The Op-Ed piece "Bush far more controversial than boobs," printed on Friday Feb. 6, rightly argued that we live in a "hyper-sexualized" society, that Janet Jackson has probably received more than her due share of attention these past few weeks, and that there are certainly more pressing social problems in our society than boobs. (For that matter, Meryl Streep would add, as she said in response to the State of the Union Address, that she doesn't think "the two biggest problems in America are that too many people want to commit their lives to one another till death do us part, and steroids and sports.") And in any case, the purpose of the author's article was really more to attack popular complacency towards President Bush than to push for increased boobage on TV.
But that said, I would add that, even though I am a quasi-liberal atheist, I do think that the entire Super Bowl halftime show-the unsheathing of the bosoms even aside-was completely inappropriate for prime time network broadcast. I think that popular disapproval is justified, and I agree with FCC Chairman Michael Powell's decision to investigate the incident and to consider levying fines against those responsible for it.
First, let me say that I have nothing against boobs; to the contrary, I am actually very strongly pro-boob-as a matter of fact, everyone who has received an IM from me in the past few days has been greeted by a Buddy Icon of Ms. Jackson's exposed right boob, which I have clearly labeled, "Janet's Booby", lest there be any confusion. (I also support the use of a pro-boobage litmus test in the appointment of federal judges.)
But in spite of my own unequivocal fondness of boobs, I admit that I cringe when I think of my nine-year-old brother, nestled within his undersized sleeping bag and clothed in his favorite Spiderman pajamas, watching Janet and Justin copulate on the stage. Sure, you could argue that the human body and all of its procreative mechanisms and processes are natural and beautiful, and that it is only our culture that has deemed them dirty and offensive. But most of us regular people adhere-rationally or not-to the age-old notion that some things are inappropriate for kids. We just tend not to rent Schindler's List for our six-year-olds' sleepover parties, or to gather the family beside a cozy fire to watch the Paris Hilton sex video. So, while I agree almost completely with the author's position, I do think that the halftime show is an issue of at least some concern.
Incidentally, may I say that this article is only one of many that have been very well written this semester. Also appearing in Friday's issue was an opinion piece about the Democratic presidential candidates, and an editorial about primaries and caucuses. On Feb. 2, there was an opinion piece by the same author of "Bush far more controversial than boobs" on abortion. A new weekly column on current events has been added (the author of which should be faulted for neglecting to mention in his Feb. 3 piece "Is Saddam Innocent?" that, although one goal of the Iraq war was to rid Iraq of WMD, the Bush administration officially invoked the enforcement authority of UN resolution 1441, of which Iraq was arguably in violation; therefore Saddam is actually not innocent. But that aside, the piece was well informed and provocative.)
All I can say is, when did everyone around here start reading the newspaper and forming coherent opinions? I take a semester off, and I return expecting to find on the opinion page the same narrow-minded, ignorant, nonsensical, grammatically inept, blue-in-the-face ranting that I grew to know and love last spring. But instead I find, for the most part, a bunch of well-argued, well-informed, and well-written pieces on current events. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that has been written-to the contrary, I could probably argue like a mofo with some of these people-but I think that the level of political dialogue has certainly been bumped up a notch.
Be the first to comment on this article!