Because not every topic can be stretched out into a full column, here are random notes on three separate matters, on which notes have been scribbled over the last four days.

Because not every topic can be stretched out into a full column, here are random notes on three separate matters, on which notes have been scribbled over the last four days.

Topic Number One: “Girls Gone Wild” – Should there be anyone left who legitimately questions whether or not America is a sex-obsessed society, please make note of the fact that the “Girls Gone Wild” video empire now has an infomercial. Having never personally seen or purchased a “Girls Gone Wild” video, a certain journalistic duty (or a certain self hatred, whichever) demanded a complete viewing of said infomercial for the purposes of this, or another, column. Unfortunately, this was impossible; five minutes into the broadcast, the channel was changed.

For those of you unfamiliar with the franchise, the process (as explained in a recent article, the source forgotten) works like this: video cameras are taken to college towns and into local bars, where young females, in various states of intoxication, are offered a free “Girls Gone Wild” t-shirt. The condition is, they must expose themselves, and sign a consent form. Repeat the process a few dozen times, collect and edit the clips into (what one could safely assume would be) a 60 minute chunk, release it as the latest “Girls Gone Wild” collection and become a millionaire.

Now, absolutely no one wants to see topless and / or nude college girls more than this columnist, but it seems likely that once the novelty wares off (the infomercial had a five minute shelf life, remember), one would be left wondering why anyone would drop a twenty sport for the product. Clearly they are purchased and enjoyed by millions; it’s not the entrepreneurial success or moral ambiguities that are worrisome. What manages to bother is the amazing lack of foresight employed by every girl who strips down for nothing more than a t-shirt.

One supposes we should be grateful they’re not having sex for a t- shirt, but still: you could suppose the odds are fifty / fifty the men they merry may or may not care less about the matter, but the clear majority of them will have children someday, and a large percentage of that majority will end up having to, at some point, explain why their dignity was an acceptable price to pay for a t- shirt and a few drinks. There’s the video to buy.

Topic Number Two: Death Row Inmates Want Pornography – While we’re at it, a death row inmate in Memphis, Tennessee has sued, claiming he has a right to view pornography in these, his final years. An attorney on The Abrams Report , struggling to add legitimacy to the underlying argument, suggests we are not talking merely talking about the right to view naked females, but: whether inmates have a right to “read and receive information,” and whether or not the State has the power to decide what an inmate can read. (To this the quick-witted Dan Abrams asks, Well, why can’t we cut the articles out of Playboy and mail them to the inmates in question, if information is what they’re after? The guest attorney had no answer; your author smiled a broad smile.)

Let’s take the questions together: Can the State of Tennessee dictate what its inmates – prisoners, remember, guests of the State only because they cannot conform to law – read? Sure; they couldn’t, for example, have bomb making instructions brought in, or The Anarchist’s Cookbook, or escape plans. And really, we’re not talking about the right to take in and consider fine literature (one assumes a copy of Atlas Shrugged could get right through if requested), we’re talking about, extensively, Playboy magazine, which, minus the nude bodies, couldn’t sell 5,000 copies a month. Any text stuck in between the blondes and brunettes is secondary, an unfortunate and failing struggle for authenticity as a journal of intellect.

Prisoners, and those who come so mightily to their jailhouse defense, always seem to forget that, unless prisoners are treated in ways contrary to the Constitution, they’ve basically surrendered the right to creature comforts, most especially nude females. (Should have thought about sexual stimulation before you knocked over that liquor store and killed that clerk, tough guy.) This is not a case that can be won, thankfully. Now get back to your cell.

Topic Number Three: Queen Elizabeth, Concert / Fire, Burn Down the House – Last weekend’s Buckingham Palace fire was attributed to an electrical problem beginning in an unused bathroom; funny, you’d think the royal family would light their rooms with candles, in keeping with the very historical timeline most often associated with monarchies. (Although one must concede big fires can start just as easily with small flames than electricity; ask Chicago.) No detailed word was given on the damage sustained by “priceless artifacts” inside the castle, only that, most unfortunately, the monarchy itself wasn’t one of the ancient things destroyed. And since there’s no corporately driven Woodstock festival this year, the season’s greatest self-congratulatory, ego driven pop concert was put on by an equally self-congratulatory and ego driven institution, on the palace grounds.

Strange things, royal celebrations. Twenty-five years ago, during Elizabeth’s silver anniversary, the Sex Pistols single “God Save the Queen” rose to number two on the British charts. Such was the national offense taken to the song, both the group and song names were blocked over in most published records. Quarter of a century later, Ozzy Osbourne is called upon to put on a royal performance in front of not only Elizabeth, but one million Brits as well. The difference between then and now is palpable, but misunderstood. CBS news, via Sunday Morning, explained it as Elizabeth’s coming to terms with the modern age and adjusting accordingly. Evidence of this? No other Queen would have ever taken to national television to speak of a former daughter-in-law after her death in Paris, but Elizabeth did.

That would be one way to explain it; the other would be: she’s got a hipper staff now than in 1977, most of whom have probably heard of the Sex Pistols and consequently don’t mind “God Save the Queen” all that much; this staff tends to book royal performances as trends dictate. But the idea of a modern monarchy – that is, putting a twenty-first century spin on a tenth century concept – coming from such an insulated, self-serving tradition is a great public relations ploy, but a fantasy as its base. Kind of like a modern Church.