When given the Super Bowl Sunday slot for a BIO Feature post, I felt like I had another rock dropped in my bag. Really, aside from the sports blogaholics, how many people will be turning on their computers Sunday to surf political blogs as they tune in to the Annual event that draws more viewers than people who vote in presidential primaries?
Meanwhile, as the president trumpets all the "good" news he can spin, he proves once again, that he is not open to real and true negotiation:
Another important tool for eliminating wasteful spending is the line-item veto.Sure, right. For a man who only issued one veto in his entire career as president and still couldn't get anything positive done, and manages our government like he managed his baseball team, he's asking for this like there is going to only be republican presidents for the foreseeable future?
Of course, the President is full of the usual W, Rove and Co suggestions. Watch out middle class, you're an endangered species:
Controlling spending also requires us to address the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.Excuse me, but didn't W sign the legislation to substantially increase costs of Medicare and Medicaid by means of a drug benefit? In hind sight, might we not have spent the money on Iraq instead of cutting programs that the American people already pay into?
Seriously, can you trust the man who perpetrated the largest bait and switch (WMD in Iraq) in political history on the American people? Let's have one last look:
I look forward to working with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to address these challenges. Together, we can pass a budget that keeps our economy strong, keeps America safe, and makes deficit spending a thing of the past.Really, I don't buy it. When you ask for the line item veto, it doesn't suggest that you are willing to work with people on either side of the aisle to fix what ails America. It says exactly what W has said over and over again in the face of great questioning regarding his "surge." "I'm still the decider:" fuck you, America.
But I got off on a rant. I'm really here to pose a question for today's feature. That is, as we face global warming, things worsening in Iraq that lead to more GIs KIA who won't be watching the Super Bowl with us, we have to ask ourselves a very serious question. Let's call this...drum roll please...
Windspike's Super Bowl Super Query
- Is the Super Bowl anesthesia for the masses or an antidote for what ails America?
Leave a comment and chip in your two cents.
Blog on friends. Blog on all
4 comments:
What do we have in common?
If you talk to random people outside of work, school, church or clubs, what do you have in common other than events on TV?
If you have only over-the-air TV, you still may not have anything in common with cable TV viewers.
News in newspapers is either local, or not a common topic, or too controversial for conversation.
If not TV events in common, then maybe Netflix. But even movies lack simultaneity, which makes them a tough sell beyond Like It? or Not.
So, yeah, Superbowl, Superbowl ads - or nothing.
* Is the Super Bowl anesthesia for the masses or an antidote for what ails America?
It's theater. You can't trust a wintertime game played in an antiseptic super-stadium in Florida.
If all we have in common is sports, we are in deep shit as a community.
Kvatch, you are right. And the Bears and Colts should be playing somewhere uncovered with a light flurry comin' down.
Theatre critic
SIR - The Georgians and the Edwardians were not the first to
condemn new forms of entertainment as morally reprehensible
("Don't shoot the messenger", January 20th). In his
Policraticus of 1159, John of Salisbury lamented the
lives of those who filled their time enjoying actors, mimics
and jugglers, for
"actors give [idleness] new life.
Tedium steals upon unoccupied
minds and they are not able to
endure their own company unless
they are pampered by the solace of
some pleasure. Therefore
spectacles and the countless hosts
of vanities by which they who
cannot endure to be entirely idle
are occupied, but to their greater
harm. Better it had been for them
to have idled away their time than
to have busied themselves to their
own ruin."
Woe to the billion or so of us who will soon be tuning in to
watch the Oscars.
CAZ ZYVATKAUSKAS
Toronto
Letters
The Economist February 3rd 2007
Post a Comment