Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As you've probably heard by now, Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake dared to utter the word 'blowjob' on MSNBC the other day, causing much wailing and gnashing of teeth. The anchors freaked out and issued an apology on Marcy's behalf, an apology she seems to have little interest in actually giving (and I can't blame her). I'll post the video of that incident below the fold.
My friend Rayne, a fellow blogger I've known for a while, has a delightful essay at Firedoglake about the misplaced furor over that evil word.
Those of you who know me also know I have a couple of kids -- a teenager in high school, and a tweenager about to enter middle school.Both of my kids have met the infamous blogger who used, you know, THAT word on MSNBC this afternoon. In fact, they were watching the video of the infamous blogger.
Neither batted an eye about the use of THAT word.
And I am so proud of them.
Because even my kids know the real obscenity isn't a euphemism for oral sex, or even that it happened on a cable show in the middle of the afternoon. My kids know that the real obscenities are these:...
Their government tortured people, innocents among them, including children, to further their lies, in violation of fundamental human rights and codified law;...
The corporate-owned media in their country makes money off ghoulishly beating a tattoo every day about dead entertainers and missing white girls while avoiding the work required of investigative journalism important to real democracy.
Even kids understand when adults are being stupid and unethical, and they know the truth when they see it.
As a mother I'm absolutely offended, but not about the word "blowjob."
I'm deeply offended that the corporate-owned mainstream media can turn a blind eye to the really offensive obscenities, thereby becoming complicit in the criminality -- and they've done this in front of my kids for more than eight years.
What am I supposed to tell these children?
I think you just told them, Rayne, along with the rest of us. This all reminds me of the great story that Paul Krassner likes to tell about a protest of the Vietnam War at the 1968 Democratic convention, where a man had a sign saying "Fuck the war" and a police officer told him he had to remove the obscenity from the sign.
The protester left and returned with a sign that said "Fuck the ---."
Politics
Comments
Appalling, and yet not at all surprising. We are, after all, a country that only five years ago went into full-fledged panic mode over a partially-revealed breast.
On a related note, Ed, I assume that you've gotten wind of Glenn Beck's latest manifestation of batshit insanity.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 16, 2009 10:40 AM
The real reason wingnuts get upset about this is because they spend so much time and effort denying that sex even exists, assuming that their kids will just never find out about it on their own, and stuff like this is blowing their cover. Then they might have to actually talk to their kids about sex, and that will make them feel awkward. It's amazing the extent they will go to to avoid that one awkward conversation.
Posted by: catgirl | July 16, 2009 10:45 AM
I mean, I personally would rather live in a world with more blowjobs and less disregard for the law . . . Also I have no idea what the family-friendly television way to say "blowjob" is. It's the family-friendliest word I know for fellatio.
Posted by: Eleanor | July 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Okay, where to start. After having been subjected to day time runs of the Lorena Bobbit Trial where we had to listen to lurid depictions of her nonconsentual sex life with the guy whose Penis she cut off, And after having to watch prime time coverage of Bill Clinton's Blow Job for YEARS, and still hear jokes about it everywhere we turn, I have to say, I thought Marcy's use of words and context were totally appropriate. Because it shows the ridiculous nature that the Republicon Party exhibits in every aspect of it's existence, not the least of which when it is in power, investigating consensual sex acts between two adults.
The entire time the Republicons made it clear that they "Hated" to have to discuss all this lurid sex stuff with Clinton, meanwhile visibly reminding themselves to keep their hands on the table and out of their pockets. They wasted my money on a blow job. It really comes down to that.
Mean while we had the BUSH administration that politicized the appointment of Attorney's and this all happened to lean our judicial system to the extreme hard Reich, and they are worried that this investigation is going to make our political system more polarized than it is already?
And yea Leon Panetta didnt know. What the fuck is up with that? That means that we have an issue here with hidden power structures that undermine the will of the people and the rule of law, to benefit some unknown organization with an agenda that appears to be at odds with the essential nature of our Nation and its voters and acknowledged, official leaders.
Dig Deep, that is what I say. Iran Contra investigation was a fucking joke. Oliver North might have lost his commission but he was welcomed home as a martyr for the Reich Wing Cause. Reagan had Alzheimers during his office, and gods help us, because we know his VP wasn't running the show, the guy was dumber than a bag of hammers, so I suppose that left Nancy-Just-Say-No-Reagan, and her Christian Astrologer? Seeing how Cheney had been around back in the Nixon Admin, I wonder what part he might have played there.
I don't even want to blame anyone at this point
Blowjobs are the least of our worries. After dealing with a month of Tea-Bagging, Blowjob just doesnt have the same gross out potential.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | July 16, 2009 11:08 AM
Sorry to double post, but I have problems posting here.
A section got cut out.
I dont want to blame anyone YET,
I want the light shined on this situation so we can see who is spinning this web. It's gotta lead somewhere.
Blame Games are premature, its just time to dig dig dig, until we find all the elements of this clusterfuck.
Posted by: Seeing eye chick | July 16, 2009 11:11 AM
It's the family-friendliest word I know for fellatio.
My wife records audiobooks, a lot of them Christian romance novels.
The euphemism they use for any sex act is "It was a long time before they fell asleep that night."
Based on what I see around me, this is as much description as these people seem to feel sex should ever receive, even in biology classrooms.
With the exception of sitting democratic presidents, of course.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:12 AM
@Rob,
In those books, do the characters at least have to get married before they can take a long time to fall asleep? I would hate to think that a child might be able to pick up one of those books and find out that it can take you a long time to fall asleep before you're married.
Posted by: peaches | July 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Yes, you have to be married.
However, believe it or not, you MAY take a long time to fall asleep all by yourself, should you so desire. Although you have to be married for that, as well, and your husband should have been missing and presumed dead for several years, and you have just had your hand held by a strong manly man with man muscles for the first time since he disappeared.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:39 AM
I take a long time to fall asleep on a lot of nights. There's usually no one helping me stay up and I'm usually not doing anything that would get me arrested in a public bathroom.
I just have a hard time falling asleep...
Posted by: Geds | July 16, 2009 12:19 PM
Maybe Mrs. Wheeler meant to say "trouser friendly kiss."
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | July 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Blowjob, blowjob, blowjob!
democommie waits patiently for several seconds.
Rats! I thought maybe if I said it three times I would get one. Maybe I have to desecrate a wafer and write it three times backwards, in reptilican ichor before that will happen.
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 12:31 PM
I've heard "mouth hug" on a Comedy Central special.
Posted by: chancelikely | July 16, 2009 12:36 PM
Sometimes I take a long time to wake up.
Posted by: Taz | July 16, 2009 1:29 PM
Torture = good
Blowjob = bad
Would you date a conservative?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 16, 2009 1:51 PM
This thread is priceless.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 16, 2009 2:21 PM
Torture = good
Blowjob = bad
Would you date a conservative?
Oooph, painful. First my beverage exited through my nose, second I remembered that my daughter is currently dating a conservative ... *sigh*
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 16, 2009 2:45 PM
dogmeatIB:
Well, at least if you don't fall asleep for a long time after going to bed it won't be because you're worrying about your daughter's chastity. Remember; only republicans respect women.
Posted by: demcommie | July 16, 2009 2:56 PM
@Scott Hanley #14
A boytoy who I get to beat and whip but who doesn't want me to blow him? I may have to give this dating a conservative thing a try.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 16, 2009 3:05 PM
Didn't know that it was one of those seven words?
Posted by: Hathor | July 16, 2009 3:25 PM
I have yet to find an answer to this seemingly simple question:
"Why is broadcasting the image of a nipple so much more damaging than broadcasting the video of a beheading on Prime Time?"
Not that that nipple was even there - she was wearing a pasty, which gives to lie to the happening being a surprise to her.
I still have nightmares featuring that beheading. I console myself with images of nipples.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 16, 2009 3:32 PM
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
... because the kiddies obviously watch MSNBC in the middle of a weekday.
I was home and actually saw this as it happened (on account a' we got this dee-pression on).
I remember my initial reaction being surprise (not shock), then a fit of shouting kudos and congratulations at the television, then sadness in anticipation of the "obscenity" outrage over that woman's dirty little mouth. Meanwhile, the argument her counterpart was attempting will generate very little outrage, though it should infinitely more offensive.
penis.
Posted by: N | July 16, 2009 3:43 PM
This thread is priceless.
Agreed. And I don't think we'll get much argument about this....
The snark is strong on this blog...but this thread is taking the cake....
Posted by: gwangung | July 16, 2009 3:53 PM
I'm pretty sure I first heard the word "blowjob" when I was ten years old, if not younger. I knew what it meant by 14 at the latest. So, I'm really wondering why this is controversial -- I don't think anyone younger than that is going to be watching or interested in MSNBC.
Bill Clinton / smoked a stogie
With an intern / He came across ...
--Roy Zimmerman, "Is America Ready?"
Posted by: Sean Micheal | July 16, 2009 5:41 PM
The ghost of Colonel Kurtz rises from the grave:
Posted by: MrWhipple | July 16, 2009 5:59 PM
I know a lot of nasty words. My grandfather, a farmer, taught me any number of those words when we'd bale hay together. Going to college I learned a few more. Serving in the Navy, I learned even more. Having said that I do think there is a point to common courtesy. As well as a time and place for everything. Especially on a broad public forum such as broadcast radio and TV. Frankly, blowjob, pussy, or any of Carlin's seven words are kind of beside the point. I don't think I should have to explain smegma to my six year old daughter. Nor does my six year old son need to know what queef means. For that matter, if I turn on a TV broadcast during prime time I don't think I should have to brace myself in case I want to eat because the show is going to demonstrate how to remove an eye and draw fluid from it as part of a forensic investigation. The same sorts of thing are true about having to expose my kid to a bumper sticker that reads, "Don't like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT." Working in a lab I sat in on autopsies of downed pilots, infants who died of SIDS, infants with birth defects and saw that not all things were pretty. Having said all of this, my whole point is that there is a time and place for everything. Yes, getting a blow job is better than torturing someone(although in the cases of adultery an angry wife might take one to be an excuse to engage in the other...) but that doesn't mean a public forum needs to lose it's decorum. Acting like a sarcastic pubescent or worse a petulant pubescent doesn't move the argument forward.
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 16, 2009 6:28 PM
You tell'em, Mike.
All of you folks with bumper stickers that say 1-800-EAT-SHIT had better take them off between the hours of six am and 1 am so Mike's kids don't have to see them, and I'm starting a petition right now to ban all forensic, hospital, and cop shows from the hours of 5pm to 8pm so that Mike and his poor oppressed children can eat their dinners in peace, without worrying that they might have to get up and change the channel, or maybe look away from the screen once in a while. Also, we'll be drafting a list of topics that Mike finds it uncomfortable to discuss with his children, and everybody everywhere will be banned from ever discussing those things with them. It's just common courtesy to adjust the things you say and do as if Mike's children are watching while eating dinner all the time. I mean, he worked in a lab for god's sake! A LAB, PEOPLE! It's only fair that you restrict your language so that his poor put-upon children don't have to learn about basic bodily functions.
What kind of animals are you, anyway?
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 7:00 PM
Oh, now I have comment thread envy. The monkey hordes opposed to blowjobs showed up at the end of my thread -- and Ed's got all these lovely articulate people who appreciate both oral sex and snark. [sigh]
Several people emailed me to point out how we are subjected to obnoxious ads for blue pills which may have the unfortunate side effect of erections lasting more than four hours. Just this week I've had to explain to my pre-teen son the fraud that is a certain nutraceutical advertised on television, claiming to make a man more than he is.
Yet saying "blowjob" on television is unacceptable...gah.
Posted by: Rayne | July 16, 2009 7:18 PM
Really? That's the best you can come up with? I told you who I was simply to allow you to understand I'm not some sort of prude. Do you really believe children should be exposed to vulgar(as opposed to clinical, age appropriate)discussions of sexuality? Do you think we should have autopsies shown on television at a time when many young children have access to them? Is it okay for you to put whatever you want on a bumper sticker or t-shirt and declare it to be a matter of freedom of speech? Words are words. They only have the power we give them. However, we also have to acknowledge the power of words to inflame, incite, or provoke issues that are not in the interest of providing a suitable environment for children. If I call you a cocksucker here, it means nothing. If I do so at your childs baseball game, then, although it is just a word, there are many greater issues associated with it. I'd also point out working in a lab would seem to give my ability to think logically more credence then someone who simply wants to become angry and thinks shocking words, in and of themselves are never wrong, inappropriate, or that there should be some restraint in their use. We can have whatever conversation you wish, you won't shock me. The real question is this: Are you being more mature by your insistence in being able to use these words anywhere, or do you believe I'm some sort of childish prude shocked by the use of words like blowjob, shit, shit eater, or pussy?
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 16, 2009 8:04 PM
I'd also point out that as a member of the Presbyterian church, all the little prudish 80 something year old "church" ladies who don't like obscenities expressed their displeasure with torture without feeling compelled to swear or support adultery. I might call you,(or dubya) a dickhead, but that has vulgarity has nothing to do with the issue of torture. My savior was tortured to death before he died. I tend to believe he'd think torture was a really bad idea. As well as capital punishment. I believe he also suggested that in regards to adultery, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I'd note he didn't throw the stone, but forgave the sinner. Therefore, even the guy who was without sin, failed to condemn. Still, didn't support torture. Should we continue with obscenity? Should I call you a dodo, stupid, poopy head?
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 16, 2009 8:11 PM
Not to pile on Mike Olson, but the tv has an on/off switch. I don't even own a television and yet I hear worse language--from very young kids--most every day.
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 8:37 PM
You're preaching to the choir, re: the on/off switch. My point is that public broadcasting should be censured to a degree during times when children have greater access. I'm very much a supporter of the ACLU and very liberal. I'm simply suggesting that just because a far right wing segment of the population gets upset over a word, doesn't imply it should be used simply to yank chains. Further, upset over one situation doesn't mean that as a point of opposition I should stoop to the level of my opponents. I'm liberal because my impression is that it combines the best aspects of that which is logical and that which is compassionate in one position. In this case, just because you're pissed off at a right wingers opposition to torture investigation and the twisted logic they use to avoid prosecution doesn't mean you have to try to resort to personal attacks or emotionally laden verbiage to put them in a defensive position. Taken further, you can be against torture and against cheating spouses. Yes, one is a much greater crime(like comparing littering or jaywalking to serial killing) but you don't have to approve of either.
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 16, 2009 9:13 PM
um...OK, I don't agree with Mike's point about wanting everyone to bowdlerize their lives so he doesn't have to explain smegma to a child, but I understand it. Some people are just prudes.
But the part I DON'T understand is the objection to autopsies on TV. What's so horrible about that? I mean, most people wouldn't consider it something to watch during a meal, but hell...I wouldn't want to watch Rexella Van Impe during a meal...but I don't try to dictate when the network can show her scary face.
And really - why are you watching TV during dinner?? Doesn't sound like a family-friendly activity to me...god forbid you should have to TALK to your family over a meal...and maybe have to answer questions...
Posted by: CanadianChick | July 16, 2009 10:08 PM
Mike: None of this changes the fact that she was making a valid political point on a cable news show using a relatively mild colloquial term for something that took up a full year of the news cycle. It was descriptive, it was on point, it was completely germane to the conversation. And yet the entire focus has shifted from the hypocrisy of the Republicans opposing a special prosecutor to examine torture and illegal wiretapping, despite supporting it to encourage te president to lie about an affair under oath.
The problem is that focussing on the "Bad word" is nothing but an intellectual dodge to avoid the real question, which is why the Republican party is willing to use a special prosecutor to investigate adultery in hopes of impeachment on perjury, but not look into allegations of torture, illegal wiretapping and abuse of office from the Vice President.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | July 16, 2009 10:12 PM
Let me see if I have this right. David Shuster finds it necessary to apologize for a guest's use of the words blow job, but he has no problem making ribald jokes and using double entendres in April when he talked about the Teabaggers protests. So, euphemisms for fellatio unacceptable, euphemisms for a man dipping his scrotum into another person's mouth acceptable.
Posted by: green thumb | July 16, 2009 11:10 PM
Really? That's the best you can come up with? I told you who I was simply to allow you to understand I'm not some sort of prude.
I don't think you're a prude, I just think you want to abdicate your parental responsibilities and blame others for not raising your children as you see fit.
Do you really believe children should be exposed to vulgar(as opposed to clinical, age appropriate)discussions of sexuality?
I don't think it's a prerequisite for being a good parent or anything, but I can't imagine it would be particularly harmful to them. Your kids are six? Yeah, they've already heard and probably said far worse. Get over it.
Do you think we should have autopsies shown on television at a time when many young children have access to them?
What effect do you feel exposure to CSI will have on your children? Is there some powerful force I don't know about that stops you from turning off the television? Who or what do you feel should regulate what can and can't be shown, and when?
Is it okay for you to put whatever you want on a bumper sticker or t-shirt and declare it to be a matter of freedom of speech?
Who or what should regulate what is OK to put on t-shirts? Will there be hours during which you can wear certain shirts, but not others? Why aren't t-shirts protected by the right to free speech? I mean, I guess if your t-shirt said, "Kill this dude" and listed a name and address, I could see your point.
What should be the punishment for a vulgar t-shirt? A fine? Should the punishment vary depending on how many children were exposed to the t-shirt?
Words are words. They only have the power we give them. However, we also have to acknowledge the power of words to inflame, incite, or provoke issues that are not in the interest of providing a suitable environment for children. If I call you a cocksucker here, it means nothing. If I do so at your childs baseball game, then, although it is just a word, there are many greater issues associated with it.
The environment that you are fostering is one of hostility. That's what's bad for the kids. Saying cocksucker is bad, but it's no worse than starting a fight any other way. The greater issues are that you are instructing your kids that it is OK to degrade another person by insulting their sexuality because you disagree with them. The vulgarity of the word is irrelevant.
I'd also point out working in a lab would seem to give my ability to think logically more credence then someone who simply wants to become angry and thinks shocking words, in and of themselves are never wrong, inappropriate, or that there should be some restraint in their use.
You obviously didn't learn to think logically in that lab, or you'd realize that the only logical conclusion I can draw from the fact that you worked in a lab is that you worked in a lab. Working in a lab doesn't grant you any special privileges in a conversation about free speech.
We can have whatever conversation you wish, you won't shock me. The real question is this: Are you being more mature by your insistence in being able to use these words anywhere, or do you believe I'm some sort of childish prude shocked by the use of words like blowjob, shit, shit eater, or pussy?
I didn't use any of those words, except shit, which I took from you. I didn't think my post was particularly shocking. It was sarcastic, which I guess might be immature.
I think the real question is this: do you really believe that words like blowjob, shit, and pussy are so harmful to children that they should be banned from the public domain? If they aren't banned, and their use punishable by law, then you should assume these words will crop up and you should learn how to explain the situation to your children, the same way you should assume your children will encounter any number of other situations that you disapprove of, such as racism or violence. Teaching your children to deal with adverse situations is, like, 75% of your job as a parent. Shielding them does absolutely nothing for them.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:32 PM
First of all, my "children" are hypothetical. I didn't make that clear and I apologize. My son is now 22. Second, "working in a lab" and being in the military was meant to imply that I've dealt with blood, mucus, semen, urine, fecal material, biopsied tissue, vaginal smears, bodies, and the general human drama. Working in the lab would also imply an interest in science, therefore logic. Thirdly, I'm quite capable of self-censure as well as turning off the TV when I find something objectionable on said TV. What might be the point of all of this? Simple, you wonder about the effects of having autopsies televised? Do you really think a child is going to be capable of understanding what they are seeing and what is happening? Do you really think that all parents are enlightened and caring people? You are willing to define words within their context...in one situation it is aggressive and violent, in another not so much. But, isn't that the whole point? The lady in question could've suggested that conservatives were more concerned with fellatio as an act of adultery impinging on leaderships skills, than concerning ourselves with genuine examples of poor leadership...torture, secret trials, violations of civil rights. The main point is this: if someone uses the term nigger in a given context, it is just a word, but as a society we recognize that such a person is misguided and the term in and of itself is hostile and aggressive. (check out what comedian Vince Morris has to say about it). The same thing is true of expressing anything in a vulgar fashion. We can all have fun, enjoy comedy and laugh about the human condition, but do we really want our government and our society to become nothing more than comedic jabs taken by both sides? It isn't just about language and vulgarity, it is about the least common denominator. Rather than really discuss the issue of torture or censorship(especially of ideas), this has become about labeling one side as anti-science, the other as anti-faith as well as creating dichotomies that resolve nothing. Rather than allow yourself to be provoked to using a sexual vulgarity to express contempt, keep it logical and remain more mature than your opponent. In regards to all censorship, many kids, especially those living in poverty don't have adults to turn off the TV, being bombarded with sexual imagery pushes them in directions at a younger age than they would otherwise go. Being subjected to images of violence, death and aggression causes at the least nightmares. AT this point I'll also let you know this about my professional life: I worked for four years as a counselor in a home for delinquent children and children in need of assistance. Seeing bad TV is the least of some of these kids worries...drugs and sex before entering grade school is the norm for some of them. But, normalizing earlier and earlier sexuality and creating the illusion that violence is normal or a viable means to resolve conflict doesn't help. I'm against censorship and hugely responsible, I don't believe people should be held to legal accountability for words, but...and this is important, as a society we should continue to recognize ignorance and immaturity when we hear it and see it.
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 17, 2009 12:04 AM
Dude, you're just not making sense.
After all of that explanation, I'm still unclear on what exactly working in a lab has to do with anything at all. The military experience you at least linked to exposure to swear words.
The rest of it… I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. CSI is immature and should be banned because children might have sex in grade school?
If you want to shield your child from basic facts of life like swear words, normal bodily functions, and investigative procedures then that's your prerogative. It's not my job to help you. I think a six year old should know what smegma is. That stuff should be cleaned out once in a while, you know. I don't see any harm in a kid knowing what a queef is. He knows what a fart and a burp are, right? I don't see the problem with kids being exposed to matter-of-fact medical procedures on television. Particular kids with morbid fascinations or a fear of blood or dismemberment, maybe, but then those kids probably shouldn't be exposed to autopsies once they become adults, either.
Most importantly, I don't see why we should all have to walk around afraid that a six year old might overhear us at any second. We're talking about a cable news show here, not Sesame Street. It always kind of horrifies me when people argue that our public discourse is inappropriate because a little child somewhere might misunderstand it.
And I'm not sure I agree that the term blowjob is inherently immature, anyway. It's a perfectly good word. There's no doubt it was used to provoke a little shock and get people to sit up and listen, but in this I think the speaker accomplished her goal quite effectively. She exposed the situation for its tawdriness and unseemliness with a single word. Now, I'll grant that some poor little babe, settling in for an afternoon watching his favorite 24 hour news channel, would instead come away from the show only understanding that this woman doesn't like it when the media obsesses over blowjobs. Being immature himself, he wouldn't recognize that the artful analogy of our culture's prudish taboo of blatant descriptions of sex acts to the our culture's present hesitance to discuss torture and wiretapping with any penetrating depth. He might not realize that her choice of words has called out the media for its lascivious pursuit of titillation rather than substance. Instead he would just giggle to himself at her use of a funny word, and maybe relate the story to his friends in the playground the next day in between harassing the girls, discussing boobies with the fifth graders, and wondering when he will sprout pubes. I guarantee it will do him absolutely no harm, especially if his parents have done their jobs and prepared him for it by exposing him to sexual topics in a frank and mature manner.
Really, arguing that nobody should be allowed to say blowjob on TV because some kid somewhere might become sexually active at a younger age than you personally approve is illogical in the extreme, unless you honestly believe you can show a causal relationship between a six-year-old hearing the word "blowjob" on TV and a tendency for that child to take greater sexual risks as he gets older than his peers with unmolested sensibilities.
Posted by: rob | July 17, 2009 12:46 AM
...Because having your dick sucked is comparable in its offensiveness to generations of enslaving your people and treating them as subhuman.
So you would have been fine with "fellatio"? I seriously doubt that would have made a difference with the pearl-clutching newsmen in question.
Posted by: DaveL | July 17, 2009 6:08 AM
I was in a bar the other night and saw a young man wearing a t-shirt with something written on the front. I was sitting approximately 12 feet (3.7 meters +/-) away and could not read the smaller print on the shirt. I had no problem reading the words "FUCK YOU" as they were all caps in about 180 point type.
The bartender, a very nice, quite attractive mom (and somewhat conservative christian) offered him a lovely smile and asked him what he'd like to drink.
This whole thing is just to say that we live in vulgar world. We can either mind our own behavior and grind our teeth once in a while when we break our own rules or try to get other people to mind them and grind our teeth all the time.
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 7:50 AM
democommie (39) - we've always lived in a vulgar world, always. It's a dirty, messy place. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't going to change that.
I'll also point out that the words we've used in the past which were vulgar are now part of our classic literature. Shakespeare, Joyce, Nin wrote frankly, bluntly, but are now seen as essential reading -- and that's just a small sampling off the top of my head.
I simply don't understand the Mike_Olsons of the world, although he does make one point which clicks with me. He said, "Do you really think that all parents are enlightened and caring people?"
And that's the real problem. Far too many parents will get their pants in a wad about naughty words rather than the concepts being addressed behind the words, or they'll allow the media to change the subject instead of taking the time to point out the real story, the real problems. Torture, for example, is a real bugaboo for me, and the media is doing everything possible to avoid covering our government's criminality.
I've got one of those kids who loves CSI and autopsy shows, too, can't tear them away from them. But this child has also said since they were old enough to talk that they wanted to be a doctor, and they are currently on course to go into pre-med with the intention of becoming a pathologist. Because we talk about their goals and their passion regularly, I know I'm the one who'll have to leave the room and watch something other than an autopsy show. Turning off the television or changing the channel might be the worst thing possible for this child, having some understanding of where their head is. A key problem in our society is that anybody can be a parent, no license required, and not enough of these anybody-parents take the time necessary to explain why "blowjob" isn't the real issue, nor is bad language; it's easy to simply shut off the television, but it takes an investment of time, patience and love to talk with a child instead.
Posted by: Rayne | July 17, 2009 10:27 AM
Rayne:
You'll get no argument from me. Turning off the television is only one of numerous options. Yours sound like better ideas. Fortunately (for them) I have no children; if I did I would probably be a lousy father, but they wouldn't be getting their mouths washed out with soap for using words like "blowjob". Now, "blow me", that might get some action from me, but the other, not so much.
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 4:53 PM
Never mind the word, the argument against prosecution is that it isn't going to have started until the administration left office?
Does this mean if I quit my job before getting indited for embezzlement, that I'm off scot-free? This is the best news I've heard all week!
Or would be, if I had a job at the moment.
Posted by: MPL | July 17, 2009 6:57 PM
"I'm starting a petition right now to ban all forensic, hospital, and cop shows from the hours of 5pm to 8pm "
Hell yeah! I'll sign it! I'll go further - I want every single gristly, violent, desensitising, wound porn, *wicked*, *evil* american cop, legal, and medical drama banned outright by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. That especially includes those cop reality shows, which are nothing but police propaganda.
I'll miss "House", though. On the other hand, having seen one episode, you've seen 'em all, so no real loss there.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 19, 2009 11:50 PM
Mike Olsen posted (#29):
"My savior was tortured to death before he died."
I see, and did he wake up dead three days later? ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2009 3:04 AM