news of the absurd

Submitted by Cat on Tue, 2007-09-18 05:22

NPR Morning Edition doesn't start up until 5am and since I'm up at 4am, well I have to get my news fix somewhere.  Tomorrow morning I'll think twice before tuning my television to CNN Headline News. Here's why:

Apparently, Sally Field made some controversial comments when accepting her Emmy.  In response, the FOX network turned off her mike.  I take back everything I said before, FOX isn't biased.  Big surprise, the ommitted comments were against war. (BTW: they weren't against this war specifically, but against war in general.  Now that's crazy-talk.)  So, here's what Sally said that caused FOX to get their panties in a bunch:
"If mother's ruled the world there would be no goddamned wars in the first place."
On CNNH the text of the above looks a bit different, instead of "goddamned"  they have "God Damned" which is a spelling of the above that I've never seen.  Unsurprisingly the mikes were cut at "goddamned."  The CNNH discussion of her comment included the opinion of commentator, Glenn Beck.
Here's the inane response:
"Is this kind of sexist to say if the world was ruled by mothers there'd be no wars in the world?  I mean, isn't that kind of like saying if the houses were run by men there'd be no potpourri in any house?  What is that statement?"
Funny, I had the same question about your comment.  War and potpourri.  Well, it's an obvious analogy if you ask me. And of course there's nothing inherently sexist in those comments. (Of course, in this guy's defense, he seems to be an enormous idiot.)
Truthfully, while I agree with Fields' anti-war sentiment, I don't agree with her assertion that there would be no wars if mothers ruled the world.  It's a bit too essentialist for me.  But, I'm pretty sure that there's a constitutional ammendment that allows Fields to say what she believes even if it isn't what I believe.  So, here's a question to consider: if Fields had been expressing pro-war sentiments, would her mike have been cut? Because of FCC regulations the expletive would have been bleeped, but completely censored?   
Oh, and an aside to the critics of those who express anti-war sentiments:  Being anti-war does not make us unpatriotic and yes, it is possible to support the troops and not support this war.  In fact, I would argue that those of us who don't support the war are more supportive of the troop; we don't support unnecessary military action that places them in harms way.  My problem is not with me country; it's with the