I Am Having Trouble Counting the Number of Ways This Article Bothers Me

This one here. If you don't feel like clicking through, I'll summarize. On this week's episode of Modern Family, it is going to appear that a toddler drops an f-bomb, and this is apparently causing a controversy amongst anti-profanity advocates.

Did you ever see that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns goes to the doctor for a check-up? They tell him that he's actually the sickest man alive, but that it's as-if all of the germs are trying to squeeze through a doorway at once and none can get through. That's kind of how I feel about this article. I have so many objections and they're all trying to get through at once it's such that I'm having trouble expressing them. But I'll try.

First of all just the idea of an "anti-profanity" group is comically ridiculous. Now, I guess in my logical mind I was aware that people and groups like this existed. I mean, as the world approaches a population of 7 billion you can be almost positive that if your mind can conceive of anything that could be remotely considered a cause, someone somewhere has decided to make it their key issue to devote blood, sweat, and tears to. Yet my mind still reels when I have to conceive of a person who looks at the problems of this world (war, hunger, homelessness, cancer, AIDS, child labor, Michael Bay) and has decided "gee, someone really needs to stop all these people from swearing." But if you've seen this Penn & Teller episode, you know that these people are dead serious about this "cause". I believe that the argument runs somewhere along the lines of what NYC did in the early 90s - i.e. stop small crimes which will help change the culture and people's perception which will then stop larger crimes - but it doesn't matter. They're wrong and they're wasting their lives. Now let me waste no more of my own life talking about them.

Now we come to the 2nd problem - no actual profanity is occurring. Not only is ABC bleeping out the word and pixelating the mouth, the toddler actress herself didn't even swear - she said "fudge". So now we are not protesting profanity, we are protesting the appearance of profanity. This is the equivalent of a parent grounding a child for talking back one time, and then the next time the child doesn't talk back but still gets grounded anyway because he gave them "a look". You know what? That's giving this group too much credit. It's more like two small children fighting in the back seat: "Moooooommmmmm, Billy's poking me!"; "Stop poking your brother Billy" followed a few minutes later by, inevitably, "Mooooooommmmmm, Billy's looking at me!"

Then there's problem number 3, and that's the fact that this is even being reported on. When a "sane" person (like a political candidate, celebrity, or CEO) says something crazy, I understand how that's news. It's a person of influence who has a reputation making a statement that alters or destroys that public perception, so I can see how it qualifies for widespread public distribution. But when crazy people and/or people with very extremist views say crazy things, that's not news. And yes I do realize the giant irony of me writing about and therefore bringing attention to something which I am arguing deserves absolutely no attention. If this were the only problem that I had with this story, I would have remained silent.

So now we come to my fourth, and biggest problem, with this story. And that's the fact that it really isn't true. Yes, I do believe that there is an "organization" called the "No Cussing Club" and that the founder of this organization really does want this show pulled off the air. But that's irrelevant. The point is that there is absolutely no controversy. I'd call it a manufactured controversy but nothing's really been manufactured. It's a manufactured appearance of a controversy.

Think about this for a second. Imagine me saying the craziest thing you can think of in this space. Something really controversial and just completely crazy like that there were no planes that hit the WTC on 9/11. Wait, what? Some people actually have said that? Seriously? WTF is wrong with people? Anyway, the point is that no matter what I say on this blog (and for the sake of agument let's pretend that I have an audience of greater than 6 people) I guarantee you that it will not get picked up by the AP.

So why is it that this story was picked up? Because it's a commercial masquerading as news. It's an ad for Modern Family that Disney/ABC didn't have to pay for. Obviously this is only my opinion, and I realize that I am veering dangerously close to conspiracy theorist territory here, but I think a little bit of thought makes it not only plausible, but likely. I don't have empirical proof of course, but I'd be willing to bet that there are many, many groups that have a problem with Modern Family purely on the basis of it depicting two gay parents raising a child. There's probably also an anti-gay group that also is anti-profanity too but you wouldn't hear from them. Why? Because that's too close to an actual controversy, and that wouldn't be good press. But this? This is just free air time and ad space! Disney and ABC can feed this story to the wire services, this "advocate" can think he's getting more attention to his cause, and people will click on it so they can look at fun, distracting "news" and feel superior to this person. But the truth is that we are all just being used by Network Executives. They thought "how can we capitalize on the recent Emmy win and get more people to notice us?" and this is what they came up with. Ask yourself how is it that this is being protested before it has even aired? Was there an advance copy made available? And how is it that it comes out of the AP wire at 11:00 E.T. on Wednesday, which is coincidentally the night that Modern Family airs. It's all just so transparent.

Look, I have nothing against Modern Family. I don't think it's a phenomenal show, but I find it entertaining and definitely better than 90% of what else is on TV (though that may not be saying much). But I don't like being manipulated, and I especially don't like being given an ad that I'm told is news. We have media that is separate from the government because our founders realized the inherent danger of having the government completely control the flow of information. Well, it's pretty dangerous when the message is purely corporate-controlled too. And this, while a fairly minor betrayal, is a good example of why.

Politics - Where Logic is Checked at the Door

Just a brief foray back into politics. I watched the Iowa results sparingly last night even though I wasn't all that interested - hey, something had to fill the time during the Sugar Bowl commercials after the Bulls game ended.

With Romney's narrow win last night, commanding lead in New Hampshire, and an endorsement by John McCain it looks like only a mammoth scandal is going to keep him from the nomination at this point. Gingrich is a long way back right now in New Hampshire and I just don't think he can overcome the momentum if he loses the first two states. My recollection may be wrong, but it seems to me that when the first two states split (as in Obama/Clinton and Huckabee/McCain in 2008) then the race is still open but when one candidate sweeps both (as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004) it's pretty much over.

So it would seem like Gingrich is the big loser last night. Had Santorum won, a victory by Romney next week would signal a split and keep the race open because, despite what various political cable news shows may say to fill their around-the-clock programming, no one believes Santorum has any kind of real chance to be the nominee.

It appears that Gingrich knows this as well; as he is now out trying like hell to spin the results in his favor. To that effect, he unleashed this gem earlier today in reference to Romney:"The fact is three out of four Republicans rejected him." I'm not sure what it takes more of - balls or stupidity - to say that. Doesn't that statement just beg the question: hey Newt; where'd you finish last night? Oh, 13%? Hmm, doesn't that mean that 7 out of 8 Republicans rejected you? It's the kind of thing you say from the stump to your fervent but dejected supporters. People that aren't really going to critically assess your statement and are just looking for a reason to keep believing. Perhaps he didn't notice that in addition to those individuals there are these other people with cameras and microphones there too, and they are more than willing and able to print this nonsense and show it in the harsh light of day.

Anyway, so it's Romney. You excited about that Republicans? I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is 1996 all over again. I remember that one well because I was in the midst of interning for a Republican state rep and also was a card-carrying member of the Young Republicans. I remember being so excited after the landslide Congressional victory in 2004 and salivating as Clinton's approval numbers just continued to tank. There was blood in the water, and the Republicans were poised to strike. And then: Dole. Dole? Yes, Dole. No, surely we can come up with someone better than Dole. Nope, we can't; it's Dole. The results were predictable from there. Hell, 2004 was the exact same thing on the other side with Kerry. The fact is that a campaign that is strictly an anti-incumbency one doesn't work; if you don't excite, motivate, and mobilize the masses you will lose. End of story. Because while the answer to "do you want this guy or someone else?" is usually "someone else", the answer to "do you want this guy or that guy?" is an entirely different matter.