March 12, 2004 - Jesus' Blood vs. Janet's Boob.

Do I laugh or cry at the Passion of the Christ making over 200 million dollars?  As I have said in the past, Mel Gibson has every right to make this movie:  I just kind of wished it had not made quite so much money.  Though I have not seen the movie, my understanding is that the strongest message conveyed by the movie to those who are not devoutly Christian is one of violence and blood.  I find it curious and a bit disingenuous that many of those who rail at the violence and obscenity currently lacing our entertainment choices seem to have no problem with gory, over the top violence that details the pain and torture of Jesus Christ.  These same folks caught in the rapture of this movie go into hysterics when faced with the prospect of a looking at the human body or reflecting on the human condition.    But then again, they have a direct line to divine one, so they must know best . . . All I know is that I do not want entertainment to become yet another absolute litmus test of one’s morality and values.  For me, entertainment is, in part, supposed to entertain.  While sometimes you want to be thoughtful, sometimes you want to be stupid and silly.  You know, watching both the Three Stooges and then later that day, Hamlet.   Entertainment, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  What is funny, thoughtful, moving . . . all depends on the day you have had, the mood you are in, and how you were raised.  One size does not fit all.

Michael Powell, son of our once respected Secretary of State Colin Powell (can we say nepotism) is head of the FCC, seems to fail to grasp the distinction between entertainment and values, and is caught in the entertainment conundrum.  Thus, the FCC, on behalf of the Bush Administration, is now using its power to rein in thought and speech it finds offensive based to a great extent on subjective personal religious and political views.  All this from one boob (and no, I am not talking about Bush).  Man, who knew that Janet Jackson's breasts had so much influence.  While the Bush Administration and the religious right rail against the offense and indecency on the radio, television and society in general, not a peep is made about the violence and blood splattered in the name of preserving Mel Gibson's version of the final hours of Christ's life.  Does anyone else find this double standard a wee bit curious:   it is OK to show excessive blood and violence in a movie about Christ, but show the fleshy boob of a major pop star, or let folks speak their minds freely, and we have a crisis in our country's moral fiber, and chaos cannot be far behind.

I don't know abut the rest if you, but I have actually seen a naked person on more than one occasion, and have myself uttered some of the language that many now deem offensive.  But, and I am pretty darn sure of this, I have never personally witnessed someone being tortured to death.  Yet, it is the language I speak, and the bodies we all have that is now found to be offensive, and to some people, obscene, while the excessive (and according to many, historically inaccurate) violence and mayhem of a movie based upon religious doctrine thought to be divine.  

Which leads me to the next puzzle of the day - now that we are being told what is obscene and what is not by those who wish to impose their moral and religious values on the rest of America, we are also told that they know best when it comes to what constitutes a family.  That's right folks, the big old evil whammy of gay marriage.   According to the Bush Administration, and his intolerant bible-thumping, judgmental base, gay marriage is tantamount to a full frontal attack on everything good and decent this country every stood for.  Silly me – I thought that distinction was reserved for the USA Patriot Act – which has been embraced by this Orwell-inspired administration.   Last time I checked, no one was requiring me to marry a woman, and best as I can figure out, no matter what a gay couple does, we can all still marry someone of the opposite sex, have a family, and go to the church or temple.  So, where is this attack coming from?  Why does gay marriage threaten some so?  Personally, I think some folks “doth protest too much” and are hiding some deep dark secret that a shred of tolerance might just release. 

I know this is scary, but repeat after me:  homosexuality is not a choice - people just are born gay.  If someone wants to dedicate his or her life to someone else who happens to be the same sex, how does that do anything but confirm the importance of family and marriage?  I just don’t get it.  I watched a talk show where an openly gay actor was told that he was a sinner because he followed the innate instincts, desires and instructions of his mind and body.  So, let me get this straight (pardon the pun) - it is a sin to lie.  But, if you are gay, you are a sinner by default, and the only way you can no longer sin is if you lie about who you are in order to live a life according to the values of some third party.  Live your life honestly - you are doomed to hell.  But, if your entire life is a lie, aren't you headed there anyway?  Maybe I am just being too picky - actually thinking about things and all.   All I know is that if you find someone, anyone you want to share you life with, who I am, and who is anyone else, to say it is wrong.  Is not the capacity to love and care what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom?  I guess that only applies if your life falls within certain boxes prescribed by those who must know best.

Which leads me back to the FCC and its incompetent leader, Michael Powell.   Michael Powell is the free speech genius who has advocated relaxing media ownership rules so that more companies can own a larger share of broadcast and radio stations in any given market.  The result of such ownership is increasing aggregation of broadcast power, as exists with Clear Channel Communications.  Clear Channel is the largest owner of radio stations in this country, owning multiple stations in many markets.   Here in LA I think it owns 8 different radio stations.  Now, clear channel has imposed new standards on its radio personalities, with a zero tolerance rule.  It has also decided to remove Howard Stern from all of its stations because it does not agree with his politics or his programming.  Now, I do not like Howard Stern, and rarely do I listen to him.  But it is nice to know that Clear Channel is protecting me from myself in the event I actually want to listen to what this man says.

Clear Channel is a Texas company, and strong supporters of President Bush.  It is only a little suspicious that they removed Howard Stern from the airwaves only after he began to criticize the Bush Administration.  Nothing in his program changed:  except he became critical of the current Administration.  Now, in six major markets, Clear Channel has removed Howard Stern’s program, effectively censoring the air waives and imposing standards on the rest of its stations that are more stringent than those currently held by the FCC.  I guess the free market really does not matter when it comes to issues like free speech.  Personally, I thought the airwaves were owned by the public, and if a station does not conform to industry or local standards, than the market would respond, resulting in lower ratings, advertising dollars and eventual cancellation of the show.  Not anymore.  Now Clear Channel gets to be our parents, our censors, our moral compass, and determine what we get to hear.  If this kind of position was advocated by the far left, the far right would view it as sacrilege.   Can you imagine the outcry if the FCC actually let people watch what they wanted, and let the free market determine radio and television content - HBO would be out of business, and you and I would have much more interesting radio and television.   

Which gets me back to the beginning:  how come a boob is so bad, but a beating full of blood and violence is OK?  We seem to be careening back and forth between the two extremes of permissive vs. prohibitive government, and I for one am getting a headache.  Just to make sure I got it straight, let's recap:  Far Right:  It is not OK to show a boob, but you can beat a guy to a bloody pulp.  Far Left:  It is OK to curse but don't talk about God.  Far Right:  You cannot talk about sex, but we need to talk about religion and faith.  Far Right and Left:  I know what is right for you, and you cannot know what is right for me.  Far Right:  You have to stop gay marriage because it undermines our society.  Far Left:  You must permit every single fringe group to exercise its rights in order to make sure every single person in our society gets a chance to do everything he or she wants.  Enough – I am getting nauseous already. 

I will make you a deal - you stay in your box, and I will stay in my box - and both of us can decorate our boxes in any way we want and invite anyone we want to visit.  Don't tell me how to live, don't tell me how to think, don't impose your values and morals on me, don't make me pay to accommodate every single individual with any sort of unique tendency or desire, and we can get along.   And, for goodness sake, don't tell me that showing in graphic, gory detail the beating and torture of a religious icon is less offensive or obscene than Janet Jackson's boob.   I have had enough hypocrisy for one day.