Closing The Books On Janet's 'Wardrobe Malfunction'

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, before things went wrong at the Super Bowl, Feb. 1, 2004.

Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images

So, a Philly appeals court has tossed out the $550,000 indecency fine the FCC hit up CBS with after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl.

Good.

I never thought the affair was indecent as much as it was unfortunate.

Unfortunate as in: "Unfortunately I wasn't actually watching when Ms. Jackson flashed her headlights."

Honestly, I never quite understood the outrage. Mostly because there wasn't any actual outrage as much as there was some manufactured outrage from -- according to CBS -- "form letters generated by well-organized single-interest groups."

Seriously, in the middle of a bunch of homo-erotic male on male violence garnished with barely-clad cheerleaders and accessorized with ads to aid both erectile dysfunction and frequent urination, it's hard to get bent out of shape over a little flesh.

And Janet Jackson flesh no less.

JANET JACKSON!

But the way I see it, when a woman -- literally -- takes her sexuality in her hands, men tend to get offended by it. "How dare you exploit yourself! We were gonna do that!"

Personally, I don't care who does the exploiting as long as it gets done.

More importantly, this is a real victory for CBS. Yeah, they broadcast the halftime show, but they can't control what happens and shouldn't be punished when what happens doesn't happen according to script. If one of the ballplayers had gotten his pants ripped off in the middle of a play, is that CBS's fault? It should not have taken years for this matter to be resolved, but then the fine should not have been levied in the first place. The whole mess is one of the remaining fiascoes of the Michael Powell Chairmanship, which will go down, even among conservatives, as the worst in FCC history.

So, cheers CBS and Janet Jackson. Now that this is all behind us, let's do it again sometime.

4:45 PM ET | 07-23-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

So, What Kind Of Person Am I?

If there are two kinds of people in the world -- DC Comics people and Marvel Comics people -- what kind am I?

Well, to be honest... I'm a Wildstorm kinda guy.

In the interest of full and fair disclosure, I write for Wildstorm. But even if I didn't, I'd love what they do.

No, seriously, I'd love their stuff.

Wildstorm is what you'd call a boutique publisher, a relatively small operation that puts out just a handful of titles. Their marquee hero group is called The Authority -- "good-guy" superhumans who take the job of saving the planet literally and set themselves up as benevolent dictators: "Hey, rouge nation, you want to start a war? Get set for an invasion from The Authority." I can't say the allegory to any current political situation is direct, but it does the job of answering the question: What would happen if superheroes became more proactive rather than reactive, and does might really make right?

The other Wildstorm title you have to check out is Planetary. The best, most simple way to describe this amazingly written Warren Ellis/John Cassaday series is calling it a super-powered X-Files -- heroes taking on myths and legends of the world. Except that the series takes some kind of turn and something happens and to this day I'm not exactly sure what except that it's brilliant. Planetary only ran for about 26 issues with a few specials, but ask your local comic shop dealer about it. They can hook you up.

Throw in other titles like Astro City and Stormwatch, and bottom line, Wildstorm's got some of the most creative talent and best editors working today.

By the way, a few years back Wildstorm was bought by DC Comics, though DC seems, for the most part, to have done an admirable job of leaving editorial control to the Wildstorm folks. So, truth be told, maybe that does make me a DC person at heart.

12:58 PM ET | 07-16-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Belgians Buy Bud. Things Could Be Worse.

The Belgians own Bud. What's next?

Jeff Roberson/AP

As a native of Milwaukee, Wis. -- the beer capital of America -- and as a former employee of the Miller Brewing Co., I think I can unilaterally declare I have a unique perspective on InBev (could it sound more Belgian?) buying up Anheuser-Busch (could it sound more American? I mean, really, for this piece I wish it sounded more American).
Satirical, hyperbolic headlines aside -- and apart from my belief that guys named some variation of Bush always end up smelling like a rose -- the $52 billion InBev/AB deal, while massive, is about the least consequential thing going on in the world that doesn't involve the Jonas Brothers.

Seriously, does it matter who's "controlling" -- the media's throwing around that word a lot -- the beer Bubba chugs while he's getting sloshed at the infield of a NASCAR ... race, meet, game ... whatever it's called while screaming, "I love you, Travis Kvapil! I loooove you!" And, no, I'm not an arrogant elitist.

Still, the mortgage crisis continues. The war in Afghanistan is heating up. Favre may come back to the Pack. But with all that going on how much you wanna bet the day won't pass before some junior representative from Missouri introduces a non-binding resolution condemning the sale of our good American beer to those Belgians. Were they even in the Coalition of the Willing, or did they just let us go off and fight the War on Terror(ism) while they plotted to make an international beer run.

Again, satire.

Except for that non-binding resolution part.

I swear by my flag lapel pin somebody's gonna make this deal into a populist war cry, mount up some Clydesdale and ride to economic war to protect "the little guy" from having his brew stolen. I can imagine Lou Dobbs slipping into his chain mail now.

It ain't pretty.

Now, AB isn't the first major American brewery to get snatched up by "foreigners." Over the years Miller's been swapped around like an empty can among South African Breweries before finally teaming up with some Canadians to form a joint venture called MillerCoors. Now, recall ... this past July 4th, was your patriotic binging at all affected by this multinational distribution of booze power, or did you just come around to an all-American Mother of all Hangovers?

So, go on Mr. Small District government representative. Go on and get your 15 minutes of C-SPAN fame blustering on this one. But save your truly righteous indignation for something worthy of ... getting indignant about.

One day they will come for our Lunesta. That is when we will have to stand and fight.

6:10 PM ET | 07-14-2008 | permalink | comments (9) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

(Liberal) Fear Of A Black President

Sen. Barack Obama (left) and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in happier times, attend an event in Chicago on Jan. 15, 2007.

Charles Rex Arbogast/AP

Jesse Jackson's ridiculous comments about Barack Obama "talking down" to black people -- as opposed to Jackson's totally reprehensible comments insinuating violence being committed against Obama (click here to see the video) -- are only the latest in a litany of derisive remarks directed at Obama from stalwarts of the left.

Ralph Nader and Geraldine Ferraro and Al Sharpton and Bob Johnson and Stanley Crouch and South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford have all maligned Obama as being everything from a "lucky" black man to not being black enough. While it's never a shock when operatives of the far, far right have trouble with a person of color achieving stature (though I do believe they play ball better with those in the fold), what a long, strange trip this campaign season has been watching so-called liberals fumble the hot potato that is Barack Obama.

Why? Why is Obama of such consternation to the Old Schoolers?

For one, Obama and his candidacy challenge the liberal establishment. By not miring himself in the politics of handouts, Obama elevates blacks above and beyond a herd that was fed the grain of entitlements in exchange for votes. In addition to extolling blacks to take more personal responsibility (a position a Pew research study finds the majority of black Americans hold), Obama has also questioned race-based affirmative action and understands -- again, as the majority of black Americans do -- that what's good for the country is good for all of us. To Jackson, that's "talking down" to blacks. To Nader, that's "talking white." But to the tens of millions of Americans who helped Obama clinch the nomination (as opposed to Jackson and Nader, who have yet to win an election), Obama is simply talking to America.

Moreover, what scares the Old Schoolers is that Obama's potential election takes away the victim stick they use to flog their diminishing relevance. Obama as president would be empirical evidence that while there are and probably always will be racists in America, America is no longer a racist nation. There are a lot of liberals who've made good bank stretching out the "you done me wrong, now gimme something" politics of the '60s well into the new millennium.

Obama wants change.

And change for the Old Schoolers ain't a good thing.

1:40 PM ET | 07-11-2008 | permalink | comments (24) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

No Love for the 'Guru'

Mike Myers stars in The Love Guru.

Paramount Pictures

If everybody loves a lover, how come there's so much hate floating around for Mike Myers' not-even-opened-yet new film The Love Guru? The fear from some in the Hindu community is that the film is nothing but a collection of tired stereotypes about their faith.

If you've seen the trailer, you get the concern. Long hair? Check. Brightly colored clothes? Check. Hippie sensibility that makes the Grateful Dead look like Republican lobbyists? Check.

Despite all that, the film certainly isn't as offensive as it could be. Myers doesn't play a Near Easterner, but rather a white guy who was raised in the Near East. Naturally, he becomes an accent-laden dispenser of Hindu-like philosophy because that's all the Near East has to offer. This, in some ways, is progress from the character -- or caricature -- Hrundi V. Bakshi, played by Peter Sellers in the 1968 film The Party. Maybe even a step beyond Sir Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi. But is that enough to keep The Love Guru from being offensive?

The answer to that depends on whether the film is funny. Insightful funny would be nice. Clever funny. But if we learned anything from Borat -- or, more rightly, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan -- there's nothing like a busted gut to make one kick their PC-ness to the curb.

But the bigger issue with The Love Guru isn't whether it mocks or traffics in stereotypes -- most comedies do -- but rather that there's nothing for it to stand in relief against. Other than Kumar escaping from Gitmo with Harold, The Love Guru is probably going to be the only "mainstream" Near Easterner Hollywood introduces us to this year. And it's when we get only one type of image that the image becomes a stereotype -- not doctors or lawyers or folks just trying to find money enough in their household budget to pay for gas, but rather high-toned philosophers in Nehru jackets. If it's played smartly -- which ultimately The Love Guru might be -- I think we can take that. But while you're at it, Hollywood, give us some variations on the theme, as well.

4:19 PM ET | 06-18-2008 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Celebrating 40 Years of Loving Day

I previously noted the recent passing of Mildred Loving. However, I thought on the day honoring both Mildred and her husband Richard it was worth remembering their bravery once again with this commentary from Morning Edition:

You may not know it, but June 12th is day of great historical significance.

Forty-one years ago, the Green Bay Packers were the first Super Bowl victors, the Jimi Hendrix Experience released its debut album, the Beatles put out a little thing called Sergeant Pepper, and interracial couples could still not legally marry in 16 of 50 of these United States.

Hence, the significance of June 12th. Loving Day is a little observed, but considerable day of remembrance -- particularly for those with some connection to an interracial relationship, as Loving Day marks the end of one of the last "slave laws" that remained on the books in many Southern states.

Loving Day is not named for the emotion of loving, but, fittingly, for Richard Loving and his wife Mildred. Richard was white, and Mildred was black and when they were married in 1958, their home state of Virginia was one of those 16 that considered the two of them being together just plain criminal.

For a lot of you youngsters raised in a multi-cultural society, I'm sure it's hard to believe people could get so bent they'd actually write laws restricting affairs of the heart. But interracial marriage - miscegenation is the pejorative - was once a severely odious concept. In 1912, Congressman Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia tried to introduce an amendment to the Constitution banning such unions. To his colleagues in Congress he lectured:

"It is contrary and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is contrary and averse to the very principles of a pure Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. ... No more voracious parasite ever sucked at the heart of pure society and moral status than the one which welcomes or recognizes everywhere the sacred ties of wedlock between Africa and America."

Then, as now, a particular ilk of politician tried to make bank using relationships between consenting adults as a wedge issues. Substitute "Africa and America" in the previous with "same sex couples" and you get my drift.

The Lovings spent time in jail for the high crime of being married to each other, were forced to move from Virginia. Then, on June 12 of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' criminal convictions and struck down all laws against interracial marriage.

Now, 41 years later, there's something like 4.3 million mixed-marriage couples in the United States.

Though their only desire was to spend a lifetime together, it was not meant to be for the Lovings. Richard was killed in a 1975 car accident. Mildred passed away May 2nd of this year.

Well, they're together again now.

For the millions of mixed race couples and their families, this Loving Day is one to be particularly celebrated. It arrives on the heels of history, and is personified in Barack Obama's candidacy. Forty-one years after the laws were struck down - just 41 years. And now the son of a relationship once considered contrary to "every sentiment of pure American spirit" is one step removed from the American people placing him into the highest office in the land.

1:03 PM ET | 06-11-2008 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Hollywood Deathwatch

This weekend's fire on the Universal Studios back lot only added literally and figuratively to the pall hanging over Hollywood. Out here we're all on a hard countdown to a potential June 30 work stoppage by the Screen Actors Guild, the trade organization that represents about 120,000 actors. Some of them actually working actors! This, of course, has got everybody in a funk.

The town still hasn't recovered from the ill-conceived 100-day writers' strike. There was a shortened regular broadcast television season. No pilot season. And the creeping hegemony of reality TV continues, which means fewer jobs for traditional craftspersons. Network television viewership sank about 15 percent, and there's already a de facto movie strike happening. Studios aren't green-lighting any new films until the actors' contract situation is resolved.

The fact that AFTRA — the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, a smaller guild that reps about 40,000 actors — was able to hammer out a new contract with the producers in the last two weeks doesn't offer much sunshine. There's some bad blood and bruised egos between SAG and AFTRA, and the fear is AFTRA's public display of lucidity will make SAG all the more recalcitrant.

However, with both AFTRA and the DGA — the Directors Guild of America — demonstrating through their successful contract negotiations that reasonable people can come to sensible conclusions, there's hope that the leadership of SAG can act the part of adults and actually negotiate a deal.

2:44 PM ET | 06- 3-2008 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

White Parents, Black Kids, Tough Love

This week comes word that some child welfare groups are calling for changes in federal transracial adoption laws, saying the so-called colorblind adoption system mandated in the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 can do more harm than good to black kids adopted from foster care by white parents. A study by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that while "transracial adoption in itself does not produce psychological or social maladjustment problems in children," these children and their families face "a range of challenges, and the manner in which parents handle them facilitates or hinders children's development."

Among the things the groups want to change is a provision that bars prospective white parents from undergoing any race-oriented training that's different from what any other prospective parent would receive.

Perhaps the single most important thing for a child is to be with a loving, supportive family. And all things being equal, any child of any race should be placed with any qualified parents without restriction or special conditions.

But all things are not always equal.

I would never advocate prohibiting transracial adoptions. Black kids in foster care already have a significantly harder time finding homes than children of other races. But in the case of white parents/black children, the MEPA provision against race-oriented training's gotta go.

White folks, no matter how well-meaning or open-minded, have no true idea what it's like to be black in America. That's not a slam against white people or an accusation of latent bigotry. But the fact is that we all live in an Anglo-dominated society. From the moment we switch on the morning happy-chat shows until we fade to the stale jokes of the late-nite laughers, our news, our information, our assessments, are delivered through the filter of Anglo perspective. Be it liberal or conservative, it's still monochromatic. People of color grow up steeped in "white" culture. The reverse is not true. And, no, listening to hip-hop on the way to work does not count as immersion. Most whites will never know, experience or fully understand the myriad of preconceptions or gentle indignities that people of color have to deal with near daily. And that's prior to getting hit with full-on bigotry. Being of color in America by no means amounts to a constant barrage of negativity. However, unlike being white, being of color means one's race is a constant issue. How to handle it is an experience that is best learned practically, passed from a parent who's lived it to a child who's living it. It is not an experience gained merely by watching the boxed set of Eyes on the Prize (though you should watch it anyway). Short of that, some actual training would be useful. Anyone who believes otherwise is just displaying arrogance.

I would think, at the very least, trained and qualified parents of black children could be established as mentors. This would also help the adoptive parents build a "go to" support group for when their children do have questions and issues.

No doubt the policy barring the training was born of some kind of political correctness. But like most political correctness, it's Pollyanish.

Parents who engage in transracial adoptions are clearly committed, brave and, above all, loving. They should be fully prepared as well.

2:13 PM ET | 05-30-2008 | permalink | comments (39) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

One Bad Barkley Doesn't Spoil All Gaming

Former NBA player Charles Barkley arrives at the opening of Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Las Vegas in December.

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

It happens like clockwork. A racehorse gets put down after having been riding-cropped into running so hard it breaks both its ankles, and all the sob sisters out there want to shut down the whole family-fun sport of horse racing.

And every time a cigar-chomping ex-NBA star gets nearly brought up on felony charges because he fails to pay the $400,000 gambling debt he racked up in Vegas over two days, the moral wet blankets start whining about the ills of the professional gaming industry — and please, people, get it right: It's GAMING, not GAMBLING.

I'll be straight with you: I like gaming. I game a lot. And same as with hot wings and adult Internet entertainment, I can't imagine life without the gaming industry. I might add that I once had the opportunity to game with Charles Barkley — that is to say, I had some action going on the green felt at the same time he did — and I can safely say one bad Barkley doesn't spoil gaming for everybody. If I had a nickel for every time I was a little slow paying off a marker ... well, I'd play penny slots and win the money back. And $400,000 to a guy like Barkley? That's pocket change. He's already admitted to losing close to $10 million at the tables, which, if those stories about Bill Bennett are true, barely puts Barkley in that league of pathological gamblers.

Gamers. I mean pathological gamers.

And the whole concept of pathological — uncontrollable, addicted — gaming is little better than legend anyway. Just check out the American Gaming Association Web site. They give you the unvarnished truth about gaming, the way only a gaming industry trade group can. By their reckoning, only a lousy 1 percent of the population can be classified as Level 3 — pathological — gamers. Are we going to let a few Level 3s ruin it for the rest of us?

And, really, how sure can we be that those Level 3s are truly "pathological"? A study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 2005 found that "Pathological gambling is highly comorbid with substance use, mood, anxiety, and personality disorders, suggesting that treatment for one condition should involve assessments and possible concomitant treatment for comorbid conditions."

Comorbid. They exist at the same time. Need I say more?

So I say to Sir Charles, keep doing what you're doing. And while you're at it, lay a bet for me.

3:11 AM ET | 05-16-2008 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

It's All Down at the Upfronts

Actress Holly Hunter of TNT's Saving Grace rehearses her portion of the Turner Entertainment Upfront presentation in New York on Wednesday.

Richard Drew/AP

It's Upfront season! That wonderful, magical time of year when the television broadcasters show their wares for next fall to all the Madison Avenue advertisers, set their ad rates and rake in their billions. A little more than $9 billion by the collective networks last year.

The Upfronts are kinda an entertainment-centric affair, but like Fashion Week and Internet hoaxes over the years, they've taken on a life of their own: big parties, paparazzi, live blogging from bloggheads ...

But all that sybaritism is in the past.

This year, the Upfronts are a very subdued affair. It reflects the rather somber state of post-writers' strike Hollywood, which — much like post-war Europe — is struggling back to some kind of normality. Because of the strike, few pilot episodes of new shows were filmed, so there's little to "dog and pony" for the advertisers. In place of lavish, star-studded presentations held at SRO venues like Radio City Music Hall, there are smallish events one observer compared to a trade show-like expo. One network's presentation consisted of the titles — just the titles — of potential — yes, potential — new shows flashed on a movie screen with slight descriptions of what the show may or may not be if it's ever filmed.

Imagine trying to figure what cut of your ad budget you're going to allocate to a network based on that.

The ABC network's basically not even bothering with new shows this fall. It's only premiering two shows: one an Americanized version of the Brit dramedy Life on Mars; the other a reality/game show.

And if you're thinking things in TV Land can't get much worse, they're about to. While real Hollywood — the "working stiffs" rather than the high-paid celebs — are still trying to dig out from under the writers' strike, the community is staring down a June 30 work stoppage by the guild representing the actors.

Tokyo, say hello to Godzilla.

What does this mean for you? Maybe no new fall TV season at all. At least not with scripted shows starring professional talent. So, all those reality shows, YouTube clips and oldies you were digging on iTunes? Bookmark 'em, 'cause you may be getting re-familiar with them come September.

5:38 PM ET | 05-14-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)