Slashdot Mirror
Superbowling
An assortment of Super Bowl tidbits: Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story. Infinitus writes "The NFL's legal firm has a PDF up that outlines the NFL's intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'. Including a neat little chart that tells you what you can and can't say..." VeggiePossum23 writes "Panthers Upset Patriots, 29 to 21... at least in the Sony Sponsored '989 Sports Game Before the Game' played on NFL Gameday 2004 on the PS2 Console. This annual event, held Wednesday night in Houston, has a perfect 8-year track record of picking the winner of the Super Bowl. Carolina Panthers Wide Receiver Steve Smith controlled the Panthers, winning an upset victory against New England Patriots' Wide Out Troy Brown, also controlling his own team." lordbyron writes "CBS is doing a SuperBowl of commercials that will include a vote for the best commercial in history. You can watch the top 10 now and make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31. It includes some classics like the Apple commercial and the exploding mosquitos from Tabasco."Wing Bowl.--->
That's tommorrow? Shows how much interest I have
Anyhow, I still love Apple's "1984" ad. Other then the mention of "1984" that ad could play today and still be considered timely.
Trolling is a art,
Pretty potent/A. non-sex non-beer ad with only one statement in it.
Pretty effective ad no matter what you US Political viewpoint is.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story..
/. subscription, or else they would be posted to the front page!
It wasn't mentined (in the articles) that these threats demanded they buy a
--
Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
Here in Los Angeles, KROQ is doing a "Super Bowl" contest where they send someone to the "Super Bowl" game, but they cannot call it the "Super Bowl" becuase of the NFL restriction. So they are referring to it as the "Big Game". It would cost them an insane amount of money to call it the "Super Bowl Contests" and its ridiculous. This whole trademark BS is so stupid sometimes. How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?
Mario
stainless steel
intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'.
...
Funny, I never thought I'd see "intellectual", "SuperBowl" and "NFL" in the same sentence
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Isn't Super Bowl sunday (tomorrow) "Sunday 2/01"?
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you
Surprisingly enough, some of us actually enjoy the game. And please don't go on about how it's just big men hitting each other in pads. If you put any sport into similar words you can make it look silly, especially Cricket.
Beyond those who watch it because they love the game, like me, there are the people that watch it because it's an EVENT. It's an excuse to throw a party. Every culture on Earth has numerous holidays that are fairly meaningless except for as excuses to throw parties. This is one of those days for the US.
Kick a ball around for 2* 45 minute sessions. That ball is called a football (the ball has a structure similar to C-64 in terms of pentagons and hexagons). The game of 'football' is played all around the world.
The company I work for, CityNet, is providing free internet access during the superbowl, and it has been going on for the past week. Hopefully this will provide us with some (plug)exposure to the public(/plug), since we need all the publicity that we can get :)
Probably the same thing anyone from anywhere gets from watching sports. Do not other countries go overboard with football/soccer? Why should this be any different? Also, it is after all a single game championship match (unlike other sports that have a series of games to determine the winner). Although, since I'm from Charlotte (hometown of the Panthers), I'm a bit biased on the situation.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Does it just strike me as very stupid from the extorter ?
I will not say that most gambling site are operated by/for criminals, but say that a good percentage of it are the operations of some legitimate business mans ?
My experience in this domain is that they will be able to get their hands on some money, but that said money will be delivered by Vito and Guido, and they'll be made an offer that they cannot refuse.
Maybe spammers should start spamming the mob too. Kill two birds with the same stone ?
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
Those are the top ten commercials?
Apple? Coke? Of course.
But what about the monkey ad? What about the Bud Bowl? (The commercial with about eight sequels) Who voted for these?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
What plugin do i need to watch those ads? Firebird and IE don't sem to know what do do with the video.
I couldn't immediately find a link, but ESPN's fake game came out with a Panthers win too, so you may want to rethink that bet. After all, a couple of guys playing a video game are never wrong.
i remember when the pregame show was just an hour before the game started. then it grew to two. and soon it had reached six. that was starting to seem a little excessive. but this year, i think the pregame show started on wednesday. when is enough, enough?
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
Do this for 8 years and four of your friends thinks you are a genius and the remaining 1020 have forgotten the whole thing.
This works with stock tips and is a scam that has been used for ages.
Help fight continental drift.
I'm a little surprised the story didn't mention CBS's censorship of an ad by MoveOn.org. The ad reflects a negative view of the Bush administration. CBS, which has donated massive amounts of money to Bush, as well as received favors from the administration and Congress, has decided they won't show "controversial" ads. Which is to say, political speech is apparently unacceptable. Odd, given that they're showing an ad from the White House.
It was a pretty safe bet that no matter what ad won the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest, CBS would reject it. CBS has a long standing policy of rejecting ads "for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."
(0.5)^8 = 0.0039 = 0.39%.
In other words, there's a 0.9961 that if you flip a coint 8 times, you're not going to predict the superbowl right all 8 times. However, that means that you only have to repeat your 8-coin flip experiment 1000 times to make it 98% likely that in one of those 1000 8-coin-flips, you're going to predict the winner correctly each time.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
For the ads listed in the article, you need RealOne Player. I thought you might have meant the MoveOn ad. I didn't RTFA before I made my earlier post.
Sorry. I know nothing.
That had nothing to do with the ad, it has to do with the fact that TV networks don't air "issue ads," or political ads not endorsing a certain political candidate. Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel. Yup, sucks, but that's the way things work. And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government. It would only be illegal if the FCC or Congress passed a law prohibiting issue ads on TV.
I'm going bowling with our super sunday morning. I'm going to watch our super bowl. And on monday I'm going to get sued for trademark violation :-)
One Thing That Won't Be Tackled on Sunday: Issues
By Eli Pariser
Campaigns Director, MoveOn.org Voter Fund
http://www.moveon.org/r?484
When the Super Bowl is beamed into living rooms around the world Sunday, you can expect to see TV spots hyping cars, beer, razor blades, three different erectile dysfunction cures, toilet paper and snack foods.
The ads will be slick and clever, lavishly produced, brilliant in their marketing. Some, no doubt, will be sexually suggestive or violent. Most will cost $2 million to $3 million to produce and broadcast.
But here's what you won't see: a single ad about the big issues that face our country today.
Outrageous as it may sound, CBS has decided that ads selling erectile dysfunction medicines and toilet paper are appropriate for Americans, but serious discussion should be banned. An ad about our country, our war, our president, the state of our schools or the size of our budget deficit? That, in the eyes of CBS officialdom, would be too controversial.
We know, because we tried. We thought that the Super Bowl, with 130 million viewers, would be a great place to get our message out. So we held a contest on the Internet to select the best ad we could possibly run. The ad we selected -- from 1,500 submissions -- shows children cleaning offices, washing dishes and hauling trash. It ends with the question: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1-trillion deficit?" (It's viewable at http://www.MoveOn.org ).
But even though we were willing to pony up the $1.6 million to pay for it, CBS refused to sell us the time, citing what it says is a 50-year-old policy prohibiting ads that take stands on controversial public policy issues.
CBS claims its policy is designed to keep the Citibanks and Microsofts of the world from buying time to tell Americans how to think. "It is designed to prevent those with means to produce and purchase network advertising from having undue influence on 'controversial issues of public importance,' " the network said this week.
Sounds fair, doesn't it? But what it really means is that if McDonald's buys an ad promoting its tasty Big Mac, no one can run an ad that says Big Macs are full of fat and unhealthful. Pfizer can run a spot saying it's "helping people in need" get medicine, but we can't air an ad saying that Pfizer lobbied to weaken the new Medicare bill to prop up drug prices. Halliburton has slick ads that stress its role supporting the troops in Iraq. But CBS would reject an ad that pointed to Halliburton's profiteering.
The fewer issue ads run, the more time there is for ads with mud-wrestling women selling beer and leggy models peddling fast cars. CBS execs think Americans love mindless consumerism more than anything else and that it's their duty to pander to this.
But with "fairness" doctrines no longer governing the airwaves and the media more concentrated each day, it's getting harder and harder to engage regular people in political discourse. Even the town square has been replaced, in most communities, by private malls, where politics is not encouraged.
Instead of taking every opportunity to promote civic discussion, commercial broadcasters like CBS shrink away. The airwaves are, more than ever, private enterprises. And for that we pay a price: As public political speech becomes more difficult and infrequent, the public becomes less engaged in the policies, processes and laws that govern us.
"Controversy" isn't the real problem. Network front offices love it when one group or another protests sexy babes in bikinis peddling beer brands, or violent video games in which the highest body count wins. That builds buzz.
The CBS policy represents the triumph of corporate self-interest over the public interest. This is the same CBS, after all, that yanked the Ronald Reagan miniseries recently when Republican bigwigs complained. As Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) noted this week, "These are the same executives at CBS who successfully lobbied this Cong
Argh...I love it. I post a corrective post, and end up screwing up what I was correcting in it...
The CBS special airs tonight, Saturday, 1/31, at 9 PM EST.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
I'd love to see this stuff hold up in court. Has it before? I doubt it.
It is perfectly legal (and EXPLICITLY legal) to use trademarks in news and mention as long as they don't cause brand confusion.
Also, the use of copyrights to protect news is not legal. No one is allowed to rebroadcast the the coverage of the game verbatim, but nothing prevents someone from relaying the general events from the game. This is in the First Amendment, and there are no exceptions.
--American Football is big, big business in the USA. It represents what Americans love best, which is war. It has nearly all the elements of a war, fought during a time frame of about four hours, with sixty minutes of actual game time. It has offense, defense, gaining ground, losing ground, battle after battle, strategies, tactics, hierarchical command structures, casualties, statistics, a winner, and a loser.
The Superbowl represents the pinnacle of all this, the wheat having been separated from the chaff throughout the regular season and post-season.
It's a chance for American Football aficianados to gather over pizza, chicken wings, potato chips, shrimp cocktail, and copious beer, and cheer on one team or the other.
For the fans in the home city of a Superbowl contender, there is a level of excitement that would probably embarrass a British person to death. Scottish people, on the other hand, would quite understand.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Will someone remind me why about half of those comercials were there in the list? Ones like the "Let me cream your face" and the Xerox one weren't all that great.
If you were to report on the Super Bowl, you could say "Super Bowl" 500 times in a row without breathing and not get sued for anything. What the NFL is alleging is that they'll perhaps sue you if you have a marketing campaign that causes confusion in consumers whether the product is affiliated with the Super Bowl.
It would sound to me like a radio station giving away tickets could probably take the risk of saying Super Bowl all the time, as they're not saying they're the official radio station of the Super Bowl or anything like that, and it's unlikely that any jury would find that this would cause confusion in the consumer, but the decision of whether to take that risk lies with the station owners and their lawyers.
Back home, only infants and coma patients play rugby. Everyone else straps on crotchless chain-mail covered with huge (6 -> 12 inches) spikes to play. The 'ball' is a sack of dynamite that explodes every 5 minutes. When that happens, they toss in more players and a new sack. It is actually legal to pick up expired body parts and either A) use them as weapons or B) impale them upon your spikes for reasons of intimidation. The ref is a three-eyed black-masked executioner with an uzi. Instead of buying soda at the concession stands, you buy acid.
Screw that, we got more football to watch!
--- Bwah?
Now watch this post get marked down as a troll because somebody with mod points eats meat, and thinks information like this shouldn't receive attention.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/30/ 0441238&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=21 2 I guess one two out of three originals ain't bad for slashdot!
Bud. Weis. Where?
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
I usually watch the superbowl for the cheerleaders... Well that and the hot chicks on the bud-light commericals. It has come to the point that I pray for more scores so I can see more of the cheerleaders and at least one bud-light commercial.
Cricket is silly. Any game where you dress like that and spend a week throwing a ball at some sticks in the ground can't be that great ;-)
I am English, BTW. I never really saw the attraction of football (soccer) as a spectator sport either to be honest. Ice hockey, on the other hand, rocks - shame we only get it at obscure times of the night.
Cricket doesn't need any words to make it look silly! Though possibly cricket is similar to american football in that both games seem impossibly long and dull to those not interested in them whereas I presume fans view it differently.
CBS is making a smart business decision not to air this ad. Why should CBS want to bring in unneeded controversy into the Super Bowl that would distract from the game? Since it has a product that is in high demand for advertisers, CBS can pick and choose which advertisers it wants to fill in those 30 second gaps between plays. Also, if you are spending $2 million an ad as advertiser would you want your commercial message to be drowned out by adjacent partisan political message? Heck no! This would make it hard for CBS to sell the ad space next to the MoveOn ad.
This isn't political censorship, its smart business on the part of CBS.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Scottish people are British! (The word you were looking for was English - I think). Although I'm not quite sure why you think English people would be embarrased by excitement.
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
Super what?
--- Ban humanity.
The Falcon's compound is also used for coporate meeting and classes. I was their for one. During my lunch break I went outside to get some fresh air and eat. I happend to be looking at the Falcons standing around talking - it was about fifty yards away, no fences or anything else to obstruct my view - when a police cruiser pulls up. The cop then told me that there's no looking. I responded with something along the lines of, if it's that important to be secret, why don't they put a fence up? The cop told me that it's "NFL RULES." and I have to move along. He says he has to tell people who are on McDonald's property the same thing.
So, I guess NFL's rules supercede our civil rights.
There is no spoon or sig.
When going through the electronic-oriented Sunday ads last weekend I noticed that televisions will now be delivered before the "big game". Or the "big event". And the players were all "generic". (Granted - that aspect isn't new.) First thing I thought was the NFL was playing the IP protection game.
If it was a fight worth fighting - I'd say that the NFL gave up many (but not all) of their rights to dictate the use of "Super Bowl" after many decades of neglect.
No, tonight is not the 1st day of the 31st month.
It's 31/1. 31/1, 2004. Or 2004-01-31. Or 31-01-2004.
Use either little endian or big endian. You can't have both at the same time.
Along the same lines, to play football, you need to play with a ball, using your feet.
Any of you folks running linux may not have the best RealPlayer integration in your browsers, so here are the direct links to each of the RealMedia files, with a brief synopsis of each commercial (but no "spoilers").
Slashcode will probably embed spaces in these URLs, so you may have to manually remove them.
I quit watching television about seven or eight years ago. However, I try to catch the Super Bowl every year, if only for the commercials. In fact, I've always told folks that if there was a channel that just played commercials all day, I'd probably tune in to it.
I imagine it could be like VH-1 Classic, with an hour for commercials from the 50s, another from the 60s, etc. Maybe a "groundbreaking" commercials hour. Maybe one with ads from various countries.
I'd tune in, anyway.
Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
Try running an add on CNN featuring full frontal nudity and see if they don't "censor" it. I think what the zealots mean is "...a channel that didn't decline to run *our* ad."
Every media outlet practices this kind of "censorship" (the quotes because actual censorship requires government involvement). Moveon is right to vote with their wallet and even to encourage a CBS boycott. They are wrong, however, to characterize CBS's refusal to run their ad as "censorship" or to state that CNN does not exercise the same kind of editorial control over the ads they run.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
That had nothing to do with the ad, it has to do with the fact that TV networks don't air "issue ads," or political ads not endorsing a certain political candidate.
Not true, they air such ads all the time when they come from the Democrats and/or the Republicans.
Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel.
And ads for three different drugs that induce erections aren't?
Yup, sucks...
Yes, it does. Hence my pointing it out.
but that's the way things work.
Or to put it another way, we live in a totalitarian state.
And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government.
A very simplistic reading of the situation. Those our are airwaves. The very fact that the networks can be given exclusive access to those airwaves on the one hand and then be allowed to suppress speech is de facto government censorship.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
What are they smoking? One of the best superbowl commercials ever is "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker." I even like it better than the Apple one. I don't know where the original one is, but you can watch some sequels (also really funny) here. You'll probably have to log in:
username: azsxdc@azsxdc.com
password: password
I have the original commercial on my drive, but I don't think my server can handle a slashdotting - if anyone wants to host it, I'll send it to them.
c-hack.com |
Actually, it's CBS's decision that's protected by the First Amendment. Only in very rare cases can anybody force CBS to broadcast something in doesn't want to, the freedom of the press goes to the owner of the press.
I visualize Joe Pesci sitting in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant, hacking in VBScript.
Many Houstonians are already becoming adverse to the Super Bowl. The advertisements are extremely ubiquitous, littering even the communities that possess no affiliation with the municipality of Houston. Enormous billboards and banners attached to streetlamps emphasize the "importance" of the incipient Super Bowl.
As you're probably aware, the local government has also installed a multi-million dollar light rail system that many speculate is intended specifically to transport passengers from downtown to Reliant Stadium. Metro has removed one lane from streets traversed by the light rail system; commuters are "warned" of oncoming traffic by a single light encouraging them not to cross the track. Ten serious traffic accidents have already been attributed to this implementation, which is reportedly being scrutinized by citizens and Metro engineers alike.
This event is an exhibition of corporately funded "sports," pop stars endorsed by the RIAA, and the "best" television commercials. It astonishes me that the Slashdot community is so ravenously infatuated. With the possible exception of SCO, this encompasses everything that you are supposedly adverse to.
Do you like German cars?
What about that ad is controversial?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
from the PDF:
The first rule of Super Bowl: You do not talk about 'Super Bowl'
The second rule of Super Bowl: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SUPER BOWL
The third rule of Super Bowl: The words: Super Bowl, Super Sunday, NFL, AFC and NFC are all trade marks of the National Football League. If you utter or taint them we WILL kick your fucking head in! OK?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The super bowl is definitly a national holiday, no mail, banks are closed...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
"It would only be illegal if the FCC or Congress passed a law prohibiting issue ads on TV."
If they don't "tow the line", their license might not be renewed. Censorship comes in many forms.
What?
Oops, it's right on their home page. Duh.
Heh, Felcher...
c-hack.com |
I remember a year or two ago The End's morning DJ got reprimanded by the station for abusing the NFL's superbowl trademarks. Stupid jerks.
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
Dear National Football League,
I am writing to you today to express my joy over a recent shopping experience at your online warehouse. It was indeed a Super Sunday because I found natural fleece coats (NFC) with angora-free cuffs (AFC) in my size. I also finally found the natural floor lighting (NFL) I have long wanted but couldn't find anywhere else.
Call us a bunch of Cowboys, but now my family and I can enjoy watching the Super Bowl while we're out in the forest waiting to shoot some Bucs and maybe some Bears.
Sincerely yours,
An NFL fan
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
C'mon, either one...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
and once again, like every year, canadian viewers will be blocked out of the the american ads and will be force-fed canadian ads. it'll most probably be the same ad talking about canadian heros and canadian stars making it down in the US.. the same ads they've been brainwashing people with daily.
with ad critic charging for money, hopefully there'll be a place to download (or bittorrent) the ads after the game - like we did last year!
my blog
And cricket is played with...?
Hmmm...
First the NFL says NO to ads for Las Vegas during the superbowl. Then CBS says NO to ads against Bush during the game. The NFL says NO WAY to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size. Its just the NFL's arbitrary size. The Palms was planning to show it on their huge movie theater screens. Oh well, I guess the NFL doesnt like its superbowl party being upstaged by Vegas. Now they're just taking their ball and going back to Houston. Paul Tagliabue caused lots of casinos to lose lots of money because of the NFL's childlike behavior. Hello, only so many people can go to the game! What are the rest supposed to do, wait outside and be happy they're near the game?? Paul also threatened the players with fines or possibly suspensions for "excessive celebration" during the Superbowl.
The NFL is definately the No Fun League.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
This is an overly simplistic statement. The electromagnetic spectrum is a public resource. It is thus subject to less First Amendment protection than other mediums and subject to more government regulation.
There are First Amendment considerations at issue, such as the Equal Time Rule, which in essence, "a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office."
Thus, if CBS runs an ad for one candidate, they must offer the same time to other candidates. I don't know how this would affect running a purely "anti-candidate" ad which positively endorses no specific candidate. But it might give rise to the right of the "anti-candidate" to give a rebuttal.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
Finally, a viable business model for Slashdot.
That's strange, I don't remember too many Americans jumping up and cheering when they see footage of Vietnam or Iraq.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
...but replace football with soccer and American with European and tell me if anything changes.
Ok, I'll bite. When's the last time you heard the words "hooligan" and "riot" associated with American football?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
With Cricket, you don't have to. Looking silly is a built-in feature.
Go panthers!
ymmv
I wouldn't use those exact words, but there's plenty of debauchery and rioting that happens around football. When I was in college we used to storm the field and tear the goal posts down and drag them through the streets of the town. It was usually done by 50-100 people, maybe more. I would bet that violent crime surges around football time, especially the big events. I would also bet that there have been a few full-fledged riots at American football games (or at least shortly thereafter).
It's really because it is Sunday - mail generally doesn't run on sunday and banks [the branches] are not normally open on Sunday either -
ymmv
You obviously don't work for a large auto manufacturer full of lazy union tit suckers. Yes, they do get excited over the stupid bullshit and if war coverage was dressed up like professional sports i'm sure some parties would be thrown. Fortunately we're not quite to that point yet, but you can bet your ass that if the media (aka government) has it's way you'll be sure to see b/million dollar commercials wedged between the slaughter of oceana residents. Oh shit I forgot again... is Oceana our ally or enemy?
I'm assuming that the ever-diligent /. staff didn't clear this with the lawyers...
But if we can't say these words, how the heck can we talk football at the coffeepot at work & if we don't talk football at the coffeepot at work, how many fewer of us will watch the game?
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Can anyone cite cases where referring to "Super Bowl" has landed anyone in legal trouble ? It seems absurd that you're not able to "fair use" the trademark by using the term "Super Bowl". I think the recommendation of the law firm is stepping over the mark and it's advice is overly restrictive.
CBS has a long standing policy of rejecting ads "for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."
Bullshit. They're running another one of these goddamned "drug-use equals terrorism" ads from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy again this year.
They always run this kind of crap. But only when it suits their political point-of-view.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
It represents what Americans love best, which is war.
Oh come on...
As an American, I demand you get it right.
War is way down on the list:
10) Replacing small towns with Wal*Mart's
9) Killing Babies
8) War
7) Traveling to Europe while wearing sneakers.
6) Starving little children.
5) Pissing off liberals
4) Driving SUV's
3) Eating MEAT MEAT MEAT
2) Living in huge, but cheap, houses.
1) Being right.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Check out the Levi's Ad. Can you see the guys weird walk? How can you see it at like 12FPS? If you've never seen this ad how could anyone see what the ad is about without seeing all the frames, not 50% or less.
Infinite Crap to the power of CRAP
The torrent for the bushin30secs.org 'ad'vertisement, along with the semifinalists as well:h In30Seconds.com.Ad.Contest.Videos.%5BMOV%5D-rar(2) .torrent
http://66.79.177.160/~suprnova//torrents/1066/Bus
So our date system is PDP endian. Deal with it.
I can't remember what the product was... and maybe that's why it's not in the top ten... but the fairly recent commercial called "Cat Herding" should be in the top ten, IMO. The Yahoo commercial with the dolphin was pretty funny too. Though, like they say on the site, with some 60 commercials per game and 37 Superbowls... that's a lot of ads. Maybe they need to do an MTV style countdown, like the Top 100 or something. Then again... I use my DVR to rewind particularly funny commercials, even though I almost never buy the particular products advertised.
"...The mice will see you now..."
At least they have a sense of humor about it.
From the PDF:
"You can make fun of the fact that you cannot
say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g., by beeping
it out)"
There are enough games during the week. I can tell. I live next to a soccer stadium.
Oh, sure, I wouldn't dare say that there's *never* been rioting associated with American football; it's just doesn't happen on a regular basis like it does with soccer.
Also, IMHO, using the tearing down of goalposts as an example is kind of a bad analogy. I say this because, while it is quite rambunctious and frenzied, it's not really fan violence in the sense that a riot is. It is stupid and dangerous as hell, though. I'll give you that. IIRC, a girl was injured badly and was nearly killed by a falling goalpost after a Georgia-Tennessee game a few years back.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Not true, they air such ads all the time when they come from the Democrats and/or the Republicans.
Be more specific, they air issue ads when they come from a Republican or Democrat running for an elected office. In those cases, the networks are faced with an all-or-nothing situation, they must take all ads pertaining to that election at the same "lowest" rate for the timeslot, or turn all ads for that election away.
Be more specific...
You mean like this earlier reply to you?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
yeah, i mean its not like the only reason that sports exsists is to distract the general population from politics or important social issues.
"Lets take sports. Thats another crucial example of the indoctronation system in my view. For one thing because it offers people somethign to pay attention to, thats of no importance. It keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea about doing something about.
And infact its striking to see the intelligence used by ordinary people in sports. I mean you listen to radio stations and people call in. They have the most exotic information, understanding about all kinds of arcane issues.
But the point is it does make sense. Its a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to athority. And you know, group cohesion behind leadership elements. Infact its training in irrational jingoism.
I think if you look closely at these things, they do have functions. Thats why money is speant supporting them, creating a base for them, advertising them and so on."
-- Noam Chomsky -- Manufacturing Consent, The video Transcribed by me
this is what made me understand why people like watching sports, as I never have.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I tried to submit a similar story yesterday. My favorite radio station, WFNX in Boston, has had numerous DJs say that they've been sent with Cease-and-Desist orders by the NFL's lawyers, for having used the term "Super Bowl" and other related "trademarks".
Funny thing is, it was not in any way related to a contest, promotion, or anything else. It was simply in the context of speaking freely about their opinions on the teams, their predicted outcome, and the like. In other words, fair use in the course of reporting the news.
So, since when is it illegal for me to refer to "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid", simply because it's trademarked? Would I have to say "a medical bandage produced by the company sounding like Ronson & Ronson"? That's ridiculous.
A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship.
Then you wouldn't mind me giving you 10 bucks to put a pro-bush ad up in your yard, right? What's that - you won't? How odd!! You cowardly censor you, deciding to control what speech I can practice while on your own property!
Censorship is CBS sending over a squad to take out all of the people at moveon.org with high powered rifles, or throwing them in a prison for a few years and letting everyone else know what happened. Being picky about what they will broadcast over a network that THEY (not you) pay for is hardly censorship.
Only the government or groups using brute force can truly be censors. All other cases are simply choices that you may or may not agree with, but are hardly censorship. Is CBS refusing to run the ad ever? No! Just not during the superbowl.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, I said all these things without permission from the National Football League (oops, there's another one). Come on then, lawyers! Come after me for using these trademarked words without permission!
This is legal bullshit taken to the extreme. So if there's a Black Sunday scenario tomorrow, the news networks aren't allowed to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl" but have to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Big Game in Houston"? Madness.
Super Bowl! Super Bowl! Super Bowl!
You must think in Russian.
Frankly, as to the driving accidents I would propose using Occam's Razor - the simplest answer in quite frankly that Houston drivers continue to be a pool of some of the craziest drivers around. I saw a truck literally drive right up the side of a tall concrete median in the loop on an almost empty road. I saw a large truck tire pass me, sans truck, while driving down a frontage road. I saw crazy stuff anytime I drove anywhere and the number of people hitting trains there tells be they must have some amazingly good traffic engineering to keep MORE idiots from slamming into them.
I was just there last May and was wondering what was up with all the construction, I didn't realize the Superbowl was bound there... to me some of the road improvments seemed pretty good, but I was only a passenger at the time. I'm not sure if I saw the intersection you speak of or not, though we were dirivng around the light rail line.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's no credible organization stepping forward to say that there is no link between illegal drugs and terrorism... and anti-illegal-drugs messages aren't that socially unacceptable.
The contraversial issue that the MoveOn.org ad basically brings forward is "Running a budget deficit is bad for the future." That's a point that can be debated, there's plenty of people out there willing to argue that having a deficit today is actually a good thing for our future. And that's a fight CBS would rather not get itself in the middle of. They fear that some anti-MoveOn.org group might come forward and suggest a boycott of CBS programs... and suddenly taking MoveOn.org's ad is a bigger loss to the network than not taking it. Nobody's ever going to boycott the network most Pepsi ads, and the network will turn Pepsi away if they're ever dumb enough to hand in a politically incorrect one.
The lameness filter is lame...
Apple Computer commercial
Anheuser-Busch commercial"
Coke commercial
Levi's commercial
McDonalds commercial
Mountain Dew commercial
Noxzema commercial
Pepsi commercial
Tobasco commercial
Xerox commercial
There isn't a conspiracy of CBS, Budweiser, Apple, Xerox, GM, Ford, Dorritos, Pepsi, Miller Lite and the Partnership for a Drug Free America (Well, ok, maybe there) trying to distract you while the Government kills kitty cats, push grannies down stairs and tell poor people they can't have any money. It can do that quite well on its own right in front of us. No distractions needed. We just pick and choose which ones we most want to be pissed about.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
According to the PDF: "* You can make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g., by beeping it out)"
The ad itself isn't contraversial, but the issue that it brings forward, are deficits bad for the future, is. CBS doesn't want their football coverage to become a political forum, because then people will get upset and might not be inclined to watch the program, which devalues all of the ad space. By comparision, more people are likely to be attracted than repelled by Britney, Pink, and Beyonce wearing small outfits...
Here's a thought. Perhaps it is OK to have some entertainment that's devoid of issues. There is a time and a place for people to consider issues, but there also is a time and place for relaxing. When I go to a movie theater I don't want to see the animated popcorn bad running around after some animated candy boxes replaced by any political ad (no matter how I hate the animated ppcorn guy).
Similarily, I am watching the superbowl for enterainment value alone (the commercials) and don't want to see the moveon ad, or an ad for Bush, or an ad for any "cause" (even ones that I spoort). it's not that I don't care but I like to keep some thing seperate. Don't get your political gravy in the cranberry sauce of my entertainment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...you could say "Super Bowl" 500 times in a row without breathing and not get sued for anything.
Yeah, if I do that I don't think my biggest concern will be getting sued. Getting oxygen, perhaps...
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
He's obviously never been to a real football game. Brits put American fans to shame (for the record, I'm American myself).
G
However, having lived in houston for 18 years and returning there at least once a month, I can say that houston drivers are the most incompetent, impatient and downright insane drivers ive ever encountered. They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)
It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.
-
It may be censorship in the exact definition of the word, but not in the big brother way you're all thinking of it.
Come again? It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship? What makes you think that no-one but you understands the distinction between censorship and government censorship? Where do you get off saying that the parent poster is "Wrong. Wrong wrong." based solely on the fact that you don't think others are capable of understanding the words they use?
Thus, this is censorship exactly as the parent said. It seems perfectly reasonable that many people find it distasteful that a large corporation is choosing to censor ads based on their own political views (rather than on the basis of public mores, which is a much more common way ads are censored).
The fact that they have the legal right to do it doesn't mean we can't object, nor does that fact that it is (in your opinion, at least) a good business model. Take a quick slashdot survey of the number of people who like Microsoft's business tactics... yet it's hard to argue that they do not form (in most cases) a good business model for Microsoft.
In this contest, between Carolina Panthers and New England Patriots, extremely wealthy men will forgo their normal environment and put on many pounds of gear to play whimped down version of Rugby. The winner of the game will be the champion.
Of course, this is entertainment so the true relevance is the demographic that it delivers to the advertisers. In this sense, the Super Bowl will once again fulfill it's primary mission.
One also suspects that many Americans, for the first time, will know the existence and location of Carolina.
Questionable Industries welcomes all Super Bowl guests to Houston. We will be scalping tickets on the corner of Fannin and Holly Hall. We will also be offering certified disease free hookers along Holly Hall and Murworth, conveniently grouped by age. The 18 year olds will be in the Excalades, the 19-21 year olds will be in the Explorers, and 21-25 will be in the Durangos. Hookers over this age will be conveniently located in their normal environment of the Holly Hall apartments. The males will be in the blue cars and females in the pink cars. Please do not be racist and expect certain ethnic types. We are a class operation!
A limited number of 12-18 year olds will be available in the customized vans. Younger hookers are available with 24 hours request, as they must be brought in from Mexico.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Patriots 24 Panthers 10
Stuff that matters.
Balancing the budget means everything is accounted for. It doesn't mean the surplus is being applied to lower the debt or that the lack of funds is adding to the debt.
x es /fed-debt.html
The fact is the deficit has been an american icon for decades. The last time we didn't have a debt was in the early 1900's.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/ta
What's very telling is that from 1992 to 1996 the national debt rose 1.3 TRILLION dollars. From 1996 to 2004 is rose that same amount.
So Clinton raises the debt 1.3 trillion in 4 years and another 500 billion in his second term. From 2000 to present the debt was raised another 500 billion dollars.
So where is the 1 Trillion that Bush is responsible for?
The ad is not only a big giant troll but is also accuses Bush of doing something CLINTON pulled off in his first term and yet he got reelected.
So is it an ad to point out how well Bush managed the debt?
Apparently, if you look at the facts.
"just please check facts before you start spouting off."
The very definition of irony.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Here are some more... http://bushin30seconds.com/view/1024_large.shtml http://bushin30seconds.com/view/2472_large.shtml http://bushin30seconds.com/view/2232_large.shtml http://bushin30seconds.com/view/06_large.shtml
Tragek
That's controversial? You're spending more than you're making. Someone, eventually, is going to have to pay all of that money back, along with billions in interest. It will either be us or our children (or their children, etc.). How can you argue against that?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
A cricket test (the 5 day version of the sport) is one of the greatest sporting events there is. There are great amounts of stratergy etc involved. And with what other sports can you sit on a grassy embankment drinking beer wacthing the best sport in the world in the middle of summer?
http://blog.karit.geek.nz/
But does the famous Mac commercial even mention IBM? If so, I missed when. The pictured "big brother" organization could well have always been Microsoft Corporation.
There's no credible organization stepping forward to say that there is no link between illegal drugs and terrorism...
So what? I see no such requirement in the policy CBS puts forward in defense of this onerous decision.
You're grasping at straws.
And who says that the ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance aren't credible?
And even if that were the case, why do you suppose that would be? Because so many in the media refuse to run advocacy ads disputing the connection between drugs and terrorism?
Just because your OK with goosestepping into a future of shit doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
It's sort of like, oh I dunno... say 'hyperbole'? hyperbole ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-purb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
Get it now?
It's used to sell you stuff all the time.
Censorship is CBS sending over a squad to take out all of the people at moveon.org with high powered rifles, or throwing them in a prison for a few years and letting everyone else know what happened.
Except that's exactly what will happen if you try to broadcast a message in the United States without a license from the FCC. The airwaves in many towns are so crowded that nobody could get a license even with a billion dollar investment.
Censorship is something the government does.
There exist a finite and small number of frequency bands that mass-market receivers can receive. The FCC grants monopolies on the use of such frequency bands in the United States to private entities, and in some towns, the FCC has granted so many monopolies that there exist literally no free frequencies to assign to new firms. When all the monopoly holders exercise "editorial control", and the FCC uses the FBI to enforce those monopolies, how is this not censorship?
Debt != Deficit. The ad refers to the deficit. Reagan, the Bushes, and to some extent Clinton may have dramatically enlarged the national debt, but Clinton was showing a budget surplus by the end of his second term (which Gore proposed to use to pay off part of the debt). Meanwhile, Bush has led us into a (projected) trillion dollar deficit over the next couple years. This is not accumulated debt. This is money that Bush has personally spent.
The Democratic policy of Robinhood Economics needs to be corrected
That's the philosophical issue here. Some people do hard physical labor all day and earn peanuts for it. Some people do amazingly skilled work (teachers, social work, non-popular musicians, engineers, etc.) and get barely enough to provide for their families. Some others (professional athletes and musicians, CEOs, actors, investors, brokers, etc.) earn millions or billions for doing work often less difficult or skilled than that done by those earning many times less. Even the most skilled brain surgeons earn less than the average NBA bench-warmer.
Yes, some people (like Bill Gates) start from nothing and work their way up to incredible riches. However, does Gates work 100,000 times harder than the average American? Is he 100,000 times better? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself: does he deserve 100,000 times the wealth of the average American?
The position of many Democrats is that no one can possibly actually earn the enormous fortunes that many people have. That's why they generally support massive taxation of the incredibly rich, and the use of that money to go towards improving conditions for the poor (especially education). When, in the face of a massive deficit, Bush takes money that the government badly needs, and gives it to the people who need it least, people have a reason to be angry.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
What the heck is this Superb Owl I keep hearing about. Whats so great about it? Does it know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
Don't Tread on Me
NASCAR at Watkins Glen
This
"some extent" Only GB senior managed to raise it more. And since 1940 only 6 years exist that the debt went down any amount. And Clinton had the dotcom boom to work with. GW has raised the national debt 265 Billion in a bad economy. Clinton raised it 317 Billion in a good economy in the dotcom era and over 800 Billion his first term.
Deficit goes to the Debt. Clinton tanked the National Debt to a level only George Bush senior managed to do. Who cares if you have "money left over" if the money left over pales in comparison to the amount you tanked the debt. And the facts are the National Debt hasn't be increased more than 100 Billion per year since Bush got into office.
So what if Bush spends 1 Trillion dollars? If it were a bad thing it would fall into the debt. It hasn't. Yes he's spending money, but obviously he has it covered. And as Clinton so wonderfully demonstrated and you've lapdogged at, having the illusion of a surplus is more important than paying off the debt. No president since 1940 has made a consistant effort to get it paid down. That should tell you something about government spending and the importance of avoiding deficits. The fact is, balancing the budget comes second to getting things done. And paying off the debt comes last. At the current trend the debt will stabalize in not too long.
"If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself: does he deserve 100,000 times the wealth of the average American?"
No I don't. It's not a matter of deserving. Robinhood economics are for fairy tales. Which apparently the Democrates are fond of.
There's no getting around the fact that Bush is good for the economy no matter how many Democrates want to hide behind lies. Clinton was handed a good economy on a silver plater when the net went mainstream in a way never seen before in history and he SUCKED. For what Bush has had to work with he's been doing a spectacular job.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Or when was the last time you heard of people being *trampled* to death at an American football game?
Did US rules football get popular because it has all those breaks for ads so it got on TV more often and more people saw it? or did they change the game to add the the breaks for TV? I really want to know.
BTW (for those that don't live in the US) IMHO the main difference between US football and elsewhere is that you're allowed to go tackle people who don't have the ball
Sports illustrated/CNN is carrying a story about how the NFL has refused to allow Las Vegas casinos to have superbowl parties, because it violates their IP.
Just because the NFL's lawyers write some stuff doesn't mean it's true. Their claim to absolute control over the use of the term "Super Bowl" and the various team and conference names is patently ridiculous -- nominative fair use obviously comes in to play here.
It's nice to know, though, that the NFL's (oops) lawyers don't mind anyone saying "February 1, 2004".
(No, I'm not a lawyer. My advice is worth what you paid me for it. But so is the NFL (oops) lawyers' advice)
the 2 second version: "Bush bad because of high deficit"
I want more commercials like this. Problems with no solutions. I remember the good ole days where I'd see a commercial opening with "I am up to my ears in debt" and closing with a viable solution to getting out of personal debt. Instead, we get "BUSH BAD". What does it accomplish? Less votes for Bush? IF so, more votes for whom? We don't even know who's running against him yet. Nadir hasn't said anything officially (Though on Bill Maher he made some hints) and Democrats haven't had their champion chosen yet. What's the point of this ad? I see a food ad during the superbowl, I think "I am kind of hungry". I see a beer commercial, I think "I am kind of thirsty". It's not like this anti-bush commercial is going to make me critically rethink my voting position months before the election, especially if there's a funny commercial and/or football before and after this ad.
Done Ranting. I just don't see the point in playing this commercial during the superbowl, as I can't see more than 2% of the world actually paying attention to it.
Oceana is our ally and always has been.
Go back to watching your TV, citizens.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
someone's got serious cajones.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
I don't live in the US, but I have read that people gather up in front of the TV when it is Super Bowl, partly because of the "great" commercials. I now watched all ten in this list, and I am puzzled. Are these really the best commercials in the country of consumerism and capitalism? Because frankly, I don't find them very good. There is some kind of "grand" feeling to some of them, some might have been expensive to make, and they probably appeal to many people by using some lower denominator. But they lack humour, the acting in them is bad, and I don't feel much when I see them.
I think this is because they are aimed at a very big and diverse audience. I have seen plenty of better commercials here though (where here is Sweden). We also have the usual rubbish with shampoo, soap and pampers, but those that are good are more creative than these shown here, and often have great acting, and are more funny.
What are your feelings about the Super Bowl commericals? Are they the best you get there, or are the local ones, or more odd ones better? My feeling is that if you aim at a smaller audience, chances are you end up with a better commercial (where I define "better" as more entertaining to watch).
"The number of jobs lost is astounding and the job creation pace is pitiful."
The dotcom boom created millions of jobs. The dotcom burst made all those frivilous jobs go away. It takes far more people to build a house than it does to maintain it.
"blame the President" is just mindless banter.
"Clinton was not handed a good economy."
What do you call the dotcom boom? Do you actually believe Al Gore invented the internet? Clinton borrows 800+ billion his first term, got reelected and then the dotcom boom handed him fistfuls of tax money so it wasn't necessary to borrow.
And now you expect us to believe that despite the piss poor economy that has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the flailing tech business sector and two wars going on which aren't cheap that Bush's contribution to the debt is just too much.
riiiiiight. It's a dumb hypocritical ad and there's no getting around it.
It may be a bit excessive but considering the circumstances it's hardly a selling point for the Democrates.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Stop rolling your eyes and drop the ridiculous pretense. I know your heart was broken when you saw "Superbowling" on the front page... I should come to expect that every year there will be a front-page story here about the super bowl and slews of posts saying "I can't believe we are stooping to cover/discuss the super bowl! We're nerds, remember? This doesn't matter! Where's the chin-stroking, world-conscious intellectualism that I'm used to?!"
Move to Buffalo if you don't want your city to pander to the NFL for the Super Bowl. Oh, and there are plenty of the usual stories all over this site. Stifle your moral outrage and head over to one of them.
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
Time to cut the mullet friend, and join civilization.
Seriously, New England is SO DISMAL during the winter, and it stays that way until april or may. We need as many excuses to drink heavily, have social contact, and eat fatty reserves as possible.
Hell, this winter's been vicious cold, most retailers are WAY down in sales because people just aren't leaving their houses unless they have to. Hell, today peaked over freezing for the first time in about two or three weeks, at least; there were ARMIES of people outside going to get haircuts, food shopping, and getting cars repaired and cleaned.
If it weren't for these excuses to party we'd all go nuts sometime in February.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
No matter what your salary is, there is much less flexibility on the *required* amount of money to have a reasonable standard of life. It may be somewhat higher due to family size, area, or incidentals, but not by much more than 2 or 3 times.
If you're making $30,000 a year, you're probably just over family expenses. If you're making $300,000 and have less than 20 kids, you're can probably afford to lose a few thousand dollars and still not worry about food, shelter, and health care.
That's why it's fair to soak the rich. They can tolerate it.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
We all know that these superbowl predictions made by 989 sports' game and espn's game won't accurately pick this years football game. I'm going to have to simulate it in Madden 2003 to get some real results. Either that, or I'm a very stubborn patriots fan refusing to believe even the POSSIBILITY of a panthers win :)
I just think it's pathetic when potential presidential candidates lie to our faces and tell us they aren't paying their fair share and democrates whine about tax breaks "for the wealthy"
You pay more, you get more back. Common sense.
"That's why it's fair to soak the rich. They can tolerate it."
Being able to tolerate it doesn't make it fair. If the rich weren't being ripped off under the current system of taxes everyone else would feel the pain real quick. So instead of pretending they deserve it, why not thank them instead for making your life easier by picking up the slack?
Being poor isn't an excuse to be an ungrateful prick.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Sunday is the 1st of February.
d make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31
...several miles north and west so that the view from the McDonald's is effectively blocked now. I'm sure the Gwinnett County police department is much happier.
The indoor practice field made a cameo appearance in ESPN's "Beg, Borrow, and Deal" as one team kicked a 35-yard field goal there with Falcons kicker Jay Feely as the holder.
Beyond obscenity (and nudity), which might be viewed as censorship, the government is not controlling CBS in this case. CBS wants to leave entertainment as entertainment, and who can blame them? They are finding other channels, as is shown by advertising on CNN. It's not censorship if the government is not doing anything to stop you, but you can't get one particular party to agree to broadcast something you don't like!! That's called whining.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I drove on the road that was paid for in part by CBS buying that portion of the spectrum. They made some agreements but I don't believe they including broadcasting anything anyone demanded them to at any time they liked.
Has CBS said they will NEVER boradcast this? That's not what I'm hearing, it's just the superbowl, and they found another outlet CNN. HOW CAN IT BE CENSORSHIP WHEN THERE ARE ABOUT 100 OTHER MEANS OF REACHING AN AUDIENCE AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME MANNER???
Again, calling that censorship is exaclty the same as you not letting me make crank calls from your house and calling THAT censorship. That's why I am pretty sure that you have zero understanding of what real censorship is. Ask someone in China.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bullshit. CBA sells ads TO MAKE MONEY. Its not that hard of a concept. SO in order to keep making money as a company, they must keep selling future ads. CBS isn't running this commercial because of the "policies of the company." Its not running the ad because
A. Moveon.org will never buy another ad again, yet its message MIGHT piss of the "consumer base" of a Superbowl (the good ol boys of america -in which Bush is one also).
B. If they piss of "future customers" of they network, then their ad space is less valuable because the value is based on ratings and fewer people would be watching (especially with CBS considering that as a network they pander to old people - a usually conservative group). C. Plently of other regular ad buyers also want the space (pepsi) with less contriversial messages.
Open Source Sushi
Networks air PSA's for free
White House buys Super Bowl anti-drug spots
2 anti-drug ads at 1.6 million dollars a piece.
-metric
I think we need to not call out that the sky is falling, until it actually is. CBS wanting to keep a forum for entertainment entertaining is not censorship. Moveon.org is having just as many people see it anyway, in fact perhaps far more that care than would have otherwise (how well do YOU think most of the people watching the superbowl would have liked the commercial anyway?).
I prefer to save my battles for when there is something to fight over. If this had been a pro-Bush ad I would have just as hastily defending the same choice by CBS, which would have been made the same way since it's the way they've laid down the rules. I am if nothing else a champion of fairness and I don't see why Moveon should get to air an ad here if no other candidates do, which I don't want because then the Superbowl would turning into a total suckfest instead of the moderately amusing rush to spend a gajillion dollars for 30 seconds of my attention.
If CNN had refused to run it then I would have been like "Hey, what the hell?" but they did not so case closed. This is no X-files, it's not even a job for Encyclopedia Brown.
The attacks are because I get PISSED OFF watching people wasting energy on this crap, instead of doing something worthwhile with their time (myself included).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
( Now, before everyone goes into shock at seeing the "s" word. . . )
However , the fact remains that the national debt increased far, far less during Clinton's terms (due to a (eventually) balanced budget) than it has for a very long time (you yourself noted that, according to your data, the debt increased in his second term by less than half of what it had in his first) , and than it is currently projected to for the next 10 years or so. This projected increase is due very directly to the projected budget deficits caused by Bush's tax cuts and his spending increases. And if we look at the information pointed to above(thanks, IVotedIn200!), we see that, starting from the end of FY2001 ( beginning the first full fiscal year Bush could conceivably have an effect ), to today, right at the top of the page, the debt has increased by 1.3 trillion dollars. But here, I'll even give you the 400 billion increase from 9/30/2001 to 2002, because, using another page from the same site (the Treasury Department's, for those who aren't paying attention, and up-to-date) we see that, in fact, the debt increased under Clinton ( 1993 - 2001 ) by about 1.2 trillion. So if we take the 400 billion from FY 2002 from Bush and tack it onto Clinton, we have: 1.6 trillion over 9 years vs. 8-900 billion over 2! And without being generous to Bush like that, Clinton and Bush have grown the national debt by about the same amout, except Bush did it 3 times faster!!
But what do facts matter, anyways? Ideology and ranting about Al Sharpton is so much more fun.
The national debt, by the way, has been around since the the United States assumed the debt amassed during the Revolutionary War by the Continental Congress. The 20th century made it go way, way up, what with the two World Wars, the Depression, and increased military spending in the second half of the century (FDR is your man if you want to complain about increasing the debt).
I want to see Swiffer vs. Competition.
Swiffer will kick ass!
Seriously though, has there ever been a greater waste of TV advertising money?
I live in Germany. I cannot remember any such thing.
No matter how much you warn people, they just don't listen.
Yes, the link is nasty, that's why I said so... It's there to demonstrate one of the major problems that javascript poses.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Panthers Upset Patriots, 29 to 21 ... in the ... '989 Sports Game Before the Game' ... This annual event ... has a perfect 8-year track record of picking the winner of the Super Bowl.
Oops. So much for that record.
Well, thank you very little, Boston, for making a liar out of me.
Leave it to the Chowds....
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
especially for sorting!