That Confusing Morality Thing

The smarter they think they are, the more they don't get it.

Frank Rich, arts columnist for the NYTimes, thinks he's a pretty bright guy, so he writes things like this for all the world to wonder at:

This repressive cultural environment was officially ratified on Nov. 2, when Ms. Jackson's breast pulled off its greatest coup of all: the re-election of President Bush. Or so it was decreed by the media horde that retroactively declared "moral values" the campaign's decisive issue and the Super Bowl the blue states' Waterloo. The political bosses of "family" organizations, well aware that TV's collective wisdom becomes reality whether true or not, have been emboldened ever since. They are spending their political capital like drunken sailors, redoubling their demands that the Bush administration marginalize gay people, stamp out sex education [no, it's about not using pubilc funding to actively mis-educate about, and promote, the homosexual lifestyle] and turn pop culture into a continuous loop of "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."

Lost on Rich is any concession that the media might have gone too far, and that efforts to pull it back from the edge is not only good, it's broadly supported. Instead, Rich simply chronicles a list of actions that disgust him:

• Cancelling a children's show episode that glorified a lesbian couple
• Cleaning up profanity on Masterpiece Theatre
• Cutting nudity from a PBS movie
• Dropping an ad that showed Mickey Rooney's 84-year-old backside.
  

That there is even controversy over edits like this is ludicrous, especially since all but the last bullet above involved shows that air on PBS, where taxpayer dollars are used. Instead of blaming this on Republicans and Christian Conservatives, why can't Rich place the blame where it's due -- on the perpretrators of bad taste, not on those who never asked for the job of having to defend against this tasteless foolishness?

Rich also rails against the Bush administration for not being wholly pro-gay just because Mary Chenney is gay. Why? Is his message that just because you know someone who sins, you need to accept the sin? I wonder, does he know any axe murderers? What Rich sees in the Bush Administration, but doesn't understand, is that you can hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Rich also cites a NYTimes article that finds "there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse." It must be fun working for the NYTimes because you can make up facts. Here are the actual facts, from Senate testimony:

There has recently been an attempt to demonstrate that raising children in a same-sex household has no ill effect. These studies are few in number, none have ever looked at those areas where difficulties would be expected and one of the most repeatedly cited researchers was excoriated by the court for her testimony when she refused to turn over her research notes to the court even at the urging of the ACLU attorneys for whom she was testifying. What is known, from decades of research on family structure, studying literally thousands of children, is that every departure from the traditional, stable, mother-father family has severe detrimental effects upon children; and these effects persist not only into adulthood but into the next generation as well.

Fortunately Rich was foolish enough to throw out a test for evaluating whether his point of view or the conservative point of view reflected America's view:

Should Sunday's Super Bowl falter in the ratings, its creators will lure that missing audience back next year with wardrobe malfunctions that haven't even been invented yet.

That should be an easy test. And even if the viewership dropped for some reason, the lack of outrage following Paul McCartney's performance stands as testimony that America likes the way Bush is taking it, not the way Rich would take it.