I'm trying to be amused rather than appalled over the people who are getting angrily defensive over the "attack" on their humor. I'm impressed by Connick's diplomacy. He expresses himself without attacking others. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume there was no intent for the act to be as offensive as it was to some people... myself included.

I'm old enough to remember when bigoted attitudes toward racism, sexism, religious bigotry, sexuality etc were much more generally "accepted". If people didn't like the offensiveness, they were welcome to leave. That was the extent of it. Do I think we've come a long way since then? Yes. But not everyone, and not all to the same extent. I'm thinking the sensibility of the defenders of this act, is similar to the view of my parents and grandparents generations, who thought lampooning "otherness" was a hoot but were neurotic and defensive whenever they perceived a real or imagined slight to their ethnic/religious group. They weren't (for the most part) evil, they were just insensitive - when it was someone else being skewered.

Maybe in 40-50 years, the Jackson Jive will be as embarrassing to Australian sensibilities as Amos & Andy, or red-painted Irish "Indians" in old westerns are to present day Americans. None of this came out of a hateful or mean spirited place. But that doesn't mean it's still not regrettable.

BTW - Is it coincidence that the character that Robert Downey Jr played in Tropic Thunder was Australian - and clueless as to the offensiveness of his portrayal to his American costar?

Perhaps a pithy Glen Beck quote? Or some snappy Limbaughism? Hey, they could quote our former decider-in-chief. He had a million of 'em.

I'm not in any way defending this. I feel the exploitation of children, in any way - not just sexual - by trusted adults, should qualify as pornography of a sort. I just find it interesting how times change our sensibilities. Maybe we've come further than we give ourselves credit for, when we can see the exploitation of powerless minorities - whether by age, race, gender, culture etc - as the despicable act it is, when the "majority" at the time were seemingly oblivious to that fact.

As for me, I'll always view Brooke Shields as a victorious survivor of child abuse, even if the abuse was "only" robbing her of her childhood and forcing her into service as a mealticket.

It seems the toilet stall has become the new phonebooth. Probably because there are no actual phonebooths anymore. I once (unwillingly) heard a guy schmoozing a client while noisily ...erm... taking care of business!

IMHO the only 2 situations in which potty-phoning is appropriate are collection calls, or calls for help - say, if there's no TP or you're receiving an unwelcome proposition from a creepy politician.

I can only hope that when she returns to court, it's for a competency hearing.

There will surely be people with the integrity & tenacity of Walter Cronkite, but none of them will get anywhere in "mainstream" (corporate) media.

Rewatching clips of Cronkite moments, I'm reminded of why I trusted him. His extreme regard for the facts - truth, if you will - as best it could be determined, put him in a league few of his colleagues, even during "the golden age" shared. Just look at the Kennedy Assassination coverage, where even though the CBS reporter on the scene (Dan Rather) was reporting that the president was dead, Cronkite continued to refer to them as "unconfirmed reports" until unequivocal pronouncements flashed over the newswire. This was a monumental event, and getting it right totally outweighed getting it first. Compare that to coverage of the Regan shooting where - if memory serves, a young reporter was dressed-down on the air by Frank Reynolds, for claiming with no attribution or explanation that Regan was dead. I now refer to that as the "it's been said" school of journalism, which seems to be the new standard, in the battleground of for-profit news coverage.

Cronkite as cautious, diligent journalist wasn't an anachronism, but Cronkite as trusted voice of authority certainly would be in today's media swamp.

While I enjoy & respect some of the faces delivering what passes for news these days, I know any integrity they possess is at best incidental & more often just inconvenient to the people who give them their jobs.

Not to knock any of these procedures outright, but it's sad that cultural pressure makes talented people think they have to do this to themselves to 'stay competitive'. It's like high school - run by the cosmetic surgery industry.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about a new head of a military school who replaced a preening narcissist. The staff was all strutting around with riding crops tucked under their arms for no apparent reason. Rather than antagonize the faculty by banning this pompous behavior, he simply sent out a memo stating "if you need them, use them". Not wanting to seem ostentatiously insecure, everyone got the message and the riding crops instantly disappeared.

If only someone could reset the cultural norm in Hollywood, it would be a great relief to those of us who like to see familiar celebrity faces... instead of creepy doll-like visages.

...if only to supply raw material to guys like Jason Bateman. Actually I think that may be the most productive thing the Newter has done in his extended 15 minutes on the public stage. :)

...now if he had said ZOMBIES instead of Pagans, I could have gotten with the program.

These people are seriously psychotic! I worry that we're beyond civil discourse. How can you even hold a rational conversation with anyone so profoundly divorced from reality?