At Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:42:56 Tiny wrote:

>Sadly the event was "real" thus seemingly making it "OK" to televise, still
>...my point is made.
>
>As a pop culture in the making or a freaky "news addicted country" what is
>it we are truly offended by? Janet's boob, Howard Stern or Columbine
>footage. I don't get it.
>It seems the measuring stick for"offense" is broken somehow.

Janet & Stern offend the moral climate of Conservatives in America MORE than 
the bloodbath of Columbine because their offense is titular SEXUALITY. 
Suicide bombers in Iraq? Terrorists levelling office towers? Absolutely 
fine...because it's "news" and sometimes the world is filled with 
evil-doers.

Janet's tit? Why that's immoral because it promotes sex, and promiscuity and 
moral decay and my, God, Martha someone's fornicatin' on my TV and now some 
of them want to go to San Fransisco and get married to each other. The 
country's goin' to hell in a handbasket, Martha. HELLLLL, I tell you.

To think, if they had created a reality TV show based on the Misadventures 
of Bill Clinton we'd be watching XXX porn on broadcast television right now 
rather than having naughty bits digitized and cut out of innocuous, average, 
boring "Must See" TV.

What a difference a dolt makes.

Jaimie Vernon

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca