Watching a Car Crash; News and Entertainment in America

The past few weeks actor Charlie Sheen has had considerable media attention. His life seems to be imploding in front of everyone. What we're seeing, I believe, is a slow overdose. While he certainly seems to have lost his grip, what I can't understand, for the life of me, why is this being covered in the news? Wednesday morning the Today Show led its first hour not with Libyan unrest, soaring fuel and grocery prices, public employees on strike, but with a Charlie Sheen update. Later in the the show they had a live interview with the troubled actor. All of this is, of course, under the guise of "news." Would David Brinkley or John Chancellor have interviewed Charlie Sheen? Clearly, it sells, and someone is buying. Are the "journalists" hoping he'll light a rock of crack cocaine during the interview, die, or at least continue his bombast?

Why anyone would be shocked at Sheen's crackup is beyond me. I first remember him from the movie, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, in 1985-his character was in jail for drugs. Then, Platoon, in 1986, smoking dope through the barrel of his M16 rifle. In real life, during this time, he had several run-ins with the law due to drugs. While married to model and actress Denise Richards he cuffed her up a few times all while continuing his drug and alcohol use. Now, he is living in a seedy open living arrangement with a female porn star and another woman, or women, and really hitting the drugs, even describing his use and his highs in recent interviews. Having watched a couple episodes of his popular CBS show, Two and 1/2 Men, clearly, he isn't acting now and never has, except only to gear back a bit from his real life for TV. His real life can't even be shown on late night TV.

What's amazing is that I've heard a few religious conservative acquaintances wonder what's wrong with him and that it's a shame because, "his show is hilarious." Really? A show that portrays drunken promiscuity, encourages a minor to experiment sexually, devalues sobriety and purity is hilarious? Why, then, aren't they laughing at his real life? Yea, what's going on with him right now is a real hootenanny! Truth be told, it has never been funny; not on 2 and 1/2 Men, or in his real life. He has left a trail of waste and pain behind him.

Get some help Charlie. As for the media, avert your cameras from this disaster.

I'm a non-attorney spokesperson

The Supreme Court of the US voted 8-1 this week in favor of allowing the folks of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to continue their protests at military funerals. Members of Westboro believe that somehow or another a military death is a pronouncement by God on America's acceptance of homosexuality. This is the church whose web address is www.godhatesfags.com. This SC decision has met with quite a dust-up from "conservatives." While I completely disagree with what WBC is doing, the SCOTUS made the correct decision. Conservatives seem to approach this with the argument that this is hurtful and offensive speech, correctly so. The protests are abominable, insensitive, and stupid. However, that is exactly the type of thing that is protected under the right to free speech and to assemble. Many conservatives feel the SC should have made what is often considered a "politically correct decision." Ah, the knife has two edges. It is also interesting that these conservatives would vehemently support a groups' right to protest an abortion clinic or the home of a sexual predator. Do we realize that someone on the other side surely is offended by these protests as well? Should we rely on the SCOTUS to determine which offensive speech is allowed and which isn't? If we're going to do it this way could we start by limiting Michael Moore? Already, in this country, there are pastors who have had legal brushes because they called homosexuality sin from the pulpit. The day is already here when having certain beliefs and sharing them can get you in legal trouble. A Christian can witness in an effort to convert a non-Christian and it may offend someone (Christ himself said that He would be an offense to some.). However, isn't this protected by the first amendment? It is supposed to be. The only valid legal argument I see for the plaintiff and dissenting opinion in this case is if WBC is protesting a private ceremony or service. No one has the right to invade a private ceremony on private land, e.g. a church otherwise privately, owned cemetery.

Already the SCOTUS limits religious freedoms. Polygamy is not allowed at all even as a religious practice. Navajo indians are not allowed to ingest hallucinogenic peyote as a part of their religious practice. Practitioners of Santeria are not allowed to sacrifice animals. Some Holiness groups have been banned from handling poisonous snakes as part of their religious services. It seems that the SC has already, in these instances, at least by their decisions inferred an invalidity to certain religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, Old Testament Judaism would not be protected in America.