Twisted - All I can say to that comment is ROTFLMAO
MTV Bowl
- Thread starter Big O
- Start date
WOW interesting topic
. Did anyone note that janet jackson is singing a song several years old and has had nothing new come out in a while, shock value is all she had to offer. Right wrong or indifferent it has gained more attention than anything she has done lately. I'm sure it went over just as she thought it would--heck whats her name had the lesbian kiss right
Gotta do something to one up those people.
As for morality ---their was a show on the history channel a couple of months ago and they were talking about the decline of history's empires and they pointed out as empires gain wealth and prominence they start to decay and it can be tracked by the increase of personal desire over the desires of the community, the decline in morals and the increase in violence as amusement. Eygpt, Rome, America doesn't matter people are still basically the same. America has lasted longer than any other empire and has simply reached a level where selfishness and personal gain have overtaken the needs of the community and common sense.
And its leaders, whether political or in the entertainment buisness simply sing as Rome burns, and the masses sit by watching the flames considering it a nother form of entertainment... shouting THROW ANOTHER CHRISTIAN ON THE BAR-B!
I hate to admit it, but unless there is a resurgence of common sense, common dignity, and respect for the common person I fear we're headed to hell in a handbasket to borrow a phrase and that Janet Jackson is the lest of our worries
As for morality ---their was a show on the history channel a couple of months ago and they were talking about the decline of history's empires and they pointed out as empires gain wealth and prominence they start to decay and it can be tracked by the increase of personal desire over the desires of the community, the decline in morals and the increase in violence as amusement. Eygpt, Rome, America doesn't matter people are still basically the same. America has lasted longer than any other empire and has simply reached a level where selfishness and personal gain have overtaken the needs of the community and common sense.
And its leaders, whether political or in the entertainment buisness simply sing as Rome burns, and the masses sit by watching the flames considering it a nother form of entertainment... shouting THROW ANOTHER CHRISTIAN ON THE BAR-B!
I hate to admit it, but unless there is a resurgence of common sense, common dignity, and respect for the common person I fear we're headed to hell in a handbasket to borrow a phrase and that Janet Jackson is the lest of our worries
<span style='color:red'>Right On, Sorry about them scorch marks though...</span>Well said Dez,
and Rev, my soap box is your soap box.
Dezzy, The Roman Empire as Republic lasted from around 625 BCE Founding-- Until around 476CE collapse, or about 1100 years. Thats substantially more than the US's 228 years. Egyptians had a pretty good run of things as well. Roughly coming to an end with Cleopatra after about 3000 (3100BCE-30BCE) years of definable Egyptian civilization.
I'll spare you the details of Japan, China, India, Britain, Germany, and pretty much every other country out there accept for Australia and maybe Canada...
Remember they called it the new world, what is kind of frightening is how quickly we came to be a World Power relative to EVERY prior society. There really isn't another example of a fledgling country hoarding and weilding as much power as the US does. The question that spooks me is how long can we sustain this level of spending, this level of power mongering?
Lets just say that in my heart, I do not think the Roman's need be worried about us breaking any of their longevity track records. So yeah, I agree with you that the future of this country isn't as concrete as I would like it... I see some cracks in the foundation here and there, we need some real leadership, someone who can truly capture the hearts and minds of all of America, then we could probably really get some things done.
I must definitely stand up and applaud each and every one of you people here because you all make valid points. But when all is said and done it's going to be just what it is...NEWS. Controversy is an economic tool that the media uses to fatten it's pockets. Question is... "Was it truly scripted, or was it a ploy to gain attention?" Who knows? All I know is that I watched the entire game and by the time the third quarter started...halftime was a distant memory. This type of stuff sells and the media capitalizes on it. Was CBS in on it? Probably. And then probably not. Either way, could we all just imagine a CBS representative at rehearsals for the show trying to decide whether it's the left or right breast that is to be exposed? Or both? Sorry to say, but this type of thing will continue. And to prove my point. I was watching CNN just a few days ago and they were discussing how the FCC is lifting its ban on certain TV content (i.e. language, etc.). Even though the FCC is a government regulated agency, it can still be controlled or manipulated by big business (i.e. in the form of payoffs, bribery, etc.). Case in point. How do we think that large corporations get by fines and other penalties by the DEQ, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies? I won't even attempt to speculate, but the fact still remains that some things are just morally improper. With the key word being "morally." As people do we not share a common set of values? Society tries to dictate to us what morally right is, but to no avail. The almighty DOLLAR will win each and every time. And for those who don't believe this, then you're definitely living a fantasy. Just my .02.
Brian
Brian
Not necessarily a rant, but very well spoken...
You know, it is a natural inclination of people in a society to look for something to pin the blame on when things aren't going the way they want. Find a scape goat. Often it doesn't have to be a proper application of blame, just something people will accept and rally around.
History is littered with examples of this inclination. Germans blamed Jews for the economic and social problems in between WWI and WWII. US Presidents are blamed for cyclical economic recessions. Romans blamed Christians for all manner of things. Cats were blamed for the bubonic plague. Natural disasters are blamed on insufficient virgin sacrifices. Crop failures are blamed on witches. The list of false conclusions and misguided finger-pointing is nearly endless.
It is probably better to resist the urge to blame. And instead shoulder the burden of fixing the woes. Roll up our collective sleeves and take some responsibility as individuals for the benefit of our society. But that takes effort and work. It requires us to care a lot about one another and put the needs of our society over our own. It's just easier to find someone to blame, punish them, and leave it at that. Cause that way we can get all emotionally charged, feel righteous about it, but not have to do any real work.
History is littered with examples of this inclination. Germans blamed Jews for the economic and social problems in between WWI and WWII. US Presidents are blamed for cyclical economic recessions. Romans blamed Christians for all manner of things. Cats were blamed for the bubonic plague. Natural disasters are blamed on insufficient virgin sacrifices. Crop failures are blamed on witches. The list of false conclusions and misguided finger-pointing is nearly endless.
It is probably better to resist the urge to blame. And instead shoulder the burden of fixing the woes. Roll up our collective sleeves and take some responsibility as individuals for the benefit of our society. But that takes effort and work. It requires us to care a lot about one another and put the needs of our society over our own. It's just easier to find someone to blame, punish them, and leave it at that. Cause that way we can get all emotionally charged, feel righteous about it, but not have to do any real work.
My point exactly Twist.um scuse me, can I butt in? Janet Pretty much had to expose herself in front of millions live, she certaintly didnt have anyone talking about her new album?
And it is such a pleasure to see so may of you guys writng longer posts than I do. I also just learned that I better keep them short cause it is panful to read the long ones.
Later
Another one of my points exactly (you guys are helping me keep my posts short). Why debate morality? Just make what you consider immoral economically unappealing for them to show.
I am actually surprised that there isn't a movement to boycott CBS or ist sponsors for a while. Did anyone see that Kobe lost his McDonalds endorsement? (I think it was McDonalds) They were affraid that people would speak with their wallets.
Good point FLCN72...
I'm going to blame....hrmmmm...Al Gore for inventing the Internet. If we'd all just seen it on live TV like it was intended, no one would have even noticed it...now that the NFL doesn't play replays unless you give up a time out, we'd all be saved from nipplegate and the world would be at peace...
I'm going to blame....hrmmmm...Al Gore for inventing the Internet. If we'd all just seen it on live TV like it was intended, no one would have even noticed it...now that the NFL doesn't play replays unless you give up a time out, we'd all be saved from nipplegate and the world would be at peace...
Hey uhhhhh VaBusa... uhh you know that whole Al Gore and him inventing it was wellllll you know.....
No!!! Say it isn't so thrasher!!! I don't believe it!!!Hey uhhhhh VaBusa... uhh you know that whole Al Gore and him inventing it was wellllll you know.....
L4G4RT0
Registered
errr... guys, sorry for asking this, but I don't really get it... do you totally disaprove the exhibiton of a breast (it was a glance of a breast in fact) or do you mean in TV shows? i only ask this because i've seen breasts on TV many times in News... I explain: if it's a newsflash about beach and Summer (topless is not forbidden in here), it's normal that some breast might appear, if it's a program about babies... a breast will appear (and i mean, that a TV show like this could appear on TV anytime of the day). So what's really the point? I guess that I'm with most of you when I agree that Jane's performance was out of context, and that breast exhibition was out of context... that's the main problem. The breast itself it's no big deal. Sometimes implicit sexual content can be worse than that... But it's ok, and it's in everyone's rights to try to protect their children against this kind of situation.
We kind of got off on a morals tangent, and that's ok.
L4G4RTO, the breast was no big deal, it was that they did it on National TV, live, just for shock value. It had no meaning but to do something "taboo" on TV. The rules on U.S. television say you can't do that. If it was on MTV late at night I'd say eh, no big deal, but I don't think it should be on the Super Bowl.
My big gripe is that there are people planning this stuff, producers, somebody, who says, "hey we need to spice things up, create some controversy, make it bigger and more sensational, something that will grab the public's attention." They're telling us what we want to see, and they're wrong. I don't want to see a dog bite someone's crotch, a mistaken bikini wax, or a flatulent horse. (maybe my next letter will go to Budweiser!)
L4G4RTO, the breast was no big deal, it was that they did it on National TV, live, just for shock value. It had no meaning but to do something "taboo" on TV. The rules on U.S. television say you can't do that. If it was on MTV late at night I'd say eh, no big deal, but I don't think it should be on the Super Bowl.
My big gripe is that there are people planning this stuff, producers, somebody, who says, "hey we need to spice things up, create some controversy, make it bigger and more sensational, something that will grab the public's attention." They're telling us what we want to see, and they're wrong. I don't want to see a dog bite someone's crotch, a mistaken bikini wax, or a flatulent horse. (maybe my next letter will go to Budweiser!)
