do something that disgusting. Neither his stupidity nor his racism know any bounds.
20 - bhw
I agree with Eric. The issue wasn't the nudity, it was that it was unexpected. However, I don't see what the big deal about one partially exposed breast is when nobody's bitching about the repeated "a woman is either a bimbo or a shrew" messages in the commercials that ran during the SB and run, generally, during most televised sports events. A breast exposed for one second doesn't do much harm, certainly when compared to the constant barrage of ads that depict women as nothing more than sex objects or screaming bitches.
I favor freedom of expression in the age of technology, where I can, as a parent, decide to opt out of certain TV shows ahead of time by knowing their rating. Janet's exposed breast was the least of the reasons I wouldn't have wanted my pre-schoolers to watch the half-time show. [They didn't watch the game at all, btw.] The entire show was sexually suggestive, not just Jackson and Timberlake's performance.
No, Jackson shouldn't go to jail. This Yeagly fellow just seems to be patently offended that he was "forced" to see a *black* woman's breast, and not just a woman's breast. When you read his "gorilla's teat" entry and the one you cited, Al, in the order in which they were posted, you can see the man getting hotter and hotter under the collar that it was a black woman's breast he saw. He's also offended that a white man would act like he was attracted to a black woman. Boy, does that bother him.
In the next post, the next thing you know, Jackson should go to jail! How dare she show a *black* breast on the tee-vee?!
There are several messages I hear loud and clear in his posts.
--America is white [as was the Super Bowl audience]
--Black people aren't sexually attractive to anyone, least of all whites
--Blacks are trying to force white people to think they actually are sexually attractive, when everyone knows [especially Freud!] that we [a.k.a. whites] have a "natural" [a.k.a. innate, therefore god-given, therefore correct] aversion to blackness because it's unclean
--Black people want to dominate society through sexuality ["Where are all the white women at?"], and they're succeeding because they have the right contacts [Jews]
--Americans [whites] already know what is and isn't sexually attractive [white skin is, black skin isn't], but these black people are using the damn media and law [Jews] to try to tell us that we're wrong!
Here's a quote from the "gorilla teat" entry:
White society is literally being forced to accept the "black" body as equally sexually desirable. All the natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, Freudian sexual aversion, and the sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined effort. America is being told what is sexually attractive. America's sexual emotions are being dictated, through the media and the legal system, no less.
Nope, no racism there.
21 - Mac Diva
Bhw, sometimes I am tempted to travel to Kentucky at my own expense and have Al Barger committed. But, I can't decide between an asylum and a sheltered workshop. We all know Barger is bigoted, but he is also very lazy, which exasperates me nearly as much. He did not read that material thoroughly before he posted it. He seldom reads anything. Instead he goes to some Right Wing site and copies and pastes, or, even worse, spouts from his own mixed-up mind. Brian and I, mainly, catch him doing things like this over and over again.
Now, Blogcritics is linked to one of the most virulent racists on the Internet, thanks to Al Barger.
(Aside about Yeagley: His racist tirades are terrible, but his religious transports are even worse. He works himself into a frenzied state in which he appears to be hallucinating. It is scary to even read.)
22 - bhw
Yeagley identifies himself as the descendant of a Comanche warrior, and yet when he writes, I hear only a white man's voice. He obviously writes from a white man's perspective about Janet's breast.
23 - Mac Diva
Yeagley 'became' an Indian a few years ago. Until then he called himself a white man, much like Mexican-American racist Richard Poe. After being fired from that adjunct teaching position at the University of Oklahoma, Yeagley went on the road for far Right groups as their representation of contemporary Indians. His site is funded by a neo-Confederate group in North Carolina. His appeal to his tiny constituency is his willingness to attack other minority people and worship white people.
I put together a dossier on him for hate group monitors a couple years ago, but have not written about him publicly until now. My reasoning, as an Indian myself (Lumbee) was that the less publicity an embarassing person like Yeagley gets, the better.
Yeagley is not easy to find. Only someone who frequents racist sites would see references to him. Of late, he seems to have fallen out of favor with even 'scientific racists,' who were tooting their horns for him for a while. I believe that is because his mental instability is too obvious. The entries you've read are typical Yeagley fair. He is incapable of restraint or subtlety.
24 - Al Barger
Dr Yeagley, thanks for stopping by. Glad to have your input.
Diva, Dr Yeagley has far more credibility than you do on pretty much every count. Leave aside how much I agree or disagree with any opinion of his.
For starters, he is a real, identifiable person. He writes under his actual name. You could check him out, verify his genealogy.
"Mac Diva," on the other hand, writes pseudonymously. "She" claims to be a lawyer and a journalist and a black activist and an Indian and lots of other things. Given the cheesy, shrill angry black minstrel show schtick she runs, the real "Mac Diva" could perfectly well be some big fat old white Klan dude making an extended racist joke. If so, it is admittedly pretty funny.
Also, in my perusal of Dr Yeagley's writing, he seems to be scrupulously honest. He may have opinions or interpretations that you or I dislike or even find objectionable. However, he doesn't make up lies wholecloth like the Diva often does, or repeatedly and meticulously purposely misquote or misrepresent other people.
Diva, I don't know that you of anyone here REALLY want to go on about people needing to be committed. I've heard such rumors about you once or twice. Of course, since you're a fake, pseudonymous character the stuff about the nuthouse might just be part of your clever KKK rant that you have planted via one of your other pseudonymous blogs. As my hero Robert Anton Wilson would say in one of his Illuminati novels, "wheels within wheels."
Now I don't know about Dr Yeagley's thing with Janet and the gorilla. Again, I thought that he was talking about black folks feeling self hatred for their blackness. I don't know about all that, but I wouldn't find such a thing real difficult to imagine from a sibling of Michael Jackson.
Personally, I'm ALL in favor of black womanhood. Since the retirement of my beloved Sinead O'Connor, Macy Gray has taken over the spot for my top media fantasy chick. "Give Me All Your Lovin' or I Will Kill You" just makes me want to get ALL kinds of freaky. I'm just saying that Macy wouldn't necessarily NEED her AK to get MY attention- put please bring it along for foreplay.
Perhaps a brief spot in the rest home would do me some good.
Or perhaps Dr Yeagley has issues about black folk. I don't know. If the (supposed) black woman and the Injun want to have it out, that's cool. My name's Paul, and this is between y'all.
Even if you take the gorilla thing in the worst way though, Dr Yeagley still plays nicer than Diva. Even when he's ranting, he's not as hateful as Diva. Plus he's crappy with people over things they've actually said or done, rather than just making stuff up to be mad about.
All of this extended comment section illustrates more than anything the ridiculous tactics of the Diva, who goes all around the hog barn to find mud to wallow in rather than address the basic simple point of Dr Yeagley's that I cited in the original post. It doesn't take a dissection of his resume to consider his actual point about Janet and Justin being liable for indecent exposure in front of multitudes of minors.
Also, the stuff about Diva now supposedly claiming Injun heritage makes me laugh. I'm having images of Betty Hutton as Annie Oakley singing "I'm an Indian Too." Indeed, I'm listening to the definitive Doris Day version of the song as I write this.
In short Diva, be nicer to our guests. Thank you.
Or perhaps you'd like to join the Jacksons on the Group W bench.
25 - Mac Diva
You are a babbling idiot, Barger. Babble on.