where is the liberal outrage?

according to e! online, britney spears is planning a few concert dates in china . the chinese granted her permission to do so under the sole condition that she tone down any sexually suggestive outfits. in other words, they have to have final ok on wardrobe. i know it's different, but there are some parallels to the whole michael moore fahrenheit 9-11 thing. both have a political message attached with their personality. although many would argue, i think britney really does represent some kind of sexual liberation in a extremely victorian country. both were censored by someone who has a checkered history when it comes to freedom of speech, being headed by draconian dictators, etc. however, the main difference is that when michael moore got censored there was a public outcry that freedom of speech was being violated yadda yadda yadda. however, i doubt sincerely that there will be much outcry to allow britney to express herself freely. which goes to show you the a-holes who bitched and moaned about michael moore so much really don't care about freedom of speech or other high falutin ideals. they only care when it is convenient for them. i know that they situations are different, different cultures, governments, etc, but if you really care about this stuff, shouldn't britney spears be afforded the same protections as michael moore? it seems that the liberals are just as guilty of being a-holes as the conservatives. and that's my libertarian rant for the day.

No comments: