I typically shy away from watching American Idol. I find watching peoples hopes dashed by 'judges' akin to watching humans flayed by gladiators to the amusement of the dullard populace. Parenthetically, I wonder how the objectively questionable voices of legends: Louis Armstrong, Neil Young, Bob Dylan or Robert Plant would survive the scrutiny of the bastions of talent assessment found in judges: Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul. Paula Abdul. My automatic grammar checker is telling me that the sentence "Paula Abdul." on its own is a sentence fragment; I couldn't disagree with it more in this context. In fact, I find it to be a full paragraph.
While I find the show irksome, mustering the power to 'turn the other cheek' is about as hard as turning to another channel and as such, I haven't, until recently, paid it much mind. However, when this show chose to wax moral, I perked up my ears because when a Fox Network program discusses morals, this is bound to be something I want to tune into. (Words fail to express the sarcasm of the previous sentence.) The Fox Network is the same network which brought you the tasteful tidbit "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and is the official station of George W. Bush and his war to eradicate weapons of mass destruction. (In a strange twist of fate, the largest [and only] weapon of mass destruction after the year 2000 in Iraq turned out to be George W. Bush himself.) This is the network that sought to sanction contestant Antonella Barba on American Idol after it was revealed she had some scandalous photographs found on the internet. Barba was voted off the show, but it was her voice that was cited as the final cause. Nonetheless, American Idol has previously removed a contestant "Frenchie" after pictures surfaced of her on an adult pay site.
A Google search of either girl will reveal an onslaught of the related pictures as well as 50 pop up adds suggesting you need a larger penis, methods for fixing the problem and several contests you've won which should provide funds for any such programs. After closing the fog of pop ups, the pictures that emerged were at best Maxim or FHM worthy. To those not versed in the realm, Maxim and FHM are to Playboy and Penthouse as light-filtered-cigarettes are to cigars. My initial reaction to the pictures was flaccid causing me to momentarily rethink closing all the previous pop ups. After that moment I realized that I was unimpressed because it was clear to me that these pictures had absolutely nothing to do with the talent of the contestants. For the record, Frenchie has moved on to a promising career on Broadway. Instead, these pictures had everything to do with our confused morals.
Some will immediately protest: "the show is called American IDOL" -- emphasis on 'idol' -- and hence part of the criteria must be if such people are worthy of being idols. As soon as we open this can of worms, it's necessary for American Idol to somehow consider the morals of the contestants. Morals and ethics are complicated and I'm certain that the Fox Network lacks the acumen to address the issue. In fact, I find it very hard to determine if it was revealed that Barba mutilated puppies would it have received more or less press and attention? I hear the conservative drone say: "the children, the poor children, whatever will we do if they see those pictures?!" To such parents, I point out that what would happen to children if children watch the evening news? I will attend that point momentarily.
Only in such a state of moral asymmetry could we even begin to ask these sorts of questions. Let's look at the issue. Pornography: bad, good, neither, both? Dr Phil's 'Occam's Razor' style argument on the topic goes like this: If you wouldn't want your daughter involved in porn, then why would you watch someone elses' daughter? Dr Phil, President Bush and the Fox Network are experts at providing short answers to complicated questions that sound reasonable and under scrutiny turn out to be faulty. At the risk of being guilty of the same thing I accuse Dr. Phil, the short answer to Dr. Phil is: I don't want my daughter to be a sanitation maintenance engineer (the politically correct term for garbage man/woman) but that doesn't stop me from taking my trash to the curb. However, let's take a deeper look at the issue, and to do so, we'll restrict the general porn issue to examining going topless at a beach. If anyone reading the rest of this article derives that I carte blanche advocate pornography, I invite them to reread the previous sentence.
(An unremembered comedian [likely Bill Maher or Robin Williams] once quipped that to, the overly simplified criminal justice mantra, "three strikes and you're out" is the answer to gays in the military "four balls and you walk"?)
I'd like to ask Dr. Phil if he'd let his daughter go topless on a beach. I suspect strongly that he'd say no. Then I'd like to ask him if he'd let his daughter go topless on a beach in Brazil where the practice is commonplace (certainly more common place) and considered about as common as walking around in a bikini. I suspect he'd still say no, but the question would have got him thinking (and hopefully you as well). People will hem and haw over this point but that's only because we're dealing with the cusp of what's currently considered 'ok'. Then I'd ask him if he'd let his daughter wear one piece swim suit (not a bikini). I suspect he'd say yes. Then I'd finally ask him, if he lived in the 1800's (when woman swam in the equivalent of a 'Burka') would he also let her wear a one piece swim suit? I'd like very much to hear his answer. Whether he says yes or no, he'd be forced to admit that his 'morals' have more to do with the time (society) he lives in than what is actually 'right or wrong'. Star Wars got it right when George Bush gawks: "You're either with us or against us" and Obe Wan Kenobi replies: "only the Sith believe in absolutes." It's my personal belief that the 'Sith' is a code for George Bush and the conservative lot (Sith = Simple Ignorant THeists).
Thus, questions of moral propriety are very hard questions to answer, and I sure as hell don't want the Fox Network to even make the attempt. The question of where this moral confusion arose in the first place begs answering. I can only offer an answer in a form of an allegory of two presidents. First we have a story of an otherwise good president who had sex in the oval office; He was impeached. Next we have a story of a president who didn't have sex in the oval office and sent a nation to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist. This president who sent thousands to their deaths for no reason at all was, was... was... Oh, nothing happened to him.
The take home message of all this confusion is that morals are hard. You're going to have to turn off the TV and think about them if you want to have a chance of getting them right. In turn, the only take home message one can glean about the state of American morals from all this is that Americans are fine with boobs only so long as one doesn't post pictures of them on the internet and instead elects them to office.
