Janet Jackson vs. Super Bowl Streaker

[Tonio]

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/r_style_demoraes020504.htm

Rockville, Md.: Wouls someone please explain to me why there will be a federal investigation into Janet Jackson's "exposure" and not into the fact that an uncleared person was on the Super Bowl field (the streaker)? The Super Bowl should have been one of the most sucured sites in the country at that time. What if the streaker wasn't a streaker, but someone that was out to do real harm (i.e., a terrorist)? Can we get our priorities straight here?

Lisa de Moraes: um... because the federal government is run by men and men are obsessed with breasts? That's my theory. I like it a lot..

 

[itsbob]

Streaker was unarmed... what should they have detected?? Metal goes ding.. he didn't have any dingables!

 

[RoseRed]

Originally posted by itsbob
he didn't have any dingables!

I thought those were in his thong :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

I am getting just about fed up with all the moral relevancy going on with this Janet Jackson thing. And I'm getting fed up with people who say, "It's just a boob." What's it "just" going to be next time?

I didn't even see the streaker. They put a still scoreboard on the screen the second that guy came out. All cameras (and eyes) were trained on JJ and whats-his-face's performance - you couldn't MISS the boob.

It was "just" sex. It was "just" a land deal gone bad. It was "just" some FBI files. This is what Clinton taught America - that if you can reduce people down to the least common denominator, and tell those who object that they're being prudes, everything is "just".

 

[Tonio]

For what it's worth, I only started this thread because I thought the "theory" was funny as hell.

 

[jlabsher]

So Vrai, it's all Clinton's fault.?!?

Wow, at least his administration accomplished something.