agreed....that was weak

What's next, Maher commenting about how much guy's like football while women love shopping?

I keep hearing about some woman named Paris. Apparently every little thing she does is important to a lot of people. But she has never actually created anything or done anything entertaining or useful (reality shows don't count).

It used to be I'd see a headline on a gossip rag at the supermarket. But for some reason, the "legitimate" press started covering her too. I am not sure when this happened or why, but it probably has to do with their shrinking profit margins and herd-like mentality.

I turned on CNN today. There were two major stories being reported. One had something to do with animals being hunted in South Africa. They showed lions and other animals being shot, jumping around confused, and then finally falling down in a sad furry pile. The other CNN station (there are 2...both full of crap!) had non-stop Paris coverage. I think Nancy Grace was involved.

Those are your choices: Watch animals die, or watch Paris cry.

There are certain things that movies cannot address without ruining their chances to make money. One of them is abortion. If the word "abortion" is associated with your film, you'd better be aiming toward the indie market or some DVD genre niche.

There are 3 ways for a filmmaker to deal with abortion:

(1) Clearly pro-choice. Poof, there goes 1/2 your audience. Bye bye audience.

(2) Clearly pro-life. Poof, there goes a different 1/2 of your audience. Bye bye audience.

(3) Taking no particular stand. Poof, you just pissed off both sides. Or confused them.

Case in point: Alexander Payne's film "Citizen Ruth," from around 1997 (I think). This is the only film Payne has made that has not made oodles of money. Its lead actress, Laura Dern, should have won an Oscar for her insanely great performance, but nobody saw the film. Why? Because it's about two sides of an abortion battle, who each seize on a paint-huffing loser's unwanted pregnancy as a focal point for their respective causes.

Average Joe Filmgoer: "Hey, wanna see 'Citizen Ruth'?"

Average Joe Filmmgoer's friend: "What's it about?"

Average Joe Filmgoer: "Something to do with abortion. Apparently it's a comedy."

Average Joe Filmgoer's friend: "Ummmm....let's see Ace Ventura Pet Detective 4: Which Pup Pooped? instead!"

It didn't used to be this way. In the 1980s all sorts of films were dealing with unpleasant topics. As somebody noted, "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" involved an abortion (a scene that was handled well -- neither preachy nor completely lightheartedly, just as it might really happen).

Note also that there's an episode of the TV sitcom "Three's Company" that revolves around an abortion misunderstanding. Krissy (Suzanne Sommers) has a wart on her hand, and talks to her roommates about having it removed. Mr. Roper (or is it Furley?) hears the conversation through a door, and thinks they're talking about terminating a pregnancy. The confusing goes on and on until the craaaaazy ending.

In the 1970s and part of the 1980s, films had more guts. People suffered real consequences for their sexual hook-ups. People got veneral diseases. Show me one movie in the 2000's about young people that directly addresses that HPV and herpes are a fact of life for over 50% of sexually active adults. Show me one major movie in the 2000's where a character ends up getting an abortion.

Even homosexuality is a much more grave subject than it used to be. In the 1980s gay characters were no big deal. "Revenge of the Nerds" had a gay nerd who hung out with the only child nerd, and nobody really made an issue of it, because it was a comedy or something. Nowadays if you have a movie about gays, it has to be all important and emblematic like "Brokeback Mountain," where the characters suffer and are misunderstood and confused the whole time.

So in sum: Abortion, venereal disease, unusual sexuality, and anything else "weird" must be hush-hush in a movie world where commerce completely trumps art, and where a nation of infantile, overly sensitive audiences, who demand "family" films at the same time they gladly overlook the mass slaughter of Iraq families in the name of U.S. political interests, force their strident yet inconsistent set of ever-shifting non-principles on the increasingly desperate media.