Hey, I support the troops. I really supported them for the 20 years I was one.

But the question we have to ask ourselves, kids, is do the military forces of the United States have ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRO FOOTBALL? Americans by nature aren't very military people. The "citizen soldier" won the Revolution and all other fights we've had to preserve our democracy. The Germans during World War II marveled at our lack of discipline and the amazing things we were able to do DESPITE it.

I don't think we do amazing things despite a lack of discipline. We do amazing things BECAUSE of a lack of discipline. Americans don't like to be told what to do, what to think. That's our DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC, folks - that we don't all think alike.

So when I see massive military presences at events like the Super Bowl, my chest doesn't swell up with pride. America isn't about the troops - she's about freedom. No one in the military ever died giving American citizens their freedoms, because our freedoms aren't a gift. They are our birthright.

Yes, support the troops. Remember them in your prayers/meditations/tree worshipping ceremonies; pray for them to make it back home alive and whole. But don't deify them. They don't want it.

Well put.

Do you think the troops appreciate a million stupid magnetic "ribbons" as a form of "support"? Come on people!

Baby on board anyone?

And when a person buys one of those magnetic yellow or red/white/blue support our troops ribbons where does the sales money go? Does it go to buying better armor for sub-standard Hum-Vees? Better food and more supplies? Nope. If the magnet is made in China the "support" goes to China. If made in the USA it goes to the American war profiteer. Save your money and support the troops in more useful and tangible ways. Get involved in efforts to BRING THEM THE HELL HOME!!!

"Baby On Board" was also a hit song by my favorite barbershop quartette, the B Sharps!

Baby on board, how I've adored,
That sign on my car's windowpane
A bounce in my step; loaded with pep,
'Cause I'm driving in the carpool lane.

Call me a square; friend, I don't care
That little yellow sign can't be ignored
I'm telling you it's mighty nice
Each trip's a trip to paradise
With my baby on board.

Peace, --Will

What happened to Go Daddy's second Super Bowl ad spot with the well endowed woman in the skimpy top and shorts?

Yes, Go Daddy was to have two, count them... ONE TWO commercial spots during Super Bore XXXIX. I heard on the news radio this morning that when the Go Daddy Dot Com commerical aired it raised the hackles of the NFL. The NFL immediately called FOX and together they decided to pull the second Go Daddy commercial spot!!!! I checked into this this morning and it's true. From the web site http://bobparsons.com/ of Go Daddy CEO Bob Parsons ...

"The NFL persuaded FOX to pull our ad.
We immediately contacted Fox to find out what happened. Here's what we were told: After our first ad was aired, the NFL became upset and they, together with Fox, decided to pull the ad from running a second time. Because we purchased two spots, we were also entitled to a "Brought to you by GoDaddy.com" 5 second marquis spot. They also chose to pull the marquis spot."

The nipple ripple of a year ago continues.

The Go Daddy commercial was also the most TIVOed portion of the Super Bore this year.

I think the NFL showed good business sense in pulling the ad, because the ad poked a finger in the eye of the FCC. That was the last thing that the NFL should want to do after last years' Halftime debacle and the "Desperate Housewives" stunt last fall. With the latter event still before the FCC, this is not the time to sponsor insulting ads. They would have done even better to pull them both.

If you need a boobie fix, switch over to HBO or go surf the web. There are plenty of boobies (and bigger, better and less covered boobies) over there. There is no reason to sex up prime time sports with softcore porn and racy stunts.

"Poked a finger in the eye of the FCC"?!?! Oh, heaven forbid we poke a finger in the eye of the FCC. They are above insulting - they are the arbiters of public decency. I know of some countries where it is "good sense" to not insult the government. I don't want to live in any of them.

The issue here is not boobies or the lack of them. The issue here is that the Federal Communications Commission WILL NOT POST A STANDARD for what is "decent" or "indecent". Wanna know why they won't? Because if they did it would look silly, that's why. I can see it now...

BREASTS:
1. The female nipple, including that part around the outside I can't remember the name of but it's an a-word, must not be visible.
2. Tops that entice men (and lesbians) to stand up and try to look down into the decolletage (funny I can remember this and not the nipple thing) must not be worn unless they are covered (but not by a burka, we don't want to look like muslims).
3. Anything that might give a reasonably young man a boner is right out.
4. Men's breasts are ok. Unless they're man-breasts, which is gross.

Put down on paper, it just sounds like a joke! But what the FCC CAN do and DOES is wait until some ass-hat complains and then fine people for breaking "common decency". Guess how many people called in and complained about the "Desperate Housewives" skit the night it aired. THREE! What a violation of common decency. It was funny, and didn't reveal any more than your average evening gown.

Once again, the issue isn't seeing full frontal nudity, or even Janet's boob. The issue is the networks being so cowed they turn into Disney. You say if I want soft-core porn I can go elsewhere? Well, if you want bland, whitebread entertainment then you can, too. The Superbowl is meant to be a celebration of all that is excessive in America. It's just a little less campy than the WWE. If they want to turn it into Wimbledon, they've lost a viewer. Like Don Imus said in response to statements that pro football is the American Family Pastime (tm), what's so family about "wife-beating drug addicts slamming the hell out of each other"?

Perspective, people, perspective. The government is here to protect you from ze Chermans, not from your own strange hangups about not being breast-fed long enough.

Jeff, the FCC needs to be poked in both eyes, both ears and kicked in their collective arse! They - and you - also need a good high colonic to clear out that puritanical pole of right wing conservatism that has all of you so bunged up and uncomfortable about nudity and things sexy. Among the free countries of the world - England, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Japan to name a few - is the United States the ONLY country so uptight about nekid people? Jeff, now is the part where you tell me to go live in one of those countries since I obviously hate the US. That is the default righty tightie reply after all.

Steve-O and Will my dear, keep fighting the good fight fellas. Steve-O I love the comment about not being breast fed long enough. tee hee.

Will, if you want to relive those breast feeding days... tee hee.

I figured I'd get a lecture from the Guardians of Public Indecency, complete with ad hominem attacks. How predictable and puerile. I'm not even saying you shouldn't have all the skin that you crave, just get it somewhere more appropriate. Apparently, some people just can't enjoy anything, not even a football game, without a little smut on the side. Just who is trying to impose their morality here, anyway? The Super Bowl got along fine without exposed breasts for 27 years. Now it needs them to be exciting and retain viewership? Why bother with it, then? Just watch the Playboy Channel.

It turns out that the majority of Americans prefer family-friendly "whitebread" entertainment during prime time, when children are likely to be present. If that offends you, tough. I know that a minority of people won't be happy until everything from cartoons to cooking shows mirror their vices, and they never have to be exposed to a opposing message and risk a moment of reflection on their own behavior. (Or perhaps there is something more...the idea that the kids need to see something that their parents may not be exposing them to. Once again, just who is trying to impose their morality here?) Fortunately, the majority rules in a democracy, and the majority have done a lot of speaking lately.

"Guardians of Public Indecency"

You've got to be kidding me? Go look who's filling the FCC complaints, it's not the "majority" as you'd like. Do you believe FOR ONE SECOND the censorship parade ends with "prime time" TV. Come on Jeff you know that's not the agenda, just step one. You/they won't be happy until we are all (well white America and a few chosen Europeans) in the super-holiest church doing, behaving and believing just as you do. Admit it.

And keep pushing your big 51% victory all you'd like. That leaves a whole bunch of us who DON'T believe as you do. I for one plan on making it as difficult to push the Christian Right's agenda as hard as I can. So tough for you too. Marginize the rest of us all you want. I'll think I'll take my chances and wait for the, as foretold by the Tsunami (ha!), return of Jebbus. Yeah, right after the toothfairy stops by. I'm sooo scared.

The idea that a woman's breast is indecent is simply childish. No, I don't mean to insult children,they're much smarter than that, just uptight puritanical scaredy cats that don't think they'll get the best condo in heaven until they see earth is good and destroyed and they manage not to see a breast on TV. The horror. Sheesh...

And for what it's worth the last thing I'd want to mess up my football is any silly overdone halftime show. Boobs or not. I like my porn more porn like.

Jeff,
I agree that what Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlack did (planned or accident) was wrong. FOX, MTV, JJ and JT were all fined and punished for their actions by the appropriate parties. Now those parties - especially the FCC - need to stop punishing the rest of America for what happened a year ago and let us be Americans. Now try and nail down a definition of an American. I can’t and it sure isn’t defined by the whopping 51% majority. WOW, quite a mandate of the people with 51%. Let me assure you that there are a lot of skeletons, secret perversions and vices in those closets too.

The fear of the FCC – which now seems far worse than the fear of the IRS - is so bad that at the Superbowl this year there were limited shots of the cheerleaders and when they were shown IT WAS FROM THE NECK UP!!! Come on, the cheerleaders have the most naughty bits covered and cheerleaders are part of the game. Limiting shots of them to the neck up is just out and out ridiculous.

I will keep fighting the good fight of personal freedom and liberties and I see nothing wrong with some skin showing on TV. I will poke the FCC in the eye if I can. They need a good eye poking and to be slapped down several notches. The continued and arbitrarily enforced FCC "decency" laws (they really need to nail them down and define them) are a slap in the face to you and I.

To quote a friend of mine,
"Puritanical fear of human sexuality is why they put women in veils in Afghanistan. If you think the sight of breasts is going to blind you or cause you to not get into heaven, you need to, as Frank Zappa once said, "get out more". Puritanism is the way that leads to the stocks, to the iron maiden, to BURNING INNOCENT PEOPLE AT THE STAKE."

Peace, --Will

I am the guardian of public indecency, huh? Give me a fricking break. I made not one ad hominem attack against you, Jeff. And nowhere did I say that the argument was about a breast.

I agree with you that the Super Bowl got along fine for however long it's been on without exposed breasts. But they DID at least show the cheerleaders. Put into any kind of reasonable context, those ladies work every bit as hard as the players do. What's wrong with them getting a moment on television?

I don't want the Super Bowl to be the spice channel. I just want it to be the Super Bowl. This year it was decidedly un-super.

Since you already accused me of it, I'll let you have an ad hominem attack: I know that nothing I'll say is going to convince you of anything. You're obviously one of those people who believe Bill O'Reilly is a victim and that the United States is a Christian Nation. You believe the temptation of the female form is evil.

Like mm said, 51% is not a mandate. It's a bare majority. The beauty that is the United States of America will not go gently into that not-so-good night that is Puritanical Fascism.

Ad hominem enough for you?

The NFL asked them to pull an ad? Is this the same NFL that is the ultimate destination of steroid using, academic hanky-pankying, illegal recruiting effort-mongering college football players everywhere? The NFL where the 'frat' members are so glorifiedly above the rest of us that the laws don't apply to them? The group that brought us O.J. Simpson? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll find my morality on the back of a cereal box.

Heh, heh! I thought PHILOSOPHY was the back of a cereal box. Of course, from the same song - "religion is a smile on a dog". Tee hee!

Edie Brickell?

...And "The New Bohemians"

Let's see, I made 3 points:

1. The NFL was wise to pull the GoDaddy.com ad because they are still under scrutiny by the FCC and don't want to rock the boat.

2. There is a proper forum for racy or tasteless stuff, and it's not prime time TV or sporting events.

3. The majority of people agree on this.

The response form almost everyone was to call me a litany of names (ooo evil PURITAN!), accuse me of hating/fearing/desiring to enslave women and make high-sounding statements about civil liberties. (And worst of all attempt to link me to that poser Bill O'Reilly! Thanks but no thanks, dude.)

No one even addressed the first one, except to accuse me of taking up for the FCC. So I'll put an even finer point on it-the NFL exists to make money, not social statements. They don't want to be a martyr for your cause.

The second point is lost here. Obviously anything goes, any time, any place, and anyone who doesn't like it that way is a fascist pig and can shut up. How tolerant of differing viewpoints. But that's OK, it's just another reason not to watch TV. If enough people tune out (and I doubt it would even take a majority), the ad money will go elsewhere and TV will mercifully go dark. If you make the forum dirty enough, no one will want to meet there.

And as to the third point, a lot more than the 51 percent who voted for Bush would agree with me about smut on TV (and some of the 51 percent would not-there are a lot of Republican libertines). But in a democracy, 51 percent rules, so I'll take it.

Jeff, oh Jeff... so angry and yet so young.

I never said the NFL should take a bullet on my account. I say that the NFL (and everyone else under "scrutiny" by the FCC (anyone remember Frank Zappa's "Central Scrutinizer" - the strange, robot-like guy responsible for "enforcing all the laws that haven't been passed yet"?) needs to grow some cohones and FORCE those weasels to take a stand on what is "indecent". Was the GoDaddy spot indecent? Not in any way, shape or form - no nipples were visible. Was the NFL "wise" to pull the ad? Maybe. Are they cowards? Definitely.

Your second point. "Anything" doesn't go. But that which is not "indecent" according to AN ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRECEDENT, must go. Here's an example. You get stopped by a policeman. You ask, "What did I do, officer?"

He replies, "The little old lady driving next to you thought you were going too fast."

You get fined.

How freaking absurd is that? I'm not asking for anything complex here, Jeff - just for the FCC to define what's decent and what's not. And the old "I'll know it when I see it" standard is complete crap. If they make a law, then folks have to follow it. Is that such a complicated thing?

The problem here is that the "evil Puritans" (and if you're not one, I applaud you) DON'T WANT THE FCC TO HAVE TO DO THIS. Because it will become a reducto ad absurdum argument. You do a good job of making your argument seem intellectually sound, Jeff. That doesn't change the fact that "decency" laws sound absolutely absurd when committed to paper.

I do have to give you credit for calling Bill O-Reilly a name, though. For myself, "poser" doesn't immediately come to mind. I prefer "hypocritical GOP apologist", but I'm a verbose cat.

As for the majority of people agreeing on it, the majority of people might agree on a vague level that "there is too much smut and violence on TV". Most people agree that the Klu Klux Klan is bad. Do they have a right to express their opinion regardless of what the majority thinks? Certainly.

Being an American isn't easy. You have to resign yourself to not always being comfortable. The alternative, however, is creeping censorship.

Once again, the argument isn't "should the NFL show "On Golden Blonde" during prime time". It's "should the FCC be able to, by using arbitrary standards, make TV stations comform to a certain group's idea of "decency" without enumerating real standards."

Steve-O, I'm not at all angry. A little tired of the status quo maybe, but not angry.

I stand by my point number one. You ARE asking the NFL to take the bullet, and it is sound business practice for them not to. Whether or not the FCC standard is arbitrary is not in play here; the NFL has to work within the current guidelnes or face the wrath of the FCC-and, more importantly, their investors. They are not willing to take risks for you. If you want to change the standards, write your congressman. You know that I do.

I'll build on your Klan example. We permit the Klan to have their say, but we don't grant them an unlimited forum. If we go with a formulation of unrestricted liberty without oversight, we'll have televised Klan rallies at night and Klan cartoons on Saturday morning, assuming that someone is willing to pay for such things. I'm not sure that is what you want, but since slippery-slope arguments are in play on this thread I'll put it out there.

I agree that Americans don't have a right to comfortable with their ideas. But it has to work both ways. You want to see some uncomfortable people who think they have a right to remain comfortble and are willing to take it out of your hide? Try being an openly evangelical Christian for a few days.

One last thing: Bill O'Reilly is a opportunistic poser who pretends to be a populist conservative in order to tap the Dittohead market. Serious conservatives have ignored him (and the equally limpid and vacuous Sean Hannity) for years.

I'm not asking the NFL to take a bullet for me - I'm asking them to stand up for themselves and say "Give us real standards". Pretty simple. I won't go into the whole reducto ad absurdum deal again.

Once again back to the Klan example - we DON'T give them an unrestricted forum, but we tell them what the rules are. The FCC won't do this.

You're not going to hit us up with the whole "the Christian faith is under attack" deal, are you? Because you understand that someone telling an evangelical Christian, "I'm a (buddhist/agnostic/atheist/insert your brand of blasphemy here) and I don't want to hear it" is them exercising the same RIGHT you have to change the channel on your TV, right? At least, I hope you do.

Once again, I don't want to CHANGE the standards. There DON'T EXIST, so how can I change them? I want for there to BE standards.

If they are the same standards you want, then that's great. I won't agree with them, but they'll be THE LAW. Then we'll have something to work with. Right now it's all arbitrary. Surely you're in favor of a decency law that actually OUTLAWS this stuff in prime time?

Click my name below and answer the question, "this is bad and offends the FCC because?"

COMMENTS ON THIS ENTRY HAVE BEEN CLOSED!
Sincerely,
--Corporal Obergruppenfuehrer Wolfcastle