Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

Eye of the Beholder

The Jib-Jab post yesterday got me to thinking... and somewhere along the line it crossed mental paths with the recent news about ICANN rejecting .xxx as a top level domain, the ongoing debate over how to filter internet content in public access points, and Rosie's frequent recounting of lesbian sexcapades on The View (so I'm informed anyway).

The porn debate has always centered on the inability of anyone to draw useful boundaries around what it is and isn't. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said, "I know it when I see it." And almost no one disagrees with that, it's just that we all see different things. Reality and perception are not as absolute as many would hope. There's also the porn paradox. Porn is publicly reviled, but privately popular. Even conservative estimates place porn as a $13b/year industry in the comically conservative US. That money's not all coming from teenage boys and guys in trench coats folks.

But what about those who honestly try to practice what they preach. Those who honestly feel that porn is wrong and keep themselves far removed from exposure to any sort of commercial porn whether free, paid, or accidental. They are not hypocrites, right? Here's where I'm not so sure.

I would contend that porn is not so much about nudity and sex, but rather is essentially voyeurism. Watching or reading porn is intruding on the private lives of individuals. It describes or depicts acts which society says should be conducted in private. I'm pretty sure if there were a market for films of people going to the bathroom, those films would be declared pornographic. I think the fact that porn is mostly about sex is because that is what there is a market for. Most people are drawn to sex, where defecation has rather the opposite effect - at least for most of us (I hope).

This leads to the idea that porn is defined along the lines of what is private and what is public. Or perhaps more accurately, along the lines of what should be private and what should be public. I'm not sure this line is any easier to define, but it does provide some fodder for thought.

Let's consider two cases. In one case is a person glued to People magazine and similar news stories. They are gorging on stories of Brittany's slide into her own personal abyss and desperately trying to figure out who fathered Anna Nicole's baby. They know how much weight Kelly Clarkson has gained and they worry whether Katie Holmes is emotionally safe with Tom. In all cases, they are voyeuristically snooping on people's private lives. These may be public people, but these things are not relevant to their public personas.

In the second case is a person buying a Penthouse magazine. The magazine is paid for. The girls depicted in the magazine were all compensated and were fully aware that their photos and stories would be published for all the world to see. All parties have consented to the exposure. They have made conscious decisions to be public.

Which person is viewing pornography? My expectation is that most would say person 2. After all, naked girls in suggestive poses are "bad". But if I asked, who's being violated, Brittany or Miss April? Then I think the answer changes. What about the question, who's the worse role model? That's not nearly so clear cut.

In the end, I suspect Potter Stewart is right. Solid definitions will remain impossible. But I do think that maybe our collective ire over porn is not properly focused. If we want to get our collective mind out of the gutter, I'd be less concerned about the Playboy channel and maybe a little more worried about E! E!'s audience is way bigger. Further, I suspect that a lot of those people decrying porn are quite comfortable browsing a Star at the supermarket checkout.

Jib Jab on The News

This would be funny if it didn't make you cry...

Kids Say the Darndest Things

My nascent teenager was enjoying racing the old man on Playstation NASCAR, mostly because he was kicking my butt. But at least we were doing something together, an increasingly rare event as he gets to "that age". So I take my moments when I can get them, even if they are at my own expense.

As consolation for my mediocre driving, the in-game color commentator provides friendly barbs and jibes as I bounce my car off the guard rails. It's kinda cute, but after you've been called "Sunday drivin' Grandma" a few times, or hear him wonder aloud, "Do you think he knows the car has 4 gears?" it does wear on you a bit. Allegedly, he also makes positive comments as well. I usually hear them only as junior makes a smooth move to zip by the competition. At one point, he cuts to the inside to execute a pass, and the guy says, "He's got savoir faire." But I drove off the road (again) when I heard my boy mumble, "Yup, I've got several pair."

I can only assume he was thinking socks.

Wanted: Just One Acorn for Severely Myopic Squirrel

At times, President Bush's second term has resembled a laboratory test of what happens to a large institution when all mechanisms of accountability are disabled.

The results have not been pretty.

Should We Have Prince Albert(o) In a Can?

Columnist Ruben Navarrette makes the case that Alberto Gonzales should not be canned over the recent US Attorney firings. After all, it wasn't he who was at the root of this. Rather, it was Karl Rove and Kyle Sampson that breached ethics.

On at least one of those cases, I disagree. Karl Rove almost cannot breach ethics by definition. His role is to spin everything to its best political advantage. He is not in an elected or even confirmed position. No one in their right mind thinks his job is to make recommendations in the best interest of the people of the country, the constitution, or even basic human rights and liberties. His job is to secure the future of the Republican party - period. That's where his allegiance lies. And in fairness, he's never asserted otherwise.

It doesn't trouble me that Rove made recommendations to fire US Attorneys for political reasons. However, it does trouble me that anyone listened. Gonzales leads the nation's justice department. The ethical responsibilities of his position and his profession are pretty clear. He should have told Rove to go pound rocks. Similarly, Sampson should have said the same thing. And by Gonzales' own admission, he is accountable. So if Sampson did this on his watch, he still bears responsibility whether he was in the loop or not. Gonzales should step up and take the bullet here. He earned it.

In a similar vein, Harriet Meirs is legal counsel to the President. Again, her professional ethics as a lawyer should have caused her to rally against the co-opting of the justice system for political gain. Minimally, she should be dis-barred.

And while none of this stinks all the way to Bush so far, I'm personally skeptical he was out of the loop. His position's responsibility to uphold the law and the constitution should trump any possible political motivation. So yes, his ethics are in question as well. (So we'll just add that to his list, okay?)

Third Life??

In retrospect, this seems kind of inevitable...

Atheists in the Mist

Well, it's only San Francisco... but it's a start.

Sputtering...

I'm at the point of sputtering. I don't even know where to begin.

The Bush administration has sacrificed yet another chief of staff in an attempt to distance itself from the blatant misuse of it's power. First Scooter Libby for "The Plame Game", then Kyle Sampson for "Who Wants to Be a US attorney?", and both being obvious fall-guys for their bosses.

Further, it's clear that Harriet Meirs, the woman Bush wanted on the Supreme Court, advocated the political firings of all 93 US attorneys. Gonzales asserts that he's "accountable", yet defends that he was in the dark and out of the loop. Excuse me... isn't the whole point of being accountable that you take the responsibility, whether you were aware or not? Doesn't "accountability" include being accountable to be aware??

Meanwhile, Cheney's out reasserting the mythical Iraqi-9/11 connection. Bush is promising the Mexicans that Congress is softening up on their position that Mexicans should live and work in Mexico. And Congress is wasting time offering DOA bills demanding troop withdrawals.

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski may have put it best when he asserted that the challenge for the country now is to merely stay afloat until the 2008 elections when we can sweep every last trace of this administration into the sea.

Pedal Off That Corn Dog

This looks like fun. A pedal powered roller coaster in Japan, complete with a pink basket on the handlebars. But could you really get people to stand in line to do that much work? Probably not in the US.

Why Intelligent People Tend To Be Unhappy

Well, this is just depressing as all hell. Maybe I'll just pop out and shoot myself. But wait, would that be overly egotistical of me to assume that I'm intelligent enough to be depressed enough to commit suicide? But if I wasn't intelligent enough, then would I even think to ask the question?

And you wonder why Hemingway drank...

How Big a Nerd Are You?

TexMex Pluto

Apparently the state of New Mexico, not content with the alien problem it already has, is prepared to address the issue of disenfranchised Plutonians. On Tuesday, the esteemed legislative body will vote on a bill to make Pluto a planet once again while it is passing over New Mexican territory - but only at night. As Davy Barry would say, I am not making this up.

This is undoubtedly good news for my my youngest son, who asserts emphatically that he's on a student visa from Pluto. And based on his delightfully quirky behavior, I haven't ruled it out. And my Sweetness will probably want to move to New Mexico now because in addition to a lack of cold weather, they have good planetary instincts. Inexplicably, she's never quite gotten over the rock's demotion last year.

But the real question is Bill Richardson's position. His Presidential aspirations could hinge on this crucial issue. How big of a pandering patsy is he? And how many countless hours and dollars will be wasted trying to figure out the timetable for exactly when Pluto is a planet? That could take years of deliberation all by itself. I can't help but think that the New Mexico state legislature might be using their constituents' money better by buying themselves flashlights and forming a citizen's border patrol.

The Worst Kept Secret

There's been a lot of hype lately over a book and DVD called "The Secret". If you're unfamiliar, you can read a review here, or look at all the related books/DVDs available on Amazon.

The essence of "The Secret" is essentially the power of positive thought. If you visualize a goal and truly believe in it, you will achieve it. This is not new, but does seem to take the idea a little further than previous issuances of this truism. It extends the idea to material goods and physical happenings. That is, you can visualize a good parking space or a new necklace. It also asserts that this power is some sort of physical law akin to gravity.

It won't surprise any of my readers that the idea of positioning this sophistry as science is more than a little irritating to me. Honestly, the more irritating aspect is that anyone is ignorant enough to even entertain that notion. Nonetheless, I do accept and believe that a positive optimistic outlook does have a way of altering your personal decision patterns in a way that helps you achieve a desired goal. I don't think it makes a new bike magically appear on your doorstep, but there's no doubt that success is most readily achieved by people who believe in themselves.

But I think what surprises me the most is that religious groups are not rallying against this book. After all, the basics of "The Secret" are essentially the same as the practice of praying. The difference is that with prayer the idea is that your god will fulfill your wish. Where with "The Secret" this magical but scientific property of the universe will do so. (May the Force be with you??) Ironically, to my mind, these both operate on the same underlying mental principles. However, for some reason Western culture seems to find the idea of personal responsibility and drawing power from within as abhorrent. We need to externalize that force.

Still, why are fundamentalists not asserting that "The Secret" is usurping the role of prayer? If the fictional Harry Potter was dangerous because people might believe in magic spells, why is the (allegedly) non-fiction Secret not more subversive for asserting that God is no longer required to answer prayers? God has been supplanted by a fundamental property of the universe. It would seem evolution is but a minor annoyance compared to the theological affront presented by "The Secret".

What am I missing?

And This Little Piggy... wellll

This is a strange looking piglet that only its mother could love... and maybe Lauren.