Where's the outrage?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Where's the outrage?

Updated 02/02/2010 – 12:18 pm

One needn't be a sports fan to have taken notice of the on-going controversy surrounding 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and a scheduled Super Bowl XLIV paid advertisement on behalf of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.

The burning controversy?

It's a "pro-life" message featuring Tebow's mother who had been advised by her doctor to terminate the pregnancy which ultimately de­livered baby Tim... and a coalition of women's groups that includes NOW and the Feminist Majority, don't want anyone to see it.

Sweet honey-mustard! Is the pro-choice position so tenuous that a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl going to eviscerate their entire message and expose them as frauds?

(A half-minute of coveted air-time during the most-watched telecast of the year costs "between $2.5 and $2.8 million.")

If feminist pro-choicers were going to speak out against Super Bowl advertising, one would expect them to express their collective enmity over the spate of advertising spots which bla­tantly objectify the female form to attract male viewers' attentions.

(And as a penis-encumbered person, I'll stipulate that, yes, most of my gender is susceptible to most forms of the female form, and such susceptibility is directly proportional to the amount of skin on display.)

Disclaimer: I not only have no horse in this race, the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life issue is no longer any of my business, #1, and, #2, during the period in my life when it could have been my business, it would have only been in a non-binding, advisory role. The deciding vote would have always been with the woman.

As much as I find the actual abortion proce­dure unsavory, even more distasteful is any male imposing his will on a woman in respect to what she can do with her body.

"Cop-out?" Perhaps, but I don't think that de­cision is any of my business.

But I cannot help but be stunned by the hypocrisy of the Liberal pro-choice groups who've gone into a frenzy because CBS has agreed to telecast the commercial during February 7th's Super Bowl.

I put them in a class with Nazi book-burners.

Addendum

Another "controversy" regarding Super Bowl advertising broke this weekend when the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation raised hell over CBS' decision to reject a commercial for gay hook-up site ManCrunch.com, calling the action "a homophobic double standard."

(This is the rejected spot.)

[le sigh] That it's already available on YouTube should be a clue as to what's going on here.

Take a look for yourself... it's not "catching."

The 30-second spot is amateurishly-produced, and one more befitting a Saturday Night Live parody from its less-creative era.

In short, they can not seriously have expected any network to have accepted that spot for prime time broadcast, so their intention is as clear as that of the Buddhist monks who im­molated themselves on the streets of Saigon 40-odd years ago.

And in the spontaneous utterance of my dear wife when I broached the subject for her view:

"Hey, I don't want to see two guys swap­ping spit any more than Janet Jackson's bare tit."

Just so, m'dear... just so!

Comments

1. Matlynn Carville said...

Can't I just watch the Superbowl with the hilarious commercials in peace?

Cut me some slack, already. If Focus on the Family wants to spend their money, why, let them knock themselves out. I'll go to the kitchen for a cold one and chips 'til they're done proselytizing.

This puts them in the same category as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been invading our personal space for decades.

This current assault on what an individual should or shouldn't do, as if all circumstances are identical, is a violation of my logic and reason.

Another un-aborted dude is our President, Barack Obama. His Mom is dead, so you won't see her fronting a fringe religious ad., although I doubt she'd do that anyway. "Everybaby" isn't born into a family of decency and love; murderers come out of the womb far more commonly, and are, by life circumstances, made into monsters far more often than top football players and Presidents are forged.

C'mon, even Jerry Louis and Sally Struthers and Sharon Stone didn't invade the Superbowl for "their kids!"

Another segment of the lunatic fringe weighs in... 'though I acknowledge my own empathy with some of your points.
Dean

2. Tugboat Bertha said...

You go for it, Speir, and also Matlynn Carville. I'm with you.

3. Hampton West said...

It's a freakin' football game and that's all it is. Cut the non-sense! All I want to see is some good football, not political posturing.

Except that the commercials produced for the Super Bowl telecast have traditionally provided some of the high-points of the entire telecast.
Dean

4. Rob F. said...

It should be just "a freakin' football game" but let's put it in perspective. Compare how many people watch the Super Bowl to how many watched the last State of the Union speech and the GOP response. Which one do Americans care about more? Which one is a more effective forum for conveying a message and persuading the public? To ask the questions is to answer them. It is also a telling commentary on American priorities.

Cogent comment, Rob.
Dean

5. Hampton West said...

Good point indeed!

American Idol has more voters than the presidential elections!

The future of our country!
Dean

6. HighHatSize said...

"...Super Bowl XLV paid advertisement..."

That would be the 2011 Super Bowl.

I knew that! I just have a problem with Roman Numerals when I get past 11 and don't have another shoe to take off. Thanks!
Dean

Name
URL
Email
Email address is not published
Remember Me
Comments

CAPTCHA Reload
Write the characters in the image above