On Rob Booth, I know him and respect him. He is usually right on, but sometimes has a blind spot.

I am sad for Matthews because he has some problems that I wish on no one, but at the same time, he and others like him are very quick to condemn and insult others. His hypocracy (sp)and that of the other conservatives is amusing.

I was just wishing that she'd had a tattoo...

I think the fact that this is the most rerun piece of footage in Tivo history (according to Yahoo) says more about the conservative nature of American television than anything else. Personally, I've seen a lot worse things than a two second flash of a woman's breast on television. Now, if Janet had grabbed Justin's pants and pulled them down and he was "going commando" (not wearing underwear), then you have something shocking on television.

This, I think, is much ado about nothing. Besides, are there any straight men in America who have not seen nude photos of Janet Jackson? ;-)

There is a reasonable expectation that the Super Bowl will be a family-friendly event where kids won't be exposed to nudity, just as there is a reasonable expectation that Jon Mathews will keep his pants on around minors. No, they aren't the SAME offense, but the expectation is the same. Rob's point isn't ridiculous or unreasonable.

Jost: "Others like him?" "the other conservatives?"

Nice stereotypes, guy. Do you actually know any "conservatives?" Do you realize we really aren't all the same? I mean, some of us can actually truthfully claim never to have listened to Jon Mathews, and not to give a rat's ass what happens to him if he's guilty.

Anyway, for the record, Powell is a pretty conservative guy, much moreso than his more famous dad. I think he's being sincere on this. I've long thought he's a waste at the FCC, though. He should be doing something more important.

I gave Powell an award yesterday evening.

Careful, Kevin. What you're saying to Jost goes both ways - to wit, who is "the Left" that Rob refers to? Such formulations can be stereotypes or they can be shorthand, but they're not one thing one way and the other thing the other way.

The Left I was referring to:

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/18630_comment.php

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/03/133.html

That's fine, Rob. My point, of course, is that not all of us who consider ourselves liberal are fans of Indymedia and/or Democratic Underground. Which is essentially Kevin's point about "conservatives".

Because I don't give a flying rat about the Superbowl, Justin Timberlake, or Janet Jackson particularly, I missed pretty much all of this. I've seen the photo, but Ginger and I went to the Met, an experience for which I would give a flying rat, if I had one to give.

I tell you there were breasts everywhere! In the same room as pictures of George Washington! Marble Breasts! Granite Breasts! Fifty Pound Bronze Breasts, 3 times larger than life! Ancient Egyptian Breasts! Breasts in unnatural colors and shapes!

I tell you the Met is a menace. I wonder if Joe-Bob has weighed in on the halftime show.

The only persons or entities whom the FCC has the power to levy these fines against are broadcast affiliates. The FCC can't fine JJ or Timberlake or MTV. It could fine all the CBS affiliates who broadcast the Super Bowl, but as a practical matter it's extremely unlikely to fine any who aren't owned by CBS' and MTV's common parent, Viacom. And even if the FCC levied a separate fine for every incident of crotch-grinding and every Cabaret-style costume, in addition to Timberlake's grand finale, it'd still add up to a fraction of what one advertiser paid for one of those 30-second commercials.

The potential fines are essentially immaterial; federal regulation of morality/sexuality on TV is mostly illusory, except in the "bully pulpit" sense. I'm sufficiently libertarian and absolutist on First Amendment issues that this troubles me not a whit.

Meant to add:

Which is to say, I'm content to let public opinion and the marketplace regulate these matters, rather than having the government try to do it.

AOL, as the sponsor of the halftime show, seeking a refund is a much bigger deal from Viacom's standpoint, I suspect, than the FCC investigation.

I shouldn't post things when I'm "steamed." I don't express myself as well as I could.

First off, Kuff, I'm reading between the lines, but I think you are reading my swipe at "Leftist" web sites as a swipe against you. Not at all. If I wanted to swipe at you, I'd swipe directly at you.

As I remember, your posts on JM were mostly a quote and citation of the media coverage, and your comments were of the wait-and-see variety. So when I aim at the Democratic Underground and Houston Indy Media, I'm not aiming at you.

Maybe this rewording will explain my thoughts on the matter:

1. If you're a conservative talk-show host, and you're accused of exposing yourself to a minor, your life will be ruined. You will lose your job, be arrested, and nutcases on far-left websites will call for you to be physically harmed without a trial.

2. If you're a performer, and you expose yourself to hundreds/thousands of children in the stands of a sporting event, the accusers from example one will talk about free speech if anyone criticizes your actions.

To be as clear as I can, I understand there's a difference between the Super Bowl flashing and someone exposing themselves to children on a playground with the intent of assaulting them. But the difference isn't so pronounced as many are making it.

Rob, thanks for the followup. To be clear myself, I wasn't taking what you wrote personally. I assumed it was shorthand and that you had some specifics in mind.

I understand the points you're making. I still don't quite agree with them, but I see where you're coming from. For me personally, I continue to find it a bit odd that there's such a fuss over Janet Jackson's breast amidst all those commercials that feature erection enhancers, flatulent horses, horny monkeys, and so on.