Thursday, October 14, 2004

 

Bootie or Bloody?

I'm not a big watcher of Network Drama TV series; it's just not my cup of tea. I prefer movies, Public affairs and Documentaries.

My family was watching "CSI" last week and one of the scenes featured the characters doing an autopsy. The "victim" was laid out on a table, his chest was completely cut open, ribs spread apart, and the medical examiner was cutting organs out to examine them. This was pretty grisly stuff - tight closeups of entrails being cut apart, incisions through skin, and for the climax, he he grabs a small rotary saw and begins cutting away bones.

As an old "Night of the Living Dead" horror movie fan, the gore doesn't bother me. After all, we know it's just done with latex, glycerin, red food coloring and bad lighting. But my wife had her hands over her eyes and said "let me know when it's over."

Then I found myself thinking back to the last Superbowl halftime show where Janet Jackson's partially nude breast was exposed. The public reaction was overwhelming.

Herein lies the problem, (for me anyhow): In our society, violence and gore are tolerated. In fact, violence and gore is good. Sex is still taboo. Oh, we all talk about it, we all are interested in it, but for the sake of political correctness, we have to pretend that the human body is some offensive entity that needs to be covered up.

The biggest argument I heard about the Superbowl broadcast was that "there were children watching. No body warned us so we could protect the children."

Protect the children? From breasts? They're watching a one hour sporting event where the goal is for the guys in Red to pummel the living daylights out of the guys in Blue so they can't carry the ball another 10 yards. Football teaches our children that violence is an acceptable method to achieve your purpose. That's supposed to be a positive message for impressionable minds? Now lets team that message up with the sex taboo. "Violence is Good and the human body is bad."

Now, let's talk about the total hypocrisy of the "Offensive body." In our part of the country, we celebrate a season of the year called "Summer." One of things we New Jerseyans do is go "swimming." That consists of putting on an article of clothing called a "bathing suit."

If you look like me, you put on a very large bathing suit, designed to save the public the hardship of having to look at too much of your body. However, I have noticed that many people, usually females, tend to wear these "bathing suits" that are constructed from straps instead of clothing. If you're not getting my drift, I'm saying that women's bathing suits expose as much, if not more, of their bodies than Janet Jackson treated us to at the Super bowl.

I don't have a problem with women's bathing suits and I don't have a problem with Janet Jackson. I don't even mind the gore and violence. After all, this is TV - it's not truth, it's entertainment.

If your idea of being entertained is watching some guy cut a corpse's heart out, more power to you - now CSI has 3 "different" shows, and all three are in the Nielsen's top ten list (at least this week), so you can get your gore three times a week.

If your idea of entertainment is catching a glimpse at a woman's skin, then bless you too.

Personally, I think getting your jollies looking at beauty ON THE OUTSIDE makes more sense than getting your jollies looking at the "beauty" ON THE INSIDE. I'd rather have you look at my exterior then cutting me open with a rotary saw to see what's underneath myskin. But that's just my opinion.

What really bothers me about this whole rant, is that too many Americans get bent out of shape over the skin.

Why is it that a person can walk around in public in a short sleeve shirt showing off their elbows, but not their breasts? Who decided that Breasts are Bad and Elbows are Good?

How come a man can take off his shirt in public and it's OK, but not a woman? Is there something wrong with a woman's breasts?

If a flabby man with large breasts takes off his shirt, is he being obscene? Is this an issue with the exposers' gender, or is it an issue with the size of their pectorals?

How come it's OK for a woman to wear a tiny bikini on the beach that exposes 90% of her breasts, as long as the nipple is covered, but if she lets her nipple show, it's obscene? Is it the nipple that's that obscene part?

And why is it OK to look at a painting of a naked woman in an art museum? Isn't it a good idea to take children to art museum's so they can become cultured and educated? But isn't that the reason why CBS and it's affilites were fined over half a million dollars - for "allowing" a partially undressed woman to be shown on TV?

The double standards and hypocracy of the violence and sex issues drive me nuts. Hey folks - there's nothing wrong with your body. Your kids won't go insane if they see a flash of skin. I'm more worried about children being exposed to too much violence. I think it'd be a better world if kids grew up thinking more about how nice skin looks, than about violently tearing it apart.

In our country, we're becoming totally desensitized to the horrors of violence. It's like the good ole days with the hero packing a six shooter at his side, wiping out evil with impunity. No wonder half the country thinks it's a good idea that we're at war in Iraq!










Friday, October 08, 2004

 

Who says you're entitled?

This weeks announcement about the Flu Vaccine shortage has raised many cries of "How can this happen?"

Let's put things into perspective.

First of all, who says you are entitled to live disease free? Is that in the Bill of Rights or something? If the stuff is available, I'm all for getting it to as many people as possible, but we're talking about the flu, not cancer.

CNN reports (10/8/04) says that 30,000 Americans die every year from the flu. These are chronically ill people, the aged and people with compromised immune systems. With Chiron's 40 million flu vaccines coming off the market, reducing the number of available vaccines by 50%, that leaves 40 million more vaccines. I think somewhere in that 40 million available doses, we can find enough for those 30,000 at risk individuals.

So there are plenty of doses of vaccines available for the people who need them. The problem is neurotic, paranoid hypocondriacs who feel the need to have scientific assurances that they will live forever, at any cost.

What happens when you get the flu? For most people, you will have cold-like symptoms (runny nose, teary eyes), chills, fever, sore muscles, you may be tired . . . sounds like me after a night of partying.

Now, if there's a flu vaccine available, I'd like to have it, but lets stop this complaining about how the government needs to do something. All we need is another bloated government agency to mismanage vaccines.

I wonder how many people who are "missing out" on the flu vaccine are at risk of dying this year because they're overweight, or they have high blood pressure, or they smoke, or they drive too fast, or they live in New Jersey? How many of those at-risk people are taking action to insure longer life. Probably not many, because unless it's an easy fix, Americans haven't got the perseverence anymore.

The problem isn't so much supply as it is dependence. The only way to be self sufficient is to do our own manufacturing.

Maybe if it were profitable, somebody would actually MAKE flu vaccines in this country? I find it kind of hard to understand why we have to depend on Britain to supply us with the stuff. You mean, it's more profitable to manufacture it in Europe, pack it up in airplanes and ship it over to the US and sell it for $15 a dose than it would be to make it here? What does that say about the bloated costs of doing business in our country?

But that's another rant.




Friday, October 01, 2004

 

Ponderings

A friend emailed this to me. I get lots of this kind of stuff over the internet - it kind of creates a tiny diversion during my work day that helps me get through it. I wish I was witty or smart enough to come up with this myself, but at least I can share it with you.

Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?
Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?
Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?
Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?
Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?
Why do "tug" boats push their barges?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game" when we're alreadythere?
Why are they called "stands" when they are made for sitting?
Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?
Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected expected?
Why are a "wise man" and a "wise guy" opposites?
Why do "overlook" & "oversee" mean opposite things?
Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?
If work is so terrific, why do they have to pay you to do it?
If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
If you are cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?
Why is bra singular and panties plural?
Why do you press harder on the buttons of a remote control when you know the batteries are dead?
Why do we put suits in garment bags and garments in a suitcase?
How come abbreviated is such a long word?
Why do we wash bath towels? Aren't we clean when we use them?
Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
Why do they call it a TV set when you only have one?
Christmas is weird. What other time of the year do you sit in front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks.

 

You know you're a Republican when . . .

Don't you just love double standards? Labeled as "unfair" by legions of liberals and "intellectuals," double standards are a necessary and practical methodology for the supervision of a nation:

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, even though our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
Standing Tall for America means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins -- unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
You support states rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what George Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?