Leo wrote:

It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I
assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own
viewpoint, as it too is "wrong".

I consider the points it makes accurate enough, but it makes glaring
errors too.

The biggest one is the comparison between violence and sex. In it's own
context, I agree, there is a weirdness about how some of us accept
violence, but not sex.

But that ain't the argument.

If she were to become topless as an accident, I'd wager that the event
would be a momentary thing to talk about around the water cooler.
"That's the hazard of live TV" would be what people would say. "Poor
Janet! She must have been mortified!", would be another.

But since the whole thing was planned, and they lied about it
afterward, it changes the whole thing around. THAT has no place in a
halftime show.

Fact is, the shows have deteriorated in content over the last several
years, and a large portion of the audience doesn't like the emerging
format. They (we) are complaining, and they (we) have a right to. It
really isn't about sex versus violence. I no more want to see trashy,
sexually oriented "entertainment" during the superbowl halftime than I
want to see people being stabbed or hurt during it, or to have Peter
Popoff come out and do faith healing and ask for donations.

And that is why I think the article is way off base.


I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan:

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!"

Sigh.....