Nipplegate and Janet Jackson

The final word from guest writer Ian Nicoll.


Now the FCC won’t let me be or let me be me, so let me see…
Nips of mass destruction?

I happened to be out of the country for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl. In Spain the reaction was…hehe sweet, we got to see Janet’s boob! From what I could tell in the British papers, their reaction was something a little more reserved, “By George! I do say that appears to be a nipple! harumph!” Unbeknownest to me America was having a conniption fit of puritanical proportions, “NIPPLES!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO, the children might see!
They’ll forget who God is, become atheists or worse (MUSLIMS), start believing in evolution, stop supporting our President, troops, country, move to Syria, don towels on their heads and carry out a jihad of epic proportions against the Nipple Baring Heathens. To prevent this, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill to move the maximum fine the FCC can impose on a radio or television station for a single “offense” from $27,500, to $500,000 (USAToday 3/18/2004).
Staggering?
Take a second to sit back and digest that staggering figure. It is an increase of $472,500. Clear Channel dropped Howard Stern from their programming in six major markets around the U.S. to avoid such fines. The scary part about all this is…besides the obvious first amendment violations…is that there are no clearly defined rules for what the FCC deems unacceptable on the airwaves.
Michael Harrison, publisher of Talk Magazine, puts it succinctly,”(This is) so chilling (because the rules are) so vague that it leaves it up to the politicians to determine who to go after – and that is scary”. It’s sad when at twenty two years of age I can long for the “good ol’ days” when people could just turn off the radio or switch the station if they didn’t want to listen to a show.
What ever happened to forcing something off the air by not watching/listening to it? If enough people stop tuning in advertisers will withdraw their money and the station will be forced to drop the show! Why must we have any government, Republican or Democrat, regulating what we may or may not watch/hear/see/listen to? It’s bullshit, plain and simple. Hello? America? We’re kind of at WAR here.
The world is NOT a safer place than it was before we invaded Iraq, as apparently a majority of us think it is according to some poll whose name eludes me at the moment. Madrid anyone? Muslim terrorists didn’t bomb the Atocha station because Spain eats a lot of pork. They bombed it because Spain has troops in Iraq. But that’s not what Bush Inc. tells middle America. Mission Accomplished! Everything’s going great, they’ve signed a interim constitution! That’s practically one step away from Starbucks serving crude flavored java on every street corner from Bhagdad to Tikrit! My point is this, we have bigger problems than Howard Stern and Janet’s right tit.
Obscenity?
If we’re going to fine obscenities on radio why don’t we go after Neal Boortz, who I recently heard say, “We don’t have an unemployment problem in this country, people are unemployed because they WANT to be unemployed”. Or perhaps we should slap a 500 grand penalty on Sean Hannity (You’re listening to the Hannitization of America! Sweeping the country with a new patriotic fervor!). Just recently he was talking about the Madrid bombings.
He said that Spain’s premier elect, Zapatero, is appeasing the terrorists by following up on his long standing campaign promise to withdrawal Spanish troops from Iraq unless the UN passes a resolution supporting their presence. Zapatero isn’t appeasing anyone besides his electorate, 90 percent of which opposed going into Iraq in the first place. Hannity says that this appeases the terrorists. He also says that Al Qaeda wants George W. out of office. He says that John Kerry is the choice of the terrorists.
My question is this: Why the hell would Al-Qaeda want the greatest recruiting tool they have, George W. Bush and his nifty doctrine of preemption, out of office? Why would they want John Kerry to rebuild America’s international alliances and begin to mend world opinion of America? They don’t. Bush in office is a greater asset to the spread of international terrorism than Al Qaeda had ever dreamed of.
But that’s not the point.
Obligation?
Sean Hannity says that John Kerry is the candidate the terrorists want us to elect. So he says we have an OBLIGATION to vote for Bush so we don’t appease the terrorists. I’m sorry Sean, but I thought (and maybe this is just me) that appeasing the terrorists meant letting them dictate what we do in our daily lives. I thought appeasing terrorism meant letting them tell us how to run our country.
Appeasing terrorism means sacrificing our civil liberties by voting Bush and the Patriot Act back into office. Appeasing terrorism means voting for a candidate who will further erode relationships with our allies abroad and weaken our economy at home. It means voting a president back into office so he can have a second go around at ruining America and doing their work for them.
That IS the point. I don’t know how I got from Janet Jackson’s breast to George Dubya, but it worked and that alone is a telling commentary on how the whole shebang is going pear shaped.
Bah, fu*k it. Why don’t we just give in and simply have state run airwaves pumping us full of conservative propaganda (Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity). Maybe just humor us and give us three stations so we can have the illusion of choice (Clear Channel, Cox, Viacom). Do what Sean Hannity tells you, he’s a patriot. And for the love all that is good and sacred, keep your nipples in your shirt… there might be adults watching.
***********
Ian Nicoll graduated from the University of Mary Washington with a degree in International Affairs. He currently lives and works in Spain. His interests include i-pods, Arsenal Football Club and beer.
Click here for Ian Nicoll blog and contact..

damien

Damien DeBarra was born in the late 20th century and grew up in Dublin, Ireland. He now lives in London, England where he shares a house with four laptops, three bikes and a large collection of chairs.


5 comments

  1. Ian Nicoll is obviously a flaming LIBERAL. Yes, Spain gave into the terrorists. What do you think would happen if they attacked before our Presidential Election in America. Oh, yeah, the complete opposite! We would demand that we continue with full throttle to kill those terrorists!!!! That is the difference between Americans & those countries who think that they can just do what the terrorists want and the nice terrorists will leave them alone. Do you think that the Russians could have talked sense into those terrorists who shot & killed those children? NO!!! Terrorists are ANIMALS! They need to be killed. I guess we are all supose to sit back and do nothing, just like the French. I am half French & half Philippine by nationality, but I have decided that I have way more back-bone then those countries. I will always chose to fight bad and evil. I will always chose to do the right thing even if it is not popular. Those who give in (appease) to terrorists have done just that, given in. Americans will always fight evil. WWI, WWII, The Cold War (no thanks to the LIBERALS), and now WWIII. Thank God (yes, that’s right, I said “GOD”)we have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other strong conservatives who see that “All that is neccessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
    Jeannie (An American for Freedom against Evil Terrorists & Liberals all over the world!)

  2. uhm, didn’t Zapatero promise to bring Spanish troops home BEFORE the Atocha bombing? How is he appeasing someone before the fact? It’s amazing, the thought processess of ‘Conservatives’ in the US is just as deluded as the thought processess of ‘Terrorists’. Let’s face it, conservatives and terrorist deserve each other and both will exist as long as the other is there to fan the flames.
    P.S. I often vaction in Spain and I have been through lovely Atocha Station dozens of times and I really like the marble bathroom stalls. It is one of the worlds classiest places to take a shit.
    P.P.S. I voted for Dubyah last time because he PROMISED to not take on ‘nation-building’ or to get american troops embroiled in ‘Bosnia-like’ conflicts that are not in our nations interests. Let’s see, we’re ‘nation-building’ in Iraq, but it certainly isn’t like Bosnia,no,no, Bosnia didn’t turn into a ‘Clinton quagmire’ , but Irag is most certainly a quagmire for someone.
    I’m going back to voting Libertarian, they may be satanists, but at least they’re human…………did I say that before?

  3. Here is what Tom Shales had to say recently about the FCC in his review of the new show Desperate Housewives: “But we adults like things with not just a twist of lemon, apparently, but two or three lemons cut up and tossed into the brew. HBO basically set the trend in motion, and broadcast networks have had a hard time keeping in step because they aren’t allowed the wide latitudes of language and nudity that HBO explores; if one single episode of “Deadwood” aired on ABC uncut, the number of forbidden words used would earn ABC at least $3 million in fines, according to an idiotic and unconstitutional new system set up by Michael Powell, pea-brained chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.”
    And in a breaking story, Howards Stern has announced that he’s heading to satellite radio, where he’ll have refuge–at least for a few years–from the Bush and his puritcanical cronies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10953-2004Oct6.html
    O, for the days when Republicans favored a less involved Federal government…
    And to Jeannie, who commented above–your mixed ethnicity and fervent patriotism are making me hot. Do you like apple martinis???

  4. Haha, yes gone are the days of Republicans advocating smaller government, states rights, and not being ¨the world´s policeman¨. We´ve certainly ushered in a new era with the largest expansion of the federal government, ever! with the department of homeland security. Which, has to date produced…a color coded chart. Bush wanting to take away the states right to make up their own minds about gay marriage, and I don´t even have to explain the ¨world´s policeman comment¨.

Comments are closed.