Did Prince say it?

The question is really what does Prince think. So far there is the voice of the New Yorker which states that Prince said

“You've got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to [the Bible]. But there's the problem of interpretation, and you've got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn't. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got blue, you've got the Democrats, and they're, like, 'You can do whatever you want.' Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right."

Then there is Perez Hilton who quotes an annonymous source close to Prince that says Prince is upset, and misquoted.

My first problem is that an annonymous source is never reliable. It could be anyone, the gardner, the maid, the mailman or it could actually be someone close to Prince. There is just no way to tell.

Since Prince himself has yet to say anything directly, I have to believe that the New Yorker is correct. If they weren’t, well a lawsuit would surely reach their offices by now. So annonymous source or not I believe it is true.

In addition to that there is the fact, which many media sources seem incapable of understanding, that Prince has recently become very religious. His focus on religion came well after the 80’s and the multiple sexually charged records, performances, and outfits that Prince is well known for. So it does not strike me odd that he could have a song like Darling Nikki, and be highly religious. They didn’t happen at the same time so why can’t he have his views? Probably because the same Democrats (or liberal media if you prefer) the quote refers to can’t understand a person changing their mind to more conservative views at a later (possibly wiser) point in their lives.

Of course I’m sure that San Franscico is losing its collective mind yet again. But in looking at the quote again, I don’t hear Prince saying that this is the only viewpoint or that his religion is best for everyone. He was stating his view, which matches his religion. So how that affects what America does I’m not sure. Especially since the majority of Americans are not Jehovah's Witness.

But again it brings up a point I’ve made in the past, and that several gay friends of mine either agree or disagree with depending on the person. The argument is the wrong one. It’s a fight over a word, and not the most important one at that.

Marriage is meant as the unification of a man and a woman for life, to achieve progeny that will continue the human species. Basically you get married so your kids know their parents and have a stable home. Everything else about marriage is baggage we have thrown on it.

Homosexuals are not capable of procreation with their partner without scientific intervention, or adultery (if they were married). So it violates the prime reason for marriage. Thus what gay proponents want is the equal rights of a married couple, not a word. They want the same ability to gain healthcare, advize treatments, insurance coverage, and so on. Which I have no problem with.

But to fight for a word gains none of those things. It only pisses off religious groups, and creates heated battles that cause anyone not on one or another side of the extreme to back away from the debate altogether. Which then causes the goal to be that much harder to secure. Which is basically where things are now.

I bet if the fight over the word marriage stopped tomorrow, and the focus became respecting the committed relationship of 2 people and ensuring their rights we’d see many more people agree. Legislation would be infinitely more easy to pass, and support from some of those opposed to the marriage word issue would be gained. It all just gets much simpler. Because the point of angst for many is removed, and few in America would deny basic rights to any person.

Now that isn’t what Prince said. Nor do I believe that is what he means. But that is his opinion. He has a right to it. And the amazement of some in the media really needs to stop. Prince isn’t banging down the doors of Congress. He just is stating that there is a middle ground that is likely the best answer to the question at hand.

Prince, Anna Nicole Smith, Hannibal Lecter - 2.10.2007.1

This has been quite a week. I’ve been quite busy, and a touch ill, so I have a bit to catch up with. I will get to my thoughts on Anna Nicole Smith shortly. What was catching a lot of earlier in the week are the various television commercials for the Super Bowl. I’ve heard the Snickers ad has been removed from circulation. While many were creeped out by the ad, it seems the outcry from various groups about its anti-gay theme is what wound up being the final nail. I really don’t get where the humor was in the ad. I get where it’s supposed to be, but they really lost something in the translation from idea to commercial ad. Still they can’t be judged too harshly, at least they tried to do something new unlike Schick.

Of course television commercials were not the only thing criticized from this Super Bowl. It seems that now Prince’s half-time show is drawing fire. Truly I’m surprised and have to wonder who are these people seeking out these complaints. I really feel they are trying to find something to object to. The now infamous still image of Prince playing the guitar in silhouette seems to be driving some mad. Come on people, it wasn’t all that. At full speed it’s barely a standout image. I suppose though that if someone has sex or body parts on the mind they will pick up on these things quickly. In the same place where the Snickers ad caught and shocked every viewer no one noticed anything during Prince’s performance. Yet some, probably the same ones that are terrified of a bare bosom’s exposure for a few seconds, seem or disturbed by the half-time show than the commercial.

I have to wonder if those same people offended by Prince are offended when they park their car. It is a key-to-keyhole action. Male-fits-female, or did they not think of that in their constant search for sexuality in public. Perhaps they should start attacking bottle manufacturers, or zipper makers. I mean the vast number of actions and items that confer a phallic message in ordinary life are mind-boggling. That says nothing of the overt sexuality in most music videos, television shows and commercials, cartoons, and movies. Which isn’t too surprising considering Humans are not asexual, and procreation is one of the top 3 genetic imperatives (food, procreation, self-preservation). While I can understand to an extent the need to protect kids (blatant sexuality is unnecessary, incidental stuff is life) some people need to relax. And by the way, anyone playing a guitar is a sexual image (if you want to think of it that way) just by the nature of the shape and position of a guitar. Get off of Prince.

The new Hannibal movie is now out. I’m sure it will pull in a decent amount of cash. I doubt it will live up to the work of Sir Anthony Hopkins. Hannibal Lecter is more than a slasher killer with a large vocabulary. This character is motivated in much the same way a true killer is, which is something a ‘normal’ person will never fully get. To try to humanize this character lessens the impact he has. Epic characters can never be described in brief. Darth Vader’s backstory took 3 movies and that changed the whole meaning of the previous 3 films. A single movie motivated on capturing the violence and gore that teens enjoy en masse, especially when logic or thought are watered down to almost nil, can never capture the intensity this character needs to express his past. I can capture all this just from the televised scenes and a couple of reviews. The focus is not the mind of the killer, which is where the real shock is, but the gore of the actions (and a bad European accent). I’m skipping this movie, but tell me if you see it and I am wrong.

Now about Anna Nicole Smith. I am sorry that she has passed. It’s a shame when anyone dies so young. I feel very bad for her daughter, who will have to live with the various unresolved legal battles throughout her life. I have deep suspicion of Mr. Stern who I feel is not the father of the baby (nor the prince now claiming fatherhood), and impresses me as a male golddigger. Though I could be wrong on several points. But this is all in the public eye and thus I will comment.

Ms. Smith was a sexy woman, reminding us all that a woman with curves is more attractive than a size 0 model. I think that is part of what captured the publics attention. She was pretty, and shapely, and a touch naïve (or so she seemed) which made us all wish we could help her out. It’s a subtle desire to help those around us in need. And to an extent we all saw that, yet those closest to her seemed unable to get her the help she needed. From Playboy to Guess jeans, to movies (like Naked Gun 2) and television we all followed her. Some had envy, others admiration, but we all paid attention. Perhaps it’s not the best legacy, but it is her legacy. Hopefully her daughter will fare better.

I hope her daughter can be with her father, whoever that is. I hope her father is motivated by the love of his daughter and not her potential inheritance. I hope the daughter has something to inherit. I most deeply hope that her daughter will be able to grow into a strong woman that has overcome all these challenges.

This is what I think, what do you think?