Rated I for incompetent

Once you hit age 18, you stop caring what movies are rated. I mean, as a teen, it's kind of cool to sneak into an R rated film, but after you're allowed in, it just loses it's luster. But those movie rating will become important again.

With two daughters in the house, I try to keep an eye on the movie ratings to make sure they're not seeing anything too inappropriate. But unless we want to watch a Disney marathon, it's nearly impossible.

Take, for example, this recent experience; my wife got a couple movies from our local library, which actually has a pretty good selection. Anyway, one of the movies was "My Super Ex-Girlfriend." It was rated PG-13. The second was an R-rated flick that I cannot recall.

Which one do we watch with the kids? The R-rated one, of course.

At least, we should have watched the R-rated one with the kids. Cause it was - in my opinion - much more "family friendly" than the PG-13 movie. "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" was filled with sexual innuendo and even a couple sex scenes - albeit, no skin was shown, it was pretty obvious what was going on. The other movie was rated R for swearing. I'm not kidding. There was no graphic violence. No sex. Just a lot of F-bombs.

I might not drop F-bombs around my kids, but I know they've heard the word before. I'd much rather they hear someone swear ... than watch someone screw.

So how did one get a PG-13 rating and the other an R? The Motion Picture Association of America. They have certain guidelines for what constitutes what. The "hard swearing" got that second movie an R rating. The explanation for PG-13 is so confusing, I'd swear this was a government operation. But it's done by a "ratings board" which works for the MPAA.

Here's an interesting tidbit I found out. Movies are not required to go to the ratings board. They don't have to be rated. Or they can rate themselves ... as long as it is not "confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R, and, NC-17." Apparently, those rating are trademarked or something. But if they wanted to rate their movie "I for incompetent," they could do that.

But as I've previously determined the rating isn't so important as the content. Often times a movie will say "Rated PG-13 for sexual content" or something like that. But is that someone copping a feel? Or hard core nookie?

I heard about another movie rating system that sounds ... almost logical. It's called "Kids-in-Mind" movie ratings. They rate movies on three factors; sex, gore, and vulgarity. The give each factor a rating of 1 to 10. The higher the rating, the more of that there is in the movie. Plus, they actually list each instance.

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend," for example, has a rating of 7.6.4. Lots of sex. A moderate amount of gore. And not too much swearing. Exactly the opposite of what I think is appropriate for my kids. Had I known about this rating system, they never would have watched that movie.

They would have watched that other movie. The one I can't think of. And they would have forgotten it by now, too. I just hope they forgot the one they DID see.

Speculation as news ...

You'll often hear people say they wish they could be a weatherman; only get it right half the time and still pick up a full paycheck. Heck, you might have said it yourself at some point. I'm sure I have.

But I have a better gig for you, with even a lower success rate necessary. Become a political pundit.

As a political junkie, I probably read more news on politics and the political process than any 10 people I know. Some of these stories are well thought out and make perfect sense. But often times, they are the political pipe dreams of people who have no clue about history or tradition.

In the past 24 hours, for example, I've read stories about why John McCain not only should, but WILL, drop out of the race for president ... and why the odds say that Barack Obama will pick Republican Chuck Hagel as his running mate.

Now I have no crystal ball. I can't say what will or won't happen. But I can tell you that I'd put good money up against either one of those "predictions."

See, while a weather man has to be right half the time, a political pundit only has to be right once. Just once. Ever. And he can for the rest of his life brag about it. Kind of like your buddy who caught that one touchdown in the state championship 30 years ago who feels the need to remind you during every Bills game - in order to legitimize his criticism of JP Losman.

I have no problem with fantasy. (although if Chuck Hagel and John McCain ever appear in one of my fantasies, I'm suing someone. This gentleman prefers blondes, thank you). I do however, have a problem with taking the least likely scenario and turning it into news.

It's as though these media types sit around smoking pot going, "Man, wouldn't it be totally awesome if Barack Obama picked a Republican running mate? Like that dude from Nebraska ... um Chuck Hagel? Yeah, and then he would totally win every electoral vote out there."

Come morning, they wake up with the munchies and vague memories of their conversation the night before ... but the thought lingers ... and even though no longer high, they still think it sounds like a great idea. Except somewhere along the line they forget that it was a half-baked (or all-baked as the case may be) pipe dream ... and write a column proclaiming that it's going to happen.

See, here's the great part for them: If they're wrong, no one remembers or cares. But if they're right, they're some sort of national heroes amongst the talking heads of the political world.

And worse yet, when they do get one right, it legitimizes every other all-baked scheme they've had ... and makes them "go-to" commentators in the future. So when they comment in 2032 Chelsea Clinton is going to choose the ghost of Walt Disney as her running mate, people will buy into it as though it were gospel.

Imagine if the weather man were only right once. Once ever. How long do you think he'd last?