Re: an outlet..

[Steve <seeker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So, its off topic -0 and I agree - in the middle of a game - a game with a 
tad bit of violence and drug use, a 1.5 sec expose of a 'boob' - something 
that many of us hung on to for food as a child (although this one may not 
be 'au natural' so to speak....) causes such an explosion of anger.  Sure, 
I can let my 11 year old watch violence (al la movies from the Governor of 
California), but God forbid he sees love (or sex)... and of course, this 
boob is a lot more offensive than a tongue kiss on MTV...(Fembians rule)

Of course, look at the audience - a bunch of up tight power hungry middle 
aged white males verses a younger crowd....shit.

How about an inquiry - publicly of course - into Steroid use in the NFL.....

Boobs don't break bones or cause cancer.

Steve



At 04:57 PM 2/5/04 -0500, you wrote:
> I have decided to use this outlet, since I don't really have any other that
> will reach a group of people, to express my outrage and disgust and anger 
> over
> the media frenzy about what I'm gonna call: "the boob".
>
> at a time where this country is expected to reach a record deficit of $500
> billion this year, the bush administration "hinting" that WMD in iraq don't
> exist (only cheney and rumsfeld seem to have hope that it still does), 
> meanwhile
> it is costing over 500 american lives and thousands more of iraqi civilians,
> about over 1,000 people in the third world, as i'm typing this, have died 
> from
> either hunger or AIDS, John kerry is winning most of the democratic 
> primaries,
> and yet "the boob" is the biggest story this country is dealing with. who
> cares?! and to top it all off, CBS have decided to ban "miss J." from the 
> grammy
> awards because of this incident. she was expected to just simply present and
> introduce a tribute to Luther vandross. timberlake however is expected to 
> go on
> and I feel if he is so smart, he will protest this by either making a
> statement during his performance or drop out of the program altogether. 
> how come
> eminem was allowed to go on when he performed with elton John but Janet 
> isn't?
> ratings perhaps?
>
> what has happened to this "free nation"? a country where it seems violence on
> TV is more acceptable than sex or nudity. i'd rather have the sex and nudity
> than the violence thank you. sorry if I sound like a "hippie". i've nothing
> against violence on TV really, just seems unfair that a stupid "boob" and 
> bono
> cursing at the golden globes last year gets more press. I think 9/11 is a 
> good
> example of violence on television. but that's just me.
>
> agree or disagree with me if you want, I just needed an outlet to get all
> this off my chest. it's very rediculous. why should a "free nation" like 
> america
> having censoring on, let's say, the osbournes but when it's aired in england,
> all the cursing is left in and no one makes a big deal about it over there?
>
>
> pax um biscum