BRAINPAN LEAKAGE

So, here I go with one of those probably not so popular opinions again, but you know how I am, so there you have it…

On with the show…

There I was this morning, working on cup ‘o java number 3 and watching the news. Well, not the news exactly because the local broadcast had officially handed off to the network, so I was watching The Early Show. For me, that particular bit of news/feature programming is preferred over any of the others. It’s really all a matter of personal taste, I suppose, but I happen to think Harry Smith is a real kick in the ass as well as a good reporter. Dave Price is downright funny, and probably the most honest nationally broadcast meteorologist out there. Russ Mitchell is a hell of a newsman too, and on top of that I used to rent movies to him when he was a local anchor and I managed a Video Concepts store at Northwest Plaza, so I also happen to know he’s a hell of a nice guy – or he was back then, anyway. If that weren’t enough, there’s Maggie Rodriguez and Julie Chen. Very good interviewers who also happen to be a visual bright spot in my day, if you get my meaning… But, that’s another story I suppose.

Anyway, back to the impending opinion. As I sat watching this chosen bit of media, I was greeted with a story about Facebook. Yes, I realize that is probably a dirty word around here, what with this being my Myspace blog and all, but hey, they exist. No two ways about it. And, as it happens my publicists insist that I have a page there too, so I do. But, I digress. You see, it seems that Facebook has had the unmitigated gall (in some folks opinions) to remove from their site, pictures of women breastfeeding. Not ALL of the pictures mind you. Just the pictures that show an entire breast being bared.

Now, if you look at the terms of use agreement – that’s the little thing you are supposed to actually READ before clicking “yes I agree” – it would appear that legally, Facebook has every right to remove these pictures as they are, in point of fact, a violation of their content policy. So, no harm done. No foul. It should be all good.

But no, apparently there are a bunch of people up in arms about it. All good too. Disagree if you want, just remember that it doesn’t mean Facebook has to listen.

So anyway, The Early Show had a couple of folks on this morning to “debate” this issue. Well, I’m all for healthy debate so I watched. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. You see, it seems that the debate was really no more than a couple of folks with some creds (the kind which would mean virtually nothing to your average Joe on the street under any other circumstances) spouting why Facebook is “wrong” by removing these images. Okay, so not much of a debate where debates are concerned…(as we know, an actual debate requires that both sides of an issue be represented) But, that really isn’t my point here. (Yeah, you know me and my tangents…) What is my point, however, is the fact that these “debaters” seemed to be missing the overall picture here. Kind of a “can’t see the forest for the trees” thing. Move that big rock sticking out of the ground so I can see the mountain. Can’t see the sunset because of that big ball of fire in the sky.

Get what I’m saying? Good.

To boil it down, they more or less based their case on a few convoluted points, which on the surface were sound, but in the grand scheme of things left out the real questions behind the issue. And, in one instance, the “point” didn’t even make sense (at least to me it didn’t).

In short, here is what they had to say, and more importantly, where it got kind of weird – in my eyes, anyway:

1) Apparently the estimated 1.4 million folks who have Facebook pages “feel” that they OWN Facebook.

2) We cannot allow the opinions of a few to dictate the morals of the masses.

and

3) Breastfeeding is a natural act.

Yo’kay…

Number One: Let’s start with the fact that they might want to make that estimate 1.4 million MINUS one, because I know for a fact that I do NOT own Facebook. I have never paid their light bill. I have never maintained one of their servers. I haven’t swept their floors. In fact, I have never even been to their offices. All I have is a page on their server. That’s it. What’s more is that it is a page – storage space and bandwidth – they provide to me, free of charge. Free. I don’t pay anything for it. Nada. Nothing. I am getting to play in THEIR sandbox on a complimentary ticket. Sure, they make money by tossing web ads at me, but hey, they have to make money somehow… If they didn’t there wouldn’t be a sandbox for me to play in… for free. By the way, Myspace does the same thing – free page, toss ads at you. Oh, and just so everyone is aware, I don’t own them either. I’m also pretty sure that unless you own stock in the parent company, those of you with a page here are in the same boat with me. We use their service. We don’t own it. It ain’t rocket science.

Now, I will give you that these 1.4 million deluded souls may think they “own” Facebook because they feel they created the content. But, here is the fundamental flaw in that thinking – your content doesn’t appeal to the masses. Just to your little social clique, and not even all of them. This is also not to mention that just because you have eleventybillion friends on Facebook or Myspace, doesn’t mean they look at your page on a regular basis. Here’s a newsflash and y’all may hate me for this but guess what? Of my “Myspace Friends” there are only around a dozen whose pages I have visited more than once. You see, I actually have a life and stuff, as I am sure 99.9% of the rest of you do… So, give me a break. The folks who created, finance, and maintain Facebook own Facebook. Not 1.4 million souls using it as free hosting for their personal webpage.

Hence, Facebook makes the rules, you follow them when you are there. That simple.

Number Two: Anyone reading this ever hear of the FCC? We are already letting a handful of folks dictate morals to the masses – but, be that as it may, let’s get real – Facebook isn’t dictating any morals. They are saying, “my sandbox, my rules.” It’s really that simple. I know… Friggin’ amazing, isn’t it?

The “debater” bringing up this particular point went on to say something about Facebook being caught in the middle between the few people who complained about the images and the gazillion people who protested them being removed. He said that if anyone can complain about anything, then everything becomes taboo. Well, not really. That only happens if you listen to the complaint and act on it. He may have a PhD that I don’t, but hey, sometimes you need to cut the crap with the Piled High & Deep and just use a bit of common sense.

Now, yes, I will admit that the listening to and acting on the complaint of a small group was probably the point he was trying to make about Facebook, but honestly, it doesn’t look like that is what happened to me. It looks like someone violated the rules and someone pointed it out. Kind of like, “Hello, police department? There’s someone cooking up meth in the garage across the street.” Yeah, I know, that example is a bit extreme, but you get the idea.

Let’s look at this logically – If I have 5 people complaining about something, and 100 people complaining about the folks who are complaining, and I am trying to run a business, I am going to make the 100 people happy. The five people aren’t paying my bills. The 100 people are. There is a rule in the business world of which some folks are not aware and it is this – sometimes your best course of action is to not try to please a customer who is costing you money. You cut them loose. Send them somewhere else. So, why would Facebook kowtow to a small group? It’s not really likely that they would. They are simply enforcing rules that were already in place to begin with… Were they maybe a bit lacking in enforcing them before the issue was called to their attention. Who knows? With 1.4 million pages, that’s a lot of real estate to police. Perhaps they just hadn’t gotten to it yet, but eventually would have. That is why, just like our local police, they depend on the citizens of the community be vigilant.

Now, do I think the people reporting this infraction are a bunch of idiots who have nothing better to do than screw with other folks? Yeah, pretty much. But, that’s not the point. Whether we like tattletales or not, the rules were broken and action was taken. ‘Nuff said.

Number Three: You are correct. Breastfeeding is, in point of fact, a natural act. It is healthy for the baby, healthy for the momma, and an all around great idea. Hell, my wife breastfed our daughter for the first 18 months. I highly recommend it (no dads, it won’t get you out of those midnight feedings – they have these pump things and human breast milk refrigerates and even freezes just fine… But, you want a healthy kid, right?)

But, guess what? Taking a big ol’ nasty crap is a natural act too. Bowel movements happen. Poop there it is. Everybody poops. I could go on, but I won’t…

Now, I am sure that at least one person is out there saying, “But, Murv, you’re comparing apples to oranges.”

Am I?

Granted, taking a dump isn’t quite the same as breastfeeding a baby, but using the argument, “it’s a natural act” doesn’t fly. Just because it is a “natural act” doesn’t mean it is necessary to display it.

That particular debater also went on to ADAMANTLY qualify her statement with,. “It’s a natural act. It’s not sexual.”

Did I miss a memo? Last time I checked sex was considered a natural act too. So how does that play into this whole equation?

Okay… So before anyone gets up in arms about anything, let me just say this – Y’all know me – or at least my blogs. You know that I am all about free speech. I will defend to the death a persons right to free speech. I have already made it clear that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever seeing images of a woman breastfeeding. Sex is good too. I’m not really all about the images of someone taking a dump, but hey, if that’s your thing more power to you.

But, here’s the thing… Freedom of speech is NOT what most people seem to think it is. It does NOT mean that you get to say whatever you want, to whomever you want, whenever you want. It does NOT mean that you get to display whatever you want, to whomever you want, wherever you want.

Freedom of speech protects your right to believe what you want to believe, and to disagree with others, AND more importantly disagree with your government.

It does NOT guarantee you that anyone has to listen, or that you don’t have to obey the rules. It simply means that you cannot be punished (i.e. incarcerated, beaten, tortured, or otherwise jailed) for dissenting in an orderly and peaceful fashion. By that same token, it also does NOT guarantee you that if you call someone a big doody head that they won’t punch you in the nose. Yeah, punching you in the nose was wrong, but guess what? Freedom of speech cannot protect you from an individual you just insulted. To put it simply, the first amendment does NOT grant anyone the right to be an asshole.

Okay, back to the boob thing…

Facebook made some rules. You had to agree with them in order to set up your page. If you didn’t bother to read them before clicking the “I agree” button, well bad on YOU, not them.

Now, they are enforcing those rules. So what?

Buy a vowel. They have every right to do so. If you are so dead set on displaying pictures of you breastfeeding your kid, no one said you couldn’t. They just said that you couldn’t in THEIR SANDBOX. You are NOT entitled to make them bend to your will. If they were in some way truly discriminating against you, adversely affecting you, creating undue hardship on you, or even making funny faces at you and saying nanny-nanny-boo-boo, I would have a different take on the whole situation. But they aren’t. This is NOT the federal government – or anyone else for that matter – restricting your freedoms. This is a private company with rules telling you that you can’t break them while you are using their service (for FREE mind you).

It’s no different than going to grandma’s house and not putting your feet on the furniture. Her house. Her rules. You follow them.

Oh, and by the way… To the debater who said breastfeeding isn’t sexual – basically you are correct from a purely clinical standpoint. But, you are dealing with individuals here and not everyone shares that opinion. You might try looking up galactophilia – it is a fetish centering on lactating women. All of a sudden, for a particular segment of the population who harbor this paraphilia, the images DO become sexual.

But, as can often happen, even I have gone a bit off track… The real question in my mind is this:

Why is it so important that you display to the world a picture of your bare breast with a baby attached to it? Once you are done breastfeeding do you plan to show us pictures of your breasts just for the hell of it? I mean, we’d get a clearer look at them if the baby wasn’t in the way. Or, if you are just trying to show us the baby then don’t you think we’d get a better look if the boob wasn’t obscuring his/her face? Do you plan to show us 57 pictures of junior having strained peas shoved into his face? How about when he/she pukes up the mashed banana all over the dog?

Again, I want to reiterate, I don’t find pictures of women breastfeeding to be offensive at all. I don’t find them embarrassing. And, I don’t find them to be a turn on either. But, I think this whole “you have to let me do what I want even though it violates your rules” thing is all a bit silly.

In my mind, the fact that boobs are at the center of it could be said even if it wasn’t…well…all about boobs.

More to come…

Murv

Whoever has it, stick the damn thing in and let’s get this holiday stuff over with…

Yeah, I’m obviously a bit of a curmudgeon about this whole festive holiday season thing. Those of you who know me, or have been following my blogs for several years know that I haven’t always been this way. But, without going into a  long explanation, losing your parents near the holidays – too early in life and at separate times – doesn’t really endear you to Christmas, et. al.

It actually has a bit of a damping effect. But, like I said, I’m not going to go into that realm of loss, S.A.D., and all that other stuff. I’ve had my joyous and warm fun with friends and family for this season.

It’s time to move on, so I’m still looking for the gorram fork.

Of course, I am sure you are wondering what prompted me to look for the sharp tined instrument at this particular moment… Well, you see, it’s like this – I have been wracking my brain to figure out why it is we, as a society, find “comfort” in watching back to back sappy, horribly written and acted, Hallmark™  movies during the holidays…

You see, they all pretty much start out the same way. Someone is DEAD. Usually, it is a parent – mom or dad, flip a coin – but on rare occasion it is an offspring who went off to fight in Desert Storm or whatever conflict is happening at the time of the writing  – Speaking of writing, given the poor dialogue offered up in these flicks, I am thinking that writing might be too kind a word for it. But, describing it as writing sounds better than the more accurate “vomiting”.

At any rate, we always start with someone being dead. They either died last week, or 5 years ago. Span of time isn’t really important, because no matter when it was they croaked the holidays have arrived and the pain of loss has resurfaced. (I will make a concession here – This is probably the only accurate part of the movies because I can certainly relate to it)… However, from this point the rest of the overused formula kicks in, and it ain’t E=mc²…

It susses out more like this (please excuse the lack of proper notation… this blog interface is severely lacking in symbols):

Person(dead) / grief (x * y)² {[runaway] – (ghost) – {hospital} – (prison/jail)} / (love at first sight + implied sex / argument) * make up kiss / k(k²) + [food] = z

Solve for z, where x and y equal assorted male and female characters in unrequited love, self-imposed celibacy of mourning scenarios and k equals children, usually on one side of the impending relationship, but sometimes on both (hence k²)…

Well, I won’t make you get out a pencil and paper. Z always equals a happy ending. The male and female characters end up in an instant relationship – one which it is implied will stand the test of time because obviously they were meant to be together even though they had sworn an oath that they would dry up and blow away since their respective significant others met their demise via A) a car wreck B) cancer C) plane crash D) war E) all of the above.

On top of that we always have the fact that someone miraculously survives something (disease, accident, mishap), is miraculously cleared of charges for something they didn’t do, a runaway is found, or in some events the dead person comes back as a ghost for a short period of time to provide closure. Along with this the children involved are all about the new significant others, and in most cases were working behind the scenes to bring them together in the first place.

And, in the end, there is money to pay the mortgage that could never be paid, a turkey/ham on the table, gifts under the tree, implied sex, candy canes, lingerie, trips to Cancun, toys, more kids on the way, a new lease for the orphanage, a job offer, marriage, general happiness, the “bad guy” grows a heart ala “A Christmas Carol” and all manner of  sickly sweet, sugar infused woodja, woodja, woodja ad nauseum…

But, the best part is…wait for it… wait for it…It all comes together on Christmas Eve/Day…

I won’t even begin to go into the lack of research which creates glaring continuity errors, procedural errors, suspension of disbelief errors ( I mean, if you are going to ask me to suspend disbelief – which ALL of these flicks do – then make me believe enough of it that when you jump the shark I can say, “Okay, self, I’m willing to buy that in the context of this movie…)

But, you know, even though I have rambled on about the sheer stupidity of these formulaic wastes of celluloid/airwaves/cable bandwidth, we have to return to the original question – Why do we take comfort in watching these things back to back during the holidays? Yes, they show non-holiday versions at other times of the year, but when the Christmas season arrives they become constant… And, we sit in front of the tube, sipping Bailey’s ™, and watching this drivel like some kind of emotionally bankrupt zombies looking for a charge of said emotions…

Well… I have a theory.

These are the equivalent of a 50 cent roller coaster ride. We start out on a downer, climb to a high point, fear for the cardboard characters, then end in a crescendo of euphoria. Why? Because the cardboard cutouts started out in worse shape than us, then dealt with even more crap, but in the end, it all came together. Magically. Without the aid of epoxy, duct tape, or staples. It just all worked out, and after all, isn’t that what we each want? It’s not the greatest roller coaster around, but it fits in our living room and we can ride it over and over again for effect…

So, what do you think? Decent enough theory?

Of course, my other working hypothesis is that they are all just a big conspiracy by the facial/nose tissue conglomerates to make us buy more Kleenex.

More to come…

Murv