Remember early 2004? Those heady, optimistic days? Sure, we’d just discovered that there were probably no WMD’s in Iraq, but at least we were winning, or at least we hadn’t started losing, or at least most people didn’t think we were losing. It was only two years after 9/11, and although we hadn’t quite recovered, we were hot on the trail of Osama bin Laden. The presidential campaign was beginning to heat up, and, in a completely unrelated story, the debate over gay marriage had come out of absolutely nowhere to dominate our national dialogue.
It all seems so quaint now. But in some ways it seems recent, because of the way that major events tend to define an era, making everything else “pre-” or “post-.” Back in early 2004 we were, like today, in the post- stage of the event that has defined our era as surely as other eras have been defined by Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination or the stock market crash of ‘29.
I’m talking, of course, about a lot of the nation seeing most of Janet Jackson’s right boobie. For almost 2 seconds.
I bring it up today not to reopen old wounds. I know that some of us are still in the healing process, and many of us will never, ever be the same. But I need to bring it up because today, after several investigations, fines, committee meetings, and internal polls, the United States Congress has finally done something about Janet Jackson and her rogue breast. [By the way, her left breast, by all reports, is far more conservative and thoughtful, and really wants to put this whole incident in the rearview mirror.]
I guess if you’re “cynical,” or “worldly,” or even “conscious,” you might question why it took our Congress 28 months to finally get around to doing the wrong thing. You might wonder if after more than two years of indecency failing to spread across this land and blot out the public airwaves, after two years of that crisis not ever happening, if it was therefore necessary to increase the fines tenfold.
We’ve had a Presidential election and two more breastless Superbowls. We’ve watched nearly 2000 more of our soldiers die. Michael Powell is no longer the chairman of the FCC, and his dad is also out of a job. But it still feels fresh, and the mammary lingers.
I remember how I felt in those first days after It happened. First I was dismissive:
“While the nation recovers from Super Bowl Sunday and discusses the crucial issues of which commercial was best and whether our children will ever recover from being exposed to 1.5 seconds of Janet Jackson’s breast amid three hours of ritualized violence, there is a lot of actual news taking place.”
I was in denial, I admit it. Worse, I compounded the problem by then implying that perhaps the FCC and Michael Powell ought to focus less on accidental indecency and more on his own march towards deregulation, giant media consolidation, and the giving away of bandwidth.

[Powell and CBS President Les Mooves share an
intimate moment (FA file photo)
In time, though, I came to see how deeply traumatized I’d beem. Two years of therapy helped me recover the memory of that Superbowl halftime show, and I’m well on my way to dealing with my feelings of shame and powerlessness. I only fear for our children now, the thousands who are pretty sure they saw something on Ms. Jackson’s chest and stiill don’t - could never possibly, really - understand. The best we can do for them is pray, I suppose.
So what have we learned, after all of this? A couple of things:
- The nearly half-million dollar fines will help a little bit. Nothing makes for great television like an industry terrified of risking real money for taking chances.
- We can rely on future TV references and visuals involving breasts to be comfortably limited to the crime investigation genre (as they have been for the past couple of years). As in, “Look, this is where he sliced her breast after raping her but before strangling her.”
- We can breathe a sigh of relief that our children won’t be forced to know what a breast looks like or how it functions until they have to use ‘em to feed their own unexpected children.
- Knowing that it took Congress only slightly more than two years to tell a pop singer to keep her brassiere on just instills more confidence than ever that they’ll be able to deal with smaller crises like the war in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the torture of prisoners, soaring gas prices, and global warming.
- The FCC will stay engaged with crucial issues like this rather than frittering their time away debating who should be allowed to own what and for how much money. Those kinds of things take care of themselves, after all; but experience has taught us that left unattended, there’s almost no limit to the trouble that boobies can get into.
Knowing that the Senate wrote and passed this bill, a form of which the House already passed, and that both houses will now work long and hard towards reconciling the bills so that the President can sign it into law, and knowing that all this work has been done in the complete absence of a similar incident since the beginning of 2004… well, it’s a proud day for all Americans. We have remained vigilant, and our vigilance has now been rewarded. Remember - you never read about the breasts that you’re NOT forced to see. And that’s the point. It’s what security is all about.





34 comments
Skerlnik
May 19, 2006 at 3:45 pm
1I am so relieved that Congress is dealing with these weighty matters of state. Their priorities are clear, and we can all sleep soundly at night, safe in the knowledge that we have the finest legislative system in the world.
Maximum Bob
May 19, 2006 at 4:06 pm
2I find it incredibly ironic that Jackson’s left breast is the more conservative, while her right breast reaches out to the needy.
Harold
May 19, 2006 at 4:26 pm
3And now that they’ve taken care of that, they’ve movd on to the crucial issue of determining if English is the national language. Is that fiddle music I hear? Do I smell smoke?
Can we complain to the FCC that folks like Pat “The Weatherman” Robertson, Bill “Terry Gross Made Me Cry” O’Reilly, and Rush Drugbaugh are indecent and offensive?
cooper
May 19, 2006 at 5:17 pm
4MaxBob, I was thinking the exact same thing. What has happened to the American political structure, that left is right and right is wrong?
Nick
May 19, 2006 at 6:03 pm
5…they’ll be able to deal with smaller crises like the war in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the torture of prisoners, soaring gas prices, and global warming.
Soaring gas prices aren’t eally a problem if you consider them as part of the solution to global warming. Here’s me hoping for $10/gallon…
tribolumen
May 19, 2006 at 8:18 pm
6Unfortunately, even if high gas prices are part of the solution, they cause a lot of pain for a lot of people in the meantime. It’s true that in a reasonable world, soaring gas prices ought to be part of the solution, or more precisely they ought to be a motivating factor to come up with a solution. However, it would be hard to argue that being reasonable is a defining characteristic of either our current government or the body politic.
One might expect, say, congress, to take some useful action when it becomes clear there’s a problem. Then again, there’s been a general consensus among environmental scientists for some years (and broad suspicion for decades) that our current patterns of fossil fuel use are altering the planet’s climate and polluting the air and water, and that hasn’t motivated a whole lot of useful action. Nor has the congressional response to Nipplegate restored my confidence that congress will enter a 12-step program for rectal-cranial inversion and do something useful for a change.
Jay
May 19, 2006 at 8:33 pm
7I wonder if there will be a signing statement on that bill, so that when Laura is out of town W can get all the boobies he wants on cable. Wonder if the White House gets those channels, which would mean that some of the fundies tax dollors find their way to the pornographers. Oh the humanity.
Jay
Dale
May 19, 2006 at 9:38 pm
8I so envy the anthropologists of the future who get to try to figure out this bizarre civilization. Assuming there is a future.
Was I the only one who watched every minute of that SuperBowl but missed the entire halftime controversy reading medieval Spanish literature?
Yes.
Murray
May 19, 2006 at 9:54 pm
9Adam, I think you have your finger on the lever.
If the war, economy, environment, etc. weren’t IN the toilet, the president and congress wouldn’t have to be pissing around WITH the toilet.
David
May 20, 2006 at 12:09 am
10“However, it would be hard to argue that being reasonable is a defining characteristic of either our current government or the body politic.”
It would be impossible, tribolumen. At the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for such an argument.
Dale
May 20, 2006 at 1:12 am
11I fully approve of fining CBS and fining Janet Jackson, but justice will not be fully served until the perpetrator itself has been taught a lesson. CBS and Janet may have been accessories, but we all know who the true culprit is. A crime has been committed and we cannot be seen as going…er, soft on crime. If we grant amnesty now, we are sending a lesson to all the breasts across the land that they can just pop out with impunity whenever they get a national audience. I demand to see that breast sternly punished–perhaps at next year’s halftime show?
ice weasel
May 20, 2006 at 2:36 am
12You know, having done one tour with Ms. Jackson I can confidently say that I am a bit more secure knowing that her breasts won’t be impinging on my life anymore.
Curiously enough, it doesn’t bother me in the least that Clear Channel now owns all high school sporting events in the central Pennsylvania area and I’m not even allowed to think about them without sending them a license fee.
But hey, that’s the market at work.
cooper
May 20, 2006 at 9:17 am
13Gee, Mr. Weasel, from touring w/ J Jackson to promoting fuel efficient, environmentally responsible personal transportation vehicles - you’ve certainly learned to make better use of your time, haven’t you?
cooper
May 20, 2006 at 9:24 am
14Adam, looks like Les Mooves has been to the beach promoting his turtleneck and glove swimwear line again. That’s just NOT going to catch on - someone should tell him.
Nick
May 20, 2006 at 3:13 pm
15tribolumen: I agree that it will cause financial stress on many people (and I’m probably one of them). And I agree that the pain will be greatest on those with the least resources.
I guess my hope is that it will cause more people to ride public transportation (when it’s available), or demand it (when it isn’t); and that fewer people will buy that extra car or trade in their Civic for an SUV.
Unfortunately, I think that in pursuing a solution it will be impossible to avoid causing pain. Our resource consumption left the realm of sustainability decades ago, and to get back to sustainability will require some belt tightening. I do wish that the onus the tightening were on the ones that could afford it, but I’m not sure if that’s possible. Sigh.
If I’m not mistaken, gas prices are around $5 per litre in the U.K., so maybe our prices aren’t too far out of line after all…
hedera
May 20, 2006 at 6:26 pm
16$6 per litre the last quote I heard.
siobhan
May 20, 2006 at 7:32 pm
17Don’t you mean that’s the price per gallon, converted from price per liter? At $5/liter, it would be approx $20/gallon. I know it’s higher there, but I don’t think it’s that high.
cooper
May 20, 2006 at 9:02 pm
18According to the Car and Driver website (5-20-06) the price for gasoline in the UK has just hit
$7.00/gallon and it doesn’t seem to be slowing them down.
http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/11068/gasoline-price-hits -7-a-gallon-in-england.html
tess
May 20, 2006 at 11:19 pm
19I, for one, am glad that I will be forced to get off my ever-increasing bottom and walk everywhere. Or it could mean that I become a shut-in. Which is fine, until I turn on the TV and watch 3 hours of PBS and need to walk away from the set with a sedative to keep from screaming at the set.
hedera
May 21, 2006 at 12:27 am
20I yield - it was $6 a gallon based on the litre price… I get these things mixed up. And it won’t hurt any of us to walk a little more, tess is quite right.
The trouble is, cars are so seductive - it’s so easy to go a couple of miles to run an errand and only take an hour or so, which would be two hours or more if you walked it. Andrew Marvell complained to his coy mistress:
But it seems now that we have too much world and no time at all:
and so we climb in the car again…
Steve
May 21, 2006 at 1:20 am
21I don’t know about anyone else, but seeing Ms Jackson’s star-embellished mammary put me off breasts of any kind for weeks. I’m only now getting back to where I can look at pan roasted duck breast without turning and running off in shrieking horror.
Sharon
May 21, 2006 at 1:55 pm
22They may still be driving in the UK, but anyone who’s been in London on a business day knows that they drive much smaller cars than we do, and they generally have better public transportation across the entire country.
I’m with Nick on this. I regret that it will cause pain to those who can least afford it, but I think that a seond summer with $3+ per gallon gasoline will finally force people to at least think about alternatives and lobby for imporved public transport in their region. I know it’s motivated me to start studying bus and train schedules, and I tend to run with the herd on things like this. (In case anyone’s wondering, this will be a good year for home veggie gardens, too. That’s another thing I haven’t done in years, but will be doing again this year.)
Mary
May 22, 2006 at 9:38 am
23No one else has taken the low road, so I’ll do it.
“…but experience has taught us that left unattended, there’s almost no limit to the trouble that boobies can get into.”
That’s why we have mid-term elections ;-D
K
May 22, 2006 at 1:24 pm
24Fabulous post. I wonder if Janet has ever explained what was to happen with the stunt involving the wardrobe, had it not malfunctioned…
Kelli
May 22, 2006 at 4:29 pm
25As seductive as cars are, heating my apartment is even more so. High oil prices hit the poor and working class closer to home than a choice between driving and riding the bus.
Don’t get me wrong; I would love to see more responsible methods of transportation becoming popular, but not at the expense of widening the gap in quality of living between the rich and poor in this country.
Nick
May 22, 2006 at 5:31 pm
26Very true, Kelli. I’m guilty of consistently forgetting that.
I suppose we could raise the price of gas for cars alone through a tax, or the like, which might keep the price of oil for other uses down. I’m happy as long as the price of driving (at least using an oil-burning engine) keeps going up.
We can argue the merits (or lack thereof) of artificially controlling the price of anything, and we can argue my comprehension of economic theroy, but of course it all becomes irrelevant at this point, since there is no way that placing a $3/gallon tax on the pumps will fly anywhere in the world….
Murray
May 23, 2006 at 12:59 pm
27Nick,
I believe that in Europe the reason that gas is $6/gallon is because they HAVE a $3 tax.
Sharon
May 23, 2006 at 1:31 pm
28Yes, the Europeans have chosen to make explicit the real costs of burning fossil fuels and operating a private vehicle instead of using public transportation. We here in the US of A have chosen to hide those costs and allow the oil companies to externalize them onto the backs of taxpayers.
David
May 23, 2006 at 2:31 pm
29I’m not aware of market forces having actually brought about a decent solution to any global problem. Forces larger than the individual do drive events, but with no regard for humans or any other forms of life. Seems to me that either there will be major shifts in consciousness driven by something much larger than how much a tank of gas costs, or else humankind is well and truly boned in the bunghole, to steal an image from Jon Stewart.
Nick
May 24, 2006 at 10:22 pm
30The closest thing I can think of is the original Volvo Light Component Project (LCP). My recollection is that it was developed in response to market pressures during the gas crisis of the 70’s. I’m pretty sure it achieved a combined milage of somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 mpg, with over 100 on the highway (I welcome any corrections).
Of course, gas became plentiful again and the LCP was scratched. The fact that none of us are driving LCPs means that it wasn’t really a decent solution. I would argue, however, that it would have been had it been mass-produced.
david
May 25, 2006 at 12:54 am
31It was those damned Swedes trying to do something enlightened, but forces in the markets that matter certainly crushed that attempt to solve a serious problem back when the solution could have helped save the polar ice caps and the polar bears. We weren’t (and ain’t) bright enough as a species to mandate changes on which the survival of the species as we understand decent survival depends.
We know how not to fuck over the planet, and have known for at least 3 decades (more like 5) we were seriously fucking over the planet, which makes the fact that we are fucking over the planet a crime against the future of humanity. We’re idiots, so I guess it is actually appropriate that George Bush is now the two-term president of the most significant single nation-state force on the planet.
I promise to be more optimistic in the morning.
Pete IVDL
May 27, 2006 at 4:41 pm
32At $6.30 a gallon ($1.40/litre), I found myself for the first time in my life “putting $50″ in the car and NOT filling the tank (60 litre).
Then I sat down and figured out what my taxable component of the petrol is… The Guvmint taxes fuel at around 47c per litre. Because I use the car to run my business, I can claim back 63c per litre (much more if it was diesel).
So, thinking about this, the Guvmint makes a big ballyhoo about taxing fossil fuels to save the planet, but they then pay businesses even more to use the fossil fuels.
I’m sure it’s much more complicated than that, but that’s the way it pans out. Even boobies in parliament would have more ability than the CRI people there now.
Just trying to keep y’all abreast of the situation…
David
May 27, 2006 at 7:42 pm
33A breast? A breast? Whose? I lust for a picture of one of Dame Kiri te Kanawa’s, but I think she’s from New Zealand, not Australia. Still, she is from your neighborhood, globally speaking.
David
May 30, 2006 at 10:05 am
34Pete IVDL,
You’re not helping me here. Guess I’ll have to be content with the picture on the cover of Best of… C’est la vie.