Experimental Column #1

It's time I settled into the "once a week" column style of posting I said I was going to try to maintain. That way, all of my loyal readers (both of you) can get used to checking the blog once per week. I may still post random rants when something strikes me, but as to the humor columns, I'm going to post a new one each weekend ("weekend" defined as Friday if I have one done, and late Sunday night, if I get lazy). I've actually already written this week's column, but it's not Friday yet, so you'll have to wait.

In the mean time, however, I've decided to try the first of the "topical" columns that I talked about trying last week. Initially, this was intended to be the funny column for this week, but I'm not convinced that it's funny enough, so instead this is today's rant.

We'll start with: FCC indecency rules. It seems that the FCC, in its ongoing quest to facilitate communications, has decided that the best way to do this is to up the penalties on some forms of actual communication. A year ago, Janet Jackson's right breast was bared during the Super Bowl. If this is a surprise to you, then frankly I'm surprised you're aware there is an internet, or have found this blog. Anyway, the breast was bared and apparently our society crumbled under the strain. Clearly the half second flash completely warped the minds of our children. The re-airings of that half second (sometimes in slow motion, or freeze frame), often shown repeatedly in a single program, were news and in no way damaging. But clearly our children have never seen a breast before and must be protected. It's a good thing those things don't provide something necessary to the young or anything.

Anyway, in order to protect us from seeing a part of the body that WE ALL HAVE (women larger than men, but still...), the Senate is raising the fines on television stations for airing "indecency". And the part of this I find the most insane is that every time one of our elected or non-elected officials comments on the proposed change in the law, they stress that "nobody wants censorship, we just want to enforce a certain standard of decency". Clearly, these people have not ever, in the course of a life in public service, come across a DICTIONARY. The definition of the word "censor" is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."

But the thing is, they're punishing the wrong people. The stations which aired the superbowl had no idea that boobs were a scheduled highlight of the program. As far as I've been able to determine, the stations, the network, the National Football League and even MTV (producers of the event) had no idea it was planned. And while the "wardrobe malfunction" line is a bit suspect from Mr. Timberlake and Miss Jackson (what can I say, I'm nasty), it seems clear that no one else knew it was planned. So how do these increased fines solve the problem?

Obviously, what is needed is: a boob tax. That's right, tax boobs. Put the money into a fund to help pay for therapy for any poor, injured soul traumatized by a glimpse. It's the price we pay for being allowed to have such a damaging body part. This should be a "progressive" tax, so that the larger and more noticeable a breast, the higher the tax. For example, the average man would pay $50/year. Weight lifters perhaps $100/year. Most women as well as fat guys such as myself, $500/year. And "dancers" with names like "Candy", "Bambi" or "Misti" could help us to pay down the national debt in under a decade.

As part of this discussion, there is talk about applying this new fine to cable networks as well, completely ignoring such facts as:

• You have to subscribe to cable channels, they don't come into your house unbidden.
• Most cable companies can block individual channels that the subscriber finds objectionable.
• I pay good money to see boobs on Cinemax.

The fact is, the only real reason for the existence of the FCC is to regulate the use of a limited resource: Broadcast channels. There are only so many frequencies and lots of uses for them, and so there is a need to regulate over-the-airwaves content, or else anyone could broadcast anything at any time, and no one would ever get a clear signal to their home. Then again, watching this year's UPN lineup of shows, I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing.

I think it's time we, as a nation, admitted something to ourselves: We LIKE boobs. If we didn't, there'd be no need to keep them off of the airwaves. You'll note that the majority of people do NOT like viewing open heart surgery, and as a result, there's very little attempt on television to show it. The reason tv and radio stations keep "pushing the envelope" is because it gets ratings. Ratings are the ultimate in free market economy. We decry the level to which network television has sunk, and yet at the end of the day, many more of us turn on "Fear Factor" (today's episode: using a straw as suction during open heart surgery) than PBS (showing tonight: part 27 in a series on the growth of bread mold).

If we, as a society, didn't WANT boobs on the air, Howard Stern would be selling insurance somewhere. Don Imus would be a cattle rancher. Geraldo Rivera would be... well, he'd pretty much be doing what he's doing now, but walking the streets of Manhattan instead of in front of a camera with a mic in hand. You may not like that Janet Jackson's bare breast was seen on national television, but admit it: You were one of the millions of people who downloaded close-up shots of it the next day, trying to figure out what that decoration thing was.

And if you're saying to yourself "I did no such thing", note that you are NOT saying "What decoration thing?"

We are adults, we do not need protection from ourselves, and we should be responsible for protecting our children, not the FCC. If we don't like what's on, we should turn it off.

Now if you'll excuse me, there is another "Janet" with boobs which are calling me.

Copyright (c) March 3, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net