A Break for Sanity

I write to keep myself from banging my head against the wall. The urge was strong today.

As a member of the liberal elite media (or so I suppose I'll be branded somewhere), here's a little bit of free advice:

If there's something in today's 24-hour, oversaturated pop culture media environment that you don't like, find offensive or think isn't funny, ignore it. It will go away.

Don't get overly angry about it. Don't protest it. And for the love of Pete, don't censor it. All your anger and outrage is going to do is draw even more attention to the thing you find offensive ... and even more eyeballs that will disagree with you.

Don't believe me? How many people would've known about the Kevin Smith movie "Dogma" (besides his ardent fans) without the outrage from Catholic groups? How much extra interest did "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ" get because of protests and cries for censorship?

The new target is "Doonesbury." The Pulitzer Prize-winning comic strip is spending its week looking at women's rights and the Texas law that now requires sonogram be performed, which -- at that early stage, usually means a vaginal wand to produce an image.

The strips have caused an uproar, as some newspapers decided not to run it. In some cases, they cited the content. They cite some of the language (which includes such phrases as "shaming room," "10-inch shaming wand" and Rush Limbaugh's favorite, "slut"). And, of course, they cite that the comedy wasn't in good taste in discussing such a serious issue.

Which has only given professional satirist Garry Trudeau a broader audience.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's in the best practice for all of us to know as much as what's going on in the world as we can. Censoring opinions is not going to help anyone, whether you agree with it or not. You don't like it? Say your peace and move along.

Speaking of women's health care and choice ... "Nightline" ran a feature Monday night that boggles the mind.

Preventative aging treatments, and the increasing amount of younger women wanting to remain young.

At what point in our existence did it become OK to have poison injected in their body to look younger, but didn't have the right to choose whether or not to have another medically safe procedure?

The point of the story was not that argument, but the fact that more and more people in their 20s are doing it.

And not just Botox, either. Some are turning to the new (and expensive) treatment called thermage, which costs $3,500 for a whole face.

Having spent part of the week away at the Loma Linda Children's Hospital Foundation gala, the thought of someone spending $3,500 on themselves, just to make themselves look younger, boggles the mind. That $3,500 (per treatment) could serve so many other people in this world.

But, whatever. It's your money. If you've got that much to throw around to buy yourself a "look," I guess you have your priorities straight.

Speaking of money well spent ... It warmed my heart to hear the story about a business donating money that helped save a Southern California Little League program.

But, where many people saw a great thing, there were people crying foul (probably the same people spending $3,500 on cosmetic procedures), because the money came from a strip club.

And the problem with that was, what? Dirty money? Promoting smut? What?

All of a sudden we're attaching morality clauses to charity? Why can't the same scrutiny be placed on funding for other ventures?

The money is there, and the business owner thought enough of the children in the area to keep them on the baseball field.

So, play ball kids of Lennox Little League. Before the morality police tells you that you can't play because the money came from the strippers.