One more thing about the boob incident
Bear (or shall I say, "bare" -- ha!) with me while I comment one more time on the Super Bowl Boob Incident. In case you've forgotten, Janet Jackson's breast was exposed on national television, causing shock and awe unlike anything seen since Howard Dean blew out our eardrums with his primal post-caucus scream. Who is the true villain in this "wardrobe malfunction?" Let's just suspend disbelief for a moment and believe that this was actually an accident. Then, it should follow that it was, in fact, Justin Timberlake who is to blame for all the jokes, stupid parody songs and wasted column inches that have come in the wake of Sunday's boob on the tube. Yet whenever I have heard the media responding negatively to Sunday's event, it is always Janet who takes the brunt of the backlash. But why? Did she rip off her own shirt? No. Did we actually see her -- gasp -- nipple? No.

Can we assume that it is because she is a member of the already much maligned Jackson family that she is the one with the huge target painted on her back? Or is it because she is a minority? Or a woman?

Any way you cut it, it's just wrong. Is Justin staying home from the Grammys this weekend? No. Janet is. Is it because CBS' sensors are worried that while onstage her breast might take on a life of its own and peek out of her dress, once again sending scores of Americans into catatonic stupor? Who knows.

If you ask me, a whole lot of ado about a boob. Yes, I agree that it had no place at a halftime show where children were likely to have seen it, but now that it's over, let's accept that it happened, and move on. Don't we have more important things to worry about?

You know, like Martha Stewart?