FanDuel - WFBC

February 07, 2006

Super Bowl watched in second-most homes behind final episode of M*A*S*H,: which is kind of astounding in today's day and age of hundreds of cable (or dish) channels, not to mention video games, DVDs, and all kinds of other distractions. Guess that proves the NFL is truly America's pastime now, once and for all?

posted by donnnnychris to culture at 09:04 PM - 88 comments

I think that the most astounding bit of news from that article is that the last episode of MASH is still the high water mark for TV ratings.

posted by NoMich at 09:14 PM on February 07

Darn, I missed them both. The last episode of MASH I didn't really worry about missing because it went down hill once Alan Alda started directing on the show. The Super Bowl I could care less about. I don't want to have to watch and listen to 12 hours worth of the same old crap just to watch a football game that should take only three hours.

posted by dropzone at 09:34 PM on February 07

We got 3 maybe 4 channels back in the day and watching MASH was a staple in our home. Even today, my clicker stops at a MASH re-run even if the episode is half over. It was that good.

posted by Sargnt V at 09:38 PM on February 07

We got 3 maybe 4 channels back in the day and watching MASH was a staple in our home. Even today, my clicker stops at a MASH re-run even if the episode is half over. It was that good. I have to agree to that Sargnt V...I'm addicted to MASH re-runs. Once I turn them on, I can't turn them off. Back in the pre-cable days MASH was pretty much it on its night. It's amazing how this generation can't even fathom the fact that we had only 13 channels. And even when MASH went off the air in the early 80s I think there were only 30 or so channels.

posted by donnnnychris at 09:42 PM on February 07

I'm not even 20 and I'm obssessed with MASH. As you could imagine, I was not born when the episodes were new. I always watch MASH reruns, and I watched SB XL. BTW, what do ya'll think about NFL team #33 in Los Angeles. Seems closer to reality than ever.

posted by Joe88 at 11:00 PM on February 07

I loved the first couple of seasons of M*A*S*H, but they should've ended the show when Henry Blake was killed. It was too lite after that.

posted by kirkaracha at 11:02 PM on February 07

it went down hill once Alan Alda started directing Amen. You could always tell when he was behind the camera because the episode always had a politically correct, holier then thou feel about it. He was always trying so hard to make some sort of statement that he never found the time to be funny too. Got to be a real drag.

posted by commander cody at 11:18 PM on February 07

Imagine if this game was actually closer than the final score...MASH may be taking a back seat to this game had Seattle's kicker nailed 2 more FGs and that stupid offensive pass interference call been NOT called. We could have had a 21-20 game decided by Randal El for goodness sake...

posted by chemwizBsquared at 11:23 PM on February 07

Guess this proves that MASH is America's pastime, once and for all.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:28 PM on February 07

I thought mash was a bore. I'm unamerican as all get out.

posted by justgary at 11:44 PM on February 07

Mash was and still is just that good. The chemistry of the early episodes cannot be rivaled by any show except maybe Seinfeld. In defense of Allan Alda, you must remember, he began directing regularly after the show lost McLean Stevenson ( Henry Blake) and then Wayne Rogers (Trapper John). Only to be followed by the loss of Larry Linville (Frank Burns) who in my opinion is still the funniest "poor sport", "sour puss" ever to grace the small screen. Finally with the loss of Gary B. (last name escapes me, Walter Radar O'reily) they were stuck with Charles E. Winchester, Corp. Klinger, Zale Rizzo, and Mr. activist himself Mike F. whats his name (BJ Hunnicutt), who had his fair share of invoking politics as much if not more so then even Alan Alda did. Mash was one of those rare shows that crossed over into another 2 demographics that it was not intended for.

posted by BlogZilla at 12:24 AM on February 08

Burgoff

posted by commander cody at 01:09 AM on February 08

This stuff is all so over hyped. They are talking about actual numbers and not percentages. Something in the article talks about share but still it remains ambiguous. The population is greater now. Duh. The article even mentions that this wasn't even the most watched Superbowl. Gary Burghoff followed M*A*S*H with the highly forgettable W*A*L*T*E*R in 1984. Sort of like when Abe Vigoda, (who is still alive), spun off with Fish. No point really, just my living up to my moniker.

posted by geekyguy at 04:57 AM on February 08

Wow, Abe Vigoda...reminds of that Beastie Boys song...

posted by donnnnychris at 06:04 AM on February 08

The final MASH was more exciting than the Super Bowl!

posted by daddisamm at 07:50 AM on February 08

I have to agree with daddisamm. I'll never forget Alan Alda's decision to go for it on fourth and two.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 08:12 AM on February 08

MASH cannot be rivaled by anyone or anything. Seinfeld couldn't lick Alan Alda's boots.

posted by mcstan13 at 08:58 AM on February 08

Those who have expressed regret over M*A*S*H after Alda took it over have me for an agreeing partner, honestly. I didn't take part in either, and won't. Mike Farrell is such an ultimate dickhead w/his 'political actions' and defense of murderers, etc. that I can't even stomach hearing his voice. Anyone who was ever in the service (any branch) knows that the brass never allowed shit like M*A*S*H depicted to happen, either in commentary or action. This is where Alda was dumbassed in his actions. They were what got the program cancelled. And the 'Super Bowl' was far from even a tolerable game to watch, from what my sister's husband told me. I was glad to spend the day playing hockey instead of watching Mick Jagger try to get more for his money by using words that never should be allowed on TV in songs OR commentary.

posted by mrhockey at 09:17 AM on February 08

There was a great football game in the M*A*S*H movie. And who can forget AfterMASH? (I guess everyone can.) Claim to fame: I once stole a cake from William Christopher (Father Mulcahy).

posted by kirkaracha at 09:51 AM on February 08

instead of watching Mick Jagger try to get more for his money by using words that never should be allowed on TV in songs OR commentary I guess you like a different kind of TV than I do.

posted by fabulon7 at 11:34 AM on February 08

And Yet...The game was boring and the Stones sucked! Wish I could get that time back. Commercials could have been better too. Congrats Steelers

posted by melcarek69 at 12:11 PM on February 08

I was glad to spend the day playing hockey instead of watching Mick Jagger try to get more for his money by using words that never should be allowed on TV in songs OR commentary. And here's me thinking hockey isn't the sport for puritans.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 12:52 PM on February 08

Journalists shouldn't be allowed to do stories on the biggest TV audiences without including an adjustment for population growth. The 50.15 million M*A*S*H viewers were equal to 21.5 percent of the U.S. population in 1983 (233.79 million). The 45.85 million Super Bowl XL viewers are equal to 15.5 percent of the current U.S. population (295.73 million). That's a big difference.

posted by rcade at 01:00 PM on February 08

Are there numbers comparing global audiences from different sporting events? I know the Super Bowl is estimated to have been viewed by nearly one billion people (which I find hard to believe, btw), but what about the Olympics or soccer's World Cup?

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 01:19 PM on February 08

Like Tex I'd be interested to see some meaningful comparison world viewing figures for the Superbowl and the World Cup Final. I'm not trying to snipe against American Football btw, in fact I watch the Superbowl every year, even though I have to take the day off afterwards as it's on so late over here.

posted by squealy at 02:13 PM on February 08

I know the Super Bowl is estimated to have been viewed by nearly one billion people (which I find hard to believe, btw) Hey Texan, check out Steve Rushin's column in a recent Sports Illustrated (it was in the last few weeks, can't remember the exact copy). He explained that the phrase "watched by a billion people" is a myth about the Super Bowl that just isn't true. It's more like 90 to 100 million, tops. Journalists shouldn't be allowed to do stories on the biggest TV audiences without including an adjustment for population growth. The 50.15 million M*A*S*H viewers were equal to 21.5 percent of the U.S. population in 1983 (233.79 million). The 45.85 million Super Bowl XL viewers are equal to 15.5 percent of the current U.S. population (295.73 million). That's a big difference. Much agreed rcade. The key word for biggest audience ever should be the "audience share," which measures the percentage of homes watching against the number of homes out there with television access. So good point on the fact that more people were watching M*A*S*H percentage-wise. But you also have to remember that at the time of the final episode of M*A*S*H there were far fewer options in terms of television channels to watch, so you have to take that into account as well. Not to mention there was no Internet to speak of. There were barely 30 channels on most cable systems at that time and I didn't know anybody with a computer in the early 1980s, so really, there was nothing else to do that night but sit down and say goodbye to M*A*S*H. It's a way different world now, so in some respects, the audience enjoyed by the Super Bowl this year is more impressive. It's much harder now to get the attention of the viewing public.

posted by donnnnychris at 02:31 PM on February 08

The differance to take into considerantion is this...MASH is still being played everywhere in the world and is still immensly popular. Most people love the nostalgia of it. So the question is this. The SB may have had a better over-all watching, but how many would watch it again? I understand what you are all saying, but the fact is one was a sporting event and the other was a Major television event that most people tuned in to see. When they rerun that finally even now, the numbers are always quite impressive.

posted by melcarek69 at 03:01 PM on February 08

Thanks for those numbers rcade, I made a cursory search but didn't find it quickly, those numbers confirm my thoughts. donnnnychris makes a good counterpoint that I hadn't considered.

posted by geekyguy at 06:50 PM on February 08

interesting question melcare69 about who would watch the SB again. I think every cry baby, particularly the one's who claimed neither team as there own fav, ought to see it again and this time pay attention to the fact that the Steelers came prepared to play and deserve credit for what they fairly accomplished to outplay the Seahawks.

posted by Sargnt V at 08:09 PM on February 08

Texan_lost_in_NY: And here's me thinking hockey isn't the sport for puritans. I didn't know that you had to be "a Puritan" to object to lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corpse. Go ahead, tell me you want your teenager to sing the last lyrics of "Start Me Up." Maybe you'd like to sing along with them.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 08:43 PM on February 08

Maybe you'd like to sing along with them. Those lyrics have been broadcast on the radio since the song came out many many years ago. So many people have heard them that it seemed silly to censor them on TV. I had no problem singing them when I was a teenager 30+ years ago and no problem with any of my kids singing them either...grandkids too. Besides, singing about a woman who is sexy enough to "make a dead man cum" is hardly the same thing as advocating sex with the dead. The only objection I had to the halftime show (other then the censoring) is that Mick and company seemed like they just phoned it in and didn't really put their hearts into it. I've seen them in concert twice, once just 3 years ago and they can put on a much better show then they did this tuime.

posted by commander cody at 09:17 PM on February 08

I thought I heard him say it. I remarked to my wife I was suprised they allowed it. Here's a page on The Beatles that compares viewers of a few events. L.N. Smithee: Been there. Done that. We have it on video. But we might have taped over it with "Uncontrollable Urge."

posted by ?! at 10:32 PM on February 08

commander cody: Those lyrics have been broadcast on the radio since the song came out many many years ago. So many people have heard them that it seemed silly to censor them on TV. I guess there's no point at all to the song without the line, huh? So sorry you didn't get your little cheap thrill out of the necrophilia reference. It just ruined everything! I guess now it's time for them to finally retire, then. The very same statement about how many people have heard it could be made about the words "nigger" and "faggot," which were all over 1970's sitcoms like All in The Family and Sanford & Son. Somehow, those words became out of vogue for decent people, and we now make value judgments -- most of the the time, IMHO, accurately -- about the type of person who uses those slurs with malice aforethought. I had no problem singing them when I was a teenager 30+ years ago Duh! You were a teenager! and no problem with any of my kids singing them either...grandkids too. Well, I guess not much has changed then. Look, I know a lot about American music, and know there has been a sly sexual undercurrent to seemingly innocent songs going back to the blues on 78 rpm records. I know that Little Richard's "Good Golly Miss Molly" and Ray Charles' "What'd I Say" are about sex. I know that Aerosmith's "Walk This Way" -- performed at the Super Bowl a few years back -- is about a kid whose father catches him in an act of autoeroticism and tells him to go chase the real thing (he wasn't telling his son he should try bran muffins). "Start Me Up" is sufficiently cryptic as well -- until the very end. I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what you would say if one of your precious grandkids asked you "What does 'you'd make a dead man cum' mean?" Besides, singing about a woman who is sexy enough to "make a dead man cum" is hardly the same thing as advocating sex with the dead. Who suggested it was "advocation?" I sure didn't. I just can't imagine what kind of mind would interject unnatural, perverted, disgusting sex practices into a pop song, even one like "Start Me Up," which is about unbridled lust. Perhaps in his years as the archetypal rock sex god, Mick used that line on a drug-addled groupie and it worked. I know I am swimming against a current filled with people who see no shame in greasing the skids toward a society in which nothing is deemed inappropriate. If it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead -- call me a "Puritan," a "prude," a "square," or whatever the baggy and low-rise jeans-wearing delinquents say it here in the 00's. I don't care, and considering the source, I wear the insult with pride. And in the current musical atmosphere of total abandonment of subtlety, I applaud the people who weighed the situation with the Stones and decided there was no statute of limitations on lyrics about hot chicks humping dead guys.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 04:39 AM on February 09

More starch in your collar? And can you point out all of the episodes of 70s TV featuring the word "nigger" or did you just feel like dropping that for shock value?

posted by yerfatma at 06:08 AM on February 09

They showed the Damnbusters on TV the other day. I was shocked. As for Mick Jagger's risqué lyrics - as if he ever sang anything clearly enough that you could actually discern individual words anyway.

posted by JJ at 07:32 AM on February 09

Besides, singing about a woman who is sexy enough to "make a dead man cum" is hardly the same thing as advocating sex with the dead. Start me up doesn't advocate it but this song surely does.

posted by HATER 187 at 08:13 AM on February 09

Don't bury 'em in such nice clothes if you're going to get offended.

posted by yerfatma at 08:17 AM on February 09

Looks like the Stones got the reaction they hoped for. And all this scandal over a word Jagger didn't even sing: cum.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 10:06 AM on February 09

Maybe you'd like to sing along with them. During halftime, I believe I was singing along with Mick. I can't remember specifically though because it's such a non-issue for me. whatever the baggy and low-rise jeans-wearing delinquents say it here in the 00's. Oh yeah, you got me pegged.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 10:15 AM on February 09

My. my, my, has some got a....hmmm....what's a time appropriate saying....oh yes..."bee in his bonnet"? It's one word in one song, not a declaration of war on your "family values". As for my grandchildren, it's up to their dad's to explain the meaning of the words like "cum" just as I explained them to them years ago. I'm sure they won't need my help since I raised them right. Oh and I believe your words were "object to lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corspe." Sure sounds like you thought the song was advocating that...or at least that is what you said. Not to worry though as I'm sure were probably headed right back to the "Leave it to Beaver" world you obviously wish we still lived in. Oh by the way speaking of which, what was the most sexual thing ever said on TV? "You were a little rough on the Beaver last night, weren't you Ward?" Have an excellent day!

posted by commander cody at 01:16 PM on February 09

commander cody: Oh and I believe your words were "object to lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corspe." Sure sounds like you thought the song was advocating that...or at least that is what you said. I'll save you the back-breaking labor of scrolling up and tell you EXACTLY what I wrote in response to Texan_lost_ in_NY: I didn't know that you had to be "a Puritan" to object to lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corpse.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 06:34 PM on February 09

I didn't know that you had to be "a Puritan" to object to lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corpse. Hmm...still looks like you're saying that the song advocates sex with the dead. The lyrics say nothing about intercourse with the dead.

posted by commander cody at 07:03 PM on February 09

L.N.Smithee: I'm also waiting to hear what TV shows you were watching in the 70s. You don't have to be a Puritan to object to lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corpse. But, evidently, you have to be the kind of person who can be confused by lyrics. "You, you make a dead man come. "You, you make a dead man come." The final two lines in the song. No intro text about intercourse. It's a play on the other line in the song: "You make a grown man cry." Now, it may shock you, but you can make someone cry without punching them. You can also make someone cum without having intercourse with them. However, in this case "You can make a dead man cum" is a metaphor. It was not intended to be literal. See also, Mellencamp's "Pink Houses" where "hey Darlin' I remember when you could stop a clock" means the wife was once very pretty. Not that she has lost the ability to turn off the alarm. And, since you asked, that's the talk I'd have with my teenager if he also didn't understand the song lyrics.

posted by ?! at 07:06 PM on February 09

or whatever the baggy and low-rise jeans-wearing delinquents say it here in the 00's. I don't care, and considering the source, I wear the insult with pride If you know a lot about american music, then you must of heard of the 2 biggest pop/hiphop/r&b music moguls from america, Sean Combs and Russel Simmons. These 2 multimillionaire's wear baggy clothes and also own 2 of the biggest clothing lines out today. Do you consider them delinquents? I know I am swimming against a current filled with people who see no shame in greasing the skids toward a society in which nothing is deemed inappropriate Have you come here to condemn the people at sportsfilter or to save us? Let me give you a hint mr holier than thou. No one is receptive to that type of rhetoric. It tends to cause a "who does he think he is" response more than a "I can see where he is coming from" response. I just can't imagine what kind of mind would interject unnatural, perverted, disgusting sex practices into a pop song. You're contradicting yourself. When is the last time you heard sex reflected in a natural or Biblical sense in a pop song? Never. Anytime sex is interjected into american music, it's usually always in an, what i think you would consider, unnatural sense (natural being sex between a husband and a wife is what I assume you are referring to). Therefore, there is no distinction between making a "dead man cum" or having sex out of wedlock. right? The Bible clearly states that fornication (sex out of wedlock) is unclean. I think there is a good chance you may have had sex without being married once, making you as unclean as you claim the person discussing unnatural or unclean acts in a song is. See where I'm going with this? Jesus ran to the aid of a whore that was about to be stoned, whats your opinion about that? Put your rocks down man, you're no better than the rest of us.... Or, is that you Jesus?

posted by BlogZilla at 07:33 PM on February 09

Or, is that you Jesus? Good God let's hope not! Sure would change my whole image of Christ!

posted by commander cody at 09:23 PM on February 09

They were what got the program cancelled. MASH was never cancelled; it ended when the actors decided it was time to finish up. It was the third highest rated show on tv in its final season. The show lasted 8 seasons after Stevenson and Rogers left, and it was just as successful in the ratings with Morgan and Farrell -if not more so - than it was with Stevenson and Rogers.

posted by spira at 10:09 PM on February 09

Great point spira...MASH went out on its own terms...it certainly wasn't cancelled. And for the record, I liked both casts...the early one with Blake and Trapper, and the latter one with Col. Potter and BJ. Both were funny as hell because Hawkeye was the thread that kept it all going. Great, great show.

posted by donnnnychris at 01:15 AM on February 10

M*A*S*H was such a terrific show and it's shame it has to be included in a thread that's diluted into a mud-slinging on morals. I'm completely comfortable with people discussing their faith, whatever that faith may be. What bothers me is when the holier-than-thous start with the name-calling and stereotyping...why does it always come to that? Why is it important to denigrate others in order to prove the superiority of ye faithful? I don't get it, I really don't. Maybe I'm just an idealist who believes in an all-loving God, one who doesn't segregate and categorize His children. And for the record, LN Smithee, the "puritan" comment was sarcasm in its "purist" form. Anyway...I would just be interested to know what right any flesh-and-blood man or woman has in making value judgments on another human being.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 10:03 AM on February 10

?!: But, evidently, you have to be the kind of person who can be confused by lyrics. "You, you make a dead man come. "You, you make a dead man come." The final two lines in the song. No intro text about intercourse. It's a play on the other line in the song: "You make a grown man cry." Puh-leeze. You seem to think I haven't heard the song before. To the contrary: I was listening to the late great KFRC-AM in San Francisco when "Start Me Up" made its Bay Area debut in 1981. Now, it may shock you, but you can make someone cry without punching them. You can also make someone cum without having intercourse with them. Oh, brother. You sound like one of Bill Clinton's lawyers circa 1998. OK, then, accepting your premise -- rather than lyrics about sexual intercourse with a corpse, giving a corpse an orgasm, but not by having intercourse with it. There, that's better. Not. However, in this case "You can make a dead man cum" is a metaphor. It was not intended to be literal. I know Jagger wasn't saying that the focus of his lust would actually commit such an act; that's more Slayer territory, as HATER 187 pointed out in his link. That's not what I object to. As I wrote before, "I just can't imagine what kind of mind would interject unnatural, perverted, disgusting sex practices into a pop song..." See also, Mellencamp's "Pink Houses" where "hey Darlin' I remember when you could stop a clock" means the wife was once very pretty. Not that she has lost the ability to turn off the alarm. "...was once very pretty?" So much for your ability to deduce metaphors. Here's something that you may find alarming: Saying a woman could stop a clock is not a compliment. That old man in "Pink Houses" was complimenting his wife by saying she is beautiful now, and that she at one time was ugly, perhaps when they were much younger. All men have known girls that were mousy and gawky that they teased and laughed at until the magical day those girls matured, and were transformed from the proverbial ugly duckling into the beautiful swan.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 06:47 PM on February 10

wow, what a thread..id comment but I have a date with "Cold Ethel" tonight.

posted by Folkways at 07:39 PM on February 10

I know Jagger wasn't saying that the focus of his lust would actually commit such an act; that's more Slayer territory, as HATER 187 pointed out in his link. That's not what I object to. As I wrote before, "I just can't imagine what kind of mind would interject unnatural, perverted, disgusting sex practices into a pop song..." You say you understand that it's a metaphor and that is not what you object to since you know it's not literal. Then you point out a line of yours in which you object to the metaphor. And you don't see the contradiction? It would seem that only some people see the line as refering to an actual sex act, yet if you really don't see it as an actual sex act then how can you object to it? If Mick doesn't mean that it could actually happen then it can not be "unnatural, perverted" or "disgusting sex practice" since it's not real. By the way there is no way that Mellencamp was saying that the old man thought his wife was once ugly. The surrounding lyrics simply don't support that, in spite of your link to the ugly nanny. The fact is that the phrase is just a valid either as a compliment (as in shockingly attractive) or an insult (as in shockingly ugly). Clearly John Cougar meant it as a compliment as in how attractive she used to be.

posted by commander cody at 12:06 AM on February 11

BlogZilla: If you know a lot about american music, then you must of heard of the 2 biggest pop/hiphop/r&b music moguls from america, Sean Combs and Russel Simmons. These 2 multimillionaire's wear baggy clothes and also own 2 of the biggest clothing lines out today. Do you consider them delinquents? Russell Simmons? No, Simmons is a brilliant and shrewd businessman. Although his clothing line isn't my style, it nonetheless exudes quality. Sean/Puff Daddy/Puffy/P.Diddy/Diddy Combs? No, not exactly a delinquent, although I think he's a punk, a lousy designer, and despite being a good judge of what will sell CDs, nearly talentless musically. I also think he's a criminal who can afford a top-notch attorney (see also Simpson, O.J., Blake, Robert, and Jackson, Michael). He also has an ego so big, I think it's amazing that both he and Donald Trump can fit in Manhattan. It appears to me that people who object to what I have written don't understand the context of my words. Here, again, is what I wrote regarding "delinquents": If it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead -- call me a "Puritan," a "prude," a "square," or whatever the baggy and low-rise jeans-wearing delinquents say it here in the 00's. I don't care, and considering the source, I wear the insult with pride. (I will concede that I should have said "however" rather than "whatever.") For those of you who still don't get it, lemme break it down: When I was young, the delinquents would say, "You're such a baby," or "You're such a prude," or "You're such a square." Before it became synonymous with computer or technical acumen, the word "nerd" fit the bill as well. I don't know what kids that don't care if they get into trouble (aka "delinquents") say to taunt other kids who DON'T want to get into trouble in this day and age. Where I live now, delinquents by-and-large have a uniform: baggy jeans that make a six-foot-tall teenage boy look like he's a nine-year old wearing his father's clothes, and low-rise jeans that reveal a midriff that is most often best left concealed, and the top of thong underwear. It is they that I imagine are the ones that are doing the taunting, but I don't know how they put it. I'm pretty sure they aren't saying "Goody Two-Shoes." Have you come here to condemn the people at sportsfilter or to save us? Let's get something straight: I did not start this. It was mrhockey that wrote, "I was glad to spend the day playing hockey instead of watching Mick Jagger try to get more for his money by using words that never should be allowed on TV in songs OR commentary." I jumped in to counter the statement by Texan_lost_in_NY that such an opinion is 'Puritanical' -- a word that is almost never used as a compliment. For the record: I have criticized others in this thread and have been criticized in turn. That's nothing to me, I'm a big boy. But I have not "condemned" anyone, and don't think my words will "save" those who disagree. Let me give you a hint mr holier than thou. I never said I was better than anyone here, and I by no means think I am perfect. If only it were so. No one is receptive to that type of rhetoric. It tends to cause a "who does he think he is" response more than a "I can see where he is coming from" response. Speak for yourself. I doubt everyone who has read what I wrote disagrees with me as much as you do. And frankly, I don't know how to reach people who don't listen and read opinions like mine carefully, because they can be relied upon to go off on a knee-jerk "You think you're better than me" rant. One of the reasons I have stuck with this debate is because I have had enough of people suggesting that times haven't changed just because there is always is a "cutting edge" that causes people -- like me -- to say "This is going too far." In my experience, such people will defend, for example, now-faded teen idol Britney Spears french-kissing Madonna on MTV by suggesting it is no different than how Elvis Presley was reviled by some for shaking his hips too much. Such people often refer to themselves as "open-minded." I am open-minded as well; it's just that my mind isn't so open that my brain falls out, preventing me from considering questions like: "If we laugh off Britney and Madonna kissing today, what's going to be next?" After it became The Kiss Seen Round The World, some laughed at the idea that such displays by pop culture icons would spur a trend making it cool among teens. If you were among those, laugh this off. If you, BlogZilla, are thinking, "Who does [L.N. Smithee] think he is?" here's my answer: I am a person who has as strong an opinion about the corrosion of what used to be called "common values" as the people who work tirelessly to destroy the concept.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 12:31 AM on February 11

BlogZilla: Anytime sex is interjected into american music, it's usually always in an, what i think you would consider, unnatural sense (natural being sex between a husband and a wife is what I assume you are referring to). While I agree there are certainly many, many more songs about premarital, adulterous, or meaningless, spontaneous sex, I can, off the top of my head, think of several songs that deal with sex within what could be presumed to be a happy marriage. "Respect," written by Otis Redding is probably the most famous one, while there is also "Battleship Chains" by the Georgia Satellites, "Satisfied Man" by Molly Hatchet, "Poundcake" by Van Halen. Softening things up considerably, there's also "Do That To Me One More Time" by the Captain & Tennille, "'Til My Baby Comes Home" by Luther Vandross, "I've Never Been To Me" by Charlene, "Popsicle Toes" by Michael Franks, and every love song that Paul McCartney wrote while Linda was living. Therefore, there is no distinction between making a "dead man cum" or having sex out of wedlock. right? For God's sake, NO! You may not realize it, but you have made my point for me with that incredible equivocation. (Before I continue, let me mark this as the first time I have discussed anything Biblical in this debate.) The Bible accounts of the lives of Joseph and David appear to be divergent; Joseph, a humble, faithful, and apparently attractive man, resisted the advances of his master Potiphar's wife, stating that it would be a sin against God to take what was not his, even if she chose freely to give it. This resulted in his being falsely accused of attempted rape and years of imprisonment. For his continued confidence and obedience to God, Joseph was rewarded with purpose, prosperity, and love of his estranged family. On the other hand, King David, who had everything he could possibly want or need as a result of his continued Godly faith and humility, made the mistake Joseph refused to, taking the wife of another man, and, even worse, plotting the murder of her husband when it would become obvious that he had made her pregnant. He was judged not only by God as being worthy of death, he condemned himself unknowingly. While God allowed him to live, David paid a heavy price in the death of the child Bathsheba bore and constant conflict in his family until he died. But David repented, and gave us many Psalms thanking and praising God for his forgiveness. Both David and Joseph died as faithful, honorable men in the eyes of God. My point is not simply that God forgives those seek forgiveness from sin and repent, it is that human desire, while not unconquerable, is a powerful force, with the potential to dislodge moral people from their bearings. However, according to scripture, repentance and forgiveness of sin is a longer, harder road for those who perform gross sexual acts, as do those who engage with animals or the deceased; that's not the result of normal human desire, it's the result of licentiousness out of control. It's one thing to fall in love with another person whom you find attractive or with whom you share common interests. It's another to get off on manipulating an unsuspecting beast or a body that can't feel a thing for your own gratification. Once you're so far gone that you forego living creatures in favor of decomposing ones, you are approaching Romans 1:18-32 territory. (I honestly think -- and want to believe -- you already know this. It is really, truly sad if you don't.) The Bible clearly states that fornication (sex out of wedlock) is unclean. I think there is a good chance you may have had sex without being married once, making you as unclean as you claim the person discussing unnatural or unclean acts in a song is. See where I'm going with this? Yeah, I see where you're going. It's not the first time I've witnessed people taking this trip...and you're about to hit a dead end. And right on cue, here's the misinterpretation of John 8:1-11! Jesus ran to the aid of a whore that was about to be stoned, whats your opinion about that? My opinion is that you had better pick up your Bible and read to the end of the incident. What did Jesus say to her before he dismissed her? Did he say, "All right, girlfriend, hit the streets and get some paper?" No -- verse 11 concludes, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more." Put your rocks down man, you're no better than the rest of us.... Or, is that you Jesus? All I did was defend someone else who thinks "[you'd] make a dead man cum" is going too far in a pop song, and should have been censored. And here you are treating me like I'm Pat Robertson, recommending the assassination of Mick and Keith or something. I haven't thrown a single rock at the Stones or anyone else here. I haven't even called anyone a sinner. Jesus didn't throw a rock at the harlot either, but he DID say that she was a sinner, and that she should repent. I wonder if you, had you witnessed that scene, would have tolerated Jesus saying that she was a sinner because she was a whore. You'll have to answer that one yourself.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 12:34 AM on February 11

I am a person who has as strong an opinion about the corrosion of what used to be called "common values" as the people who work tirelessly to destroy the concept. Put me down as one those dedicated to corroding "common values" or the even worse "family values" as the vast, vast majority of people who claim those values are usually busy doing their best to force everyone else to live by them, in lockstep with them and usually their one true path to salvation. God save us from them all. As for what's next after Britney and Madonna kiss...hopefully many more of them, by many more women (and men), in even more public settings.

posted by commander cody at 12:40 AM on February 11

Texan_lost_in_NY: What bothers me is when the holier-than-thous start with the name-calling and stereotyping...why does it always come to that? I dunno, Tex. I've done my part. I haven't called anyone a name. I haven't stereotyped anyone. On the other hand, you started this by calling mrhockey a "puritan." You swallow that comment and let mrhockey's statement stand on its own, and we wouldn't still be discussing this. As to making value judgments based on whether people use slurs like "nigger" and "faggot," which was the original context of my comment; are you telling me you don't weigh how much you want to associate with people when it is clear they are bigoted?

posted by L.N. Smithee at 12:50 AM on February 11

commander cody: Put me down as one those dedicated to corroding "common values" or the even worse "family values" as the vast, vast majority of people who claim those values are usually busy doing their best to force everyone else to live by them, in lockstep with them and usually their one true path to salvation. I figured someone might say something like that. Tell me, please, how this "forc[ing] everyone else to live by them" works in a constitutional republic.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 12:55 AM on February 11

commander cody: As for what's next after Britney and Madonna kiss...hopefully many more of them, by many more women (and men), in even more public settings. Would you mind if took place at the morgue?

posted by L.N. Smithee at 01:11 AM on February 11

Ask George W. Bush and company. Or actually maybe he wouldn't be such a good person to ask since he spouts "family values" just as a way to scare up votes. Nothing like playing to the base. At least when playing the fear card doesn't work. Does anyone really believe he is born again? Bull. Ok then, how about the Pro-Life loonies? I happen to be pro-choice, but that doesn't mean they have the right to stop a woman from getting an abortion any more then a pro-choice person has a right to force a pro-life woman to get one. I'm not telling them that they have to agree with me, but they're telling me that I have to, by law, agree with them. Or prayer in public schools. These so-called Christians try to force prayer on my children (hidden of course in "moments of silence" or other such garbage), yet I never told my children that anyone else, even them, have to believe as I do. Then of course there's the whole "world created in 6 days" crowd. Teach creationism, just not in science or as an alternative to evolution. Religion or how a person sees it is a deeply personal thing. If I do or do not believe in God and how I do or do not see my relationship with any kind of supreme being is stricly between me and whoever (if anyone) I believe in or don't believe in. I don't discuss my religious feelings with my children, my wife, a preacher or anyone else because my feelings about God are no one elses damn business. Hell when I joined the Air Force many years ago and I got to the part of the form where they ask your religion I actually wrote in the words "It's none of your damn business" The point is that I don't tell the Christain Right how to live their lives, but they seem to be obsessed with trying to force everyone else to live by their so-called values. It is a constant struggle to keep them out of office, but one that I proudly fight in.

posted by commander cody at 01:24 AM on February 11

commander cody: As for what's next after Britney and Madonna kiss...hopefully many more of them, by many more women (and men), in even more public settings. Would you mind if took place at the morgue? Ahhh...as in they should all die huh? I'll be happy to tell my gay son that your Christian upbringing tells you he should be dead. I'm sure he'll get a chuckle out of it. Nice "values".

posted by commander cody at 01:26 AM on February 11

commander cody: Ahhh...as in they should all die huh? WHAT? Hey, genius, pay attention! This whole tangent was kicked off by people implying objections to necrophilic lyrics were, to quote you, "silly!" I was sarcastically suggesting that you wouldn't mind some formerly living people in your imagined same-sex kissing ceremonies! I'll be happy to tell my gay son that your Christian upbringing tells you he should be dead. I'm sure he'll get a chuckle out of it. Nice "values". If you tell him that, you'll be a liar, because that's NOT what I believe. Hey, Tex! You say don't like "stereotyping?" You'll hate THIS comment!

posted by L.N. Smithee at 01:37 AM on February 11

commander cody: As for what's next after Britney and Madonna kiss...hopefully many more of them, by many more women (and men), in even more public settings. Would you mind if took place at the morgue? Hmmmmm....nope...I think the implication is clear enough. Associating my comments approving of gay kissing with having it take place in a morgue. Yep, at best I might grant it as a Fruedian slip, but even that's a reach. Or are you one of those phony "hate the sin, but love the sinner" types?

posted by commander cody at 01:58 AM on February 11

L.N. Smithee, if nothing else, thanks for the Stop a Clock thing. While I have to agree with commander cody that that is not what Merllencamp meant, I've always been confused why it was used (apparently) as a compliment.

posted by yerfatma at 06:59 AM on February 11

Welcome to GodFilter.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:21 AM on February 11

Godfilter? LOL. Ok, ok maybe it's time to let this thread die a peacful death and get back to what's really important in this world....sports!

posted by commander cody at 11:06 AM on February 11

Sheesh, I put up something about MASH, the Super Bowl and TV ratings and everybody goes off on values...I never thought it would tumble in this direction. For the record, never discuss religion or politics with friends and everything will be alright. That is, if everybody considers themselves friends here...if not, then have at it...haha

posted by donnnnychris at 02:07 PM on February 11

On the other hand, you (Tex) started this by calling mrhockey a "puritan." You swallow that comment and let mrhockey's statement stand on its own, and we wouldn't still be discussing this. Yeah, that'll happen. Don't blame me for driving you to your soapbox. Above I wrote And for the record, LN Smithee, the "puritan" comment was sarcasm in its "purist" form, and that's the closest thing to a concession you'll get from me. Keep on thumpin'. I'm sure there's someone who came here looking to have their life changed.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 05:18 PM on February 11

Keep on thumpin'. I'm sure there's someone who came here looking to have their life changed LOL! Hey Texan, did you check out the Godfilter link The Black Hand posted above? Some great t-shirts!

posted by commander cody at 07:36 PM on February 11

L.N. , In all your "preaching", who do you think you have reached or even better "won over"? I'll answer that for you. No one. Now can you see yourself? You see, with all your words and wisdom, you have convinced one person that you may know what you are talking about, and that's yourself. Tell me what you think you have gained. In my opinion, nothing. If you would alter your approach you may have a chance, but is your true goal to help someone, or to prove yourself a "know it all"? You have made some foolish statements, calling a group of young people delinquents? Who did you attempt to win over with that statement? You have made a gross error in your delivery and it has accomplished nothing. You wish to compare the way you deliver your message to the way Jesus delivered His? Another foolish error. Jesus got results. I would think of you more like those uptight Pharisees, that thought everything had to be their way. I'm also pretty sure you liken this persecution unto that which was spoke of by all the great witnesses of Christ. I am here to tell you not to fool yourself. You have gained nothing, not one person saying, I see where you're coming from. Not one person saying they understand you. So the only thing left to do is try to offer you some advice, and Pray you receive it. The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; 2To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; 4To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. 5A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. 7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. 13:3 He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction. 14:25 A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies. 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. 18:6-7, 6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. 7A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul. 24: 16-18, 16 For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief. 17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: 18 Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. I haven't thrown a single rock at the Stones or anyone else here I dunno, Tex. I've done my part. I haven't called anyone a name. I haven't stereotyped anyone Where I live now, delinquents by-and-large have a uniform: baggy jeans that make a six-foot-tall teenage boy look like he's a nine-year old wearing his father's clothes, and low-rise jeans that reveal a midriff that is most often best left concealed, and the top of thong underwear. It is they that I imagine are the ones that are doing the taunting, but I don't know how they put it. I'm pretty sure they aren't saying "Goody Two-Shoes." As far as calling an entire generation "delinquents" not throwing stones or the previous statements not being judgmental and stereo-typical I say to you, Your actions are probably the most hypocritical I have ever seen here in my short time. You're transparent. You have a lot of work to do. Don't respond with more lies please, you're making yourself look worse. And I need to pick up my Bible? Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

posted by BlogZilla at 08:14 PM on February 11

LNS: (1) "Puh-leeze. You seem to think I haven't heard the song before. To the contrary: I was listening to the late great KFRC-AM in San Francisco when "Start Me Up" made its Bay Area debut in 1981." I don't care if you were in the recording booth. You still don't understand the lyrics, or evidently, "metaphor". (2) "Oh, brother. You sound like one of Bill Clinton's lawyers circa 1998." Ladies and Gentlemen, The evolution of Godwinism. Just throw in "Clinton" when you don't have a response. (3) "That's not what I object to. As I wrote before, 'I just can't imagine what kind of mind would interject unnatural, perverted, disgusting sex practices into a pop song...'" And it seems you can't imagine anyone would use a "metaphor" either. (4) "...was once very pretty?" So much for your ability to deduce metaphors. Here's something that you may find alarming: Saying a woman could stop a clock is not a compliment. That old man in "Pink Houses" was" (rationalization story snipped for space) Yeah, and I grew up primarily in Southern Indiana about 15 miles from where Mellencamp grew up and recorded "Pink Houses." Here's something you might find alarming: Saying a woman could stop a clock is a compliment. You don't believe Mellencamp or me? Ask Bernie Taupin: "Slow Down Georgie (She's Poison)" She's got you hypnotised, with her big brown eyes And a body that could stop a clock. So much for your ability to understand that all the world doesn't have the same mind set you do. Please remember your "common values" are not all that "common." You have an emotional attachment to your belief system and I am not even trying to change it, but understand this: (1) It is a metaphor. (2) It is a poor debate tactic. (3) It is still a metaphor. and (4) It is a compliment. If you simply repeat it is about "disgusting sex practices" then we're done. I've heard it as the answer too many times in this thread. Anything new and I'm listening. Enjoy.

posted by ?! at 08:26 PM on February 11

Yes commander c, I did see TBH's link. Hilarious. I actually gave my ex-boss a similar shirt to the one worn by the lovely lady on the left side of the banner. Good thing he had a sense of humor. A sense of humor...you know, that's what's missing in this thread. So, donnychris, more people watched the final episode of M*A*S*H than the Super Bowl, you say.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 09:06 PM on February 11

Actually, even though it was way off topic, I had a ball with this debate. Maybe I have a twisted sense of humor though. I'm thinking of ordering some of the political t-shirts, but I won't say which ones. Lord knows I wouldn't want to start another debate. Or would I? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

posted by commander cody at 10:04 PM on February 11

BlogZilla: L.N. , In all your "preaching", who do you think you have reached or even better "won over"? I'll answer that for you. No one. You couldn't possibly know that for sure, but if so, it doesn't matter. That wasn't my intention. This is an Internet sports bulletin board, not a religious forum. I am just expressing my opinion. As I wrote to you in the first response, "...I have not 'condemned' anyone, and don't think my words will 'save' those who disagree." I marked the point at which I first referenced scripture because I wanted it to be clear that it was not I that started a religious discussion. You have made some foolish statements, calling a group of young people delinquents? Who did you attempt to win over with that statement? You have made a gross error in your delivery and it has accomplished nothing. If you think the fact that you can't grasp my clear meaning is evidence of "a gross error in [my] delivery," I disagree. I try to write exactly what I mean, and that is what I did. I wrote, in the first instance: If it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead -- call me a "Puritan," a "prude," a "square," or [how]ever the baggy and low-rise jeans-wearing delinquents say it here in the 00's. You then asked me if I thought Russell Simmons and Sean Combs were "delinquents" since they wear baggy jeans. (My answer in both cases was NO, if you didn't notice). I then clarified what I wrote by writing, "Where I live now, delinquents by-and-large have a uniform: baggy jeans that make a six-foot-tall teenage boy look like he's a nine-year old wearing his father's clothes, and low-rise jeans that reveal a midriff that is most often best left concealed, and the top of thong underwear." I did not call anyone a "delinquent" who was not. I didn't say 'everyone who wears baggy or low-rise jeans are delinquents,' I said that from what I have observed, those who ARE delinquents generally dress that way. Now, you call me a hypocrite because you think I am stereotyping, "calling an entire generation 'delinquents"' even after saying that I didn't think Simmons and Combs fit the description. And I have no idea where else but out of thin air you got "an entire generation." What absolute nonsense. Bottom line: YOU DIDN'T GET IT. And that's NOT my fault. You wish to compare the way you deliver your message to the way Jesus delivered His? Another foolish error. Jesus got results. Not even Jesus could bring everyone around. Read John 6. THEY DIDN'T GET IT. And that wasn't HIS fault.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 04:30 AM on February 12

Well we sort of got back on topic for two posts that are the half the size of the monster post wrote by L.N. Smithee.....

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:42 AM on February 12

Well we sort of got back on topic for two posts that are the half the size of the monster post wrote by L.N. Smithee..... Oh I don't know, as a former member of the debate team I always sort of thought of that as a sport. Kinda. Sorta. In a way. In fact I always wondered what the cheers from cheerleaders would be? Rah Rah Rah good point! Of course my late Grandpapa used to say it wasn't a sport if there was no chance someone would end up bleeding. Must be why he was such a big hockey fan. Me too.

posted by commander cody at 11:31 AM on February 12

my late Grandpapa used to say it wasn't a sport if there was no chance someone would end up bleeding. Your grandpapa was a wise man, though I usually add running and sweating to my own general description. So...I guess it's not a reach to imagine sweating at a debate competition. I just want to know how many debate teamers wore baggy jeans that make a six-foot-tall teenage boy look like he's a nine-year old wearing his father's clothes, and low-rise jeans that reveal a midriff that is most often best left concealed, and the top of thong underwear. Stand up and be counted, you argumentative geeks!

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 11:41 AM on February 12

Your grandpapa was a wise man He was indeed, but we were always careful never to tell him that because then we'd be subjected to endless hours of stories of growing up in Quebec, where they played "real" hockey and how it was much better then Curling, even though Americans didn't know how to play that right either. Of course I actually like Curling too, so I guess I was a bit of a geek in his eyes. Ah well, I'm still proud to count myself a geek!

posted by commander cody at 01:37 PM on February 12

L.N. is definitely a little off. Calling people who dress a certain way delinquents, and then saying he didn't really mean it that way. What he is saying he meant was, he happens to know a bunch of actual delinquents and they all happen to dress a certain way. A liar will not tarry in His sight. Take a look at the perfect example of the stereo-typical "Over bearing Christian" who passes judgment, then denies it by lying. Who also gets into useless arguments with no obvious point. Who then blames everyone else instead of taking responsibility for what he says. On top of that he offers links to what he said in a post on the same page, when the words are merely 2 scroll clicks up. Bottom line: YOU DIDN'T GET IT. And that's NOT my fault Not even Jesus could bring everyone around. Read John 6. THEY DIDN'T GET IT. And that wasn't HIS fault. Then to top it all off, the only thing he can do is offer to us that he is misunderstood as Jesus was and it is not his fault. Last and certainly most offensive, he offers John chapter 6, comparing which part? He doesn't specify. L.N. are misunderstood as the multitude was who didn't know where all the bread and fish came from? Or are you misunderstood as the disciples were when Jesus walked on water? Or are you misunderstood as the people were that couldn't figure out how Jesus came unto them when he was not on the boat when it left carrying the disciples? Or are you misunderstood as the Jews were when they said, "how can this Man give us His Flesh to eat, saying He is the bread of life? Or was it verses 64-66 reading; 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Are you actually comparing some of us who don't agree with you to those that didn't agree with the Lord Himself? If so, you are 1 troubled individual, or are you a legion of many?

posted by BlogZilla at 06:37 PM on February 12

BlogZilla we were actually having a kind-of-sports related discussion....... Of course my late Grandpapa used to say it wasn't a sport if there was no chance someone would end up bleeding. I suppose if the opposing side didn't like a point that was made they could pull a knife... (especially if they are a baggy jeens wearing delinquent).

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:13 PM on February 12

I suppose if the opposing side didn't like a point that was made they could pull a knife... On the debate team it'd be more like pocket protecters...from 20 ft. Or dueling sliderules (ok so it was a while ago).

posted by commander cody at 07:17 PM on February 12

?!: Yeah, and I grew up primarily in Southern Indiana about 15 miles from where Mellencamp grew up and recorded "Pink Houses." Here's something you might find alarming: Saying a woman could stop a clock is a compliment. You don't believe Mellencamp or me? Ask Bernie Taupin: "Slow Down Georgie (She's Poison)" She's got you hypnotised, with her big brown eyes And a body that could stop a clock. Well, it seems that you are correct about John Mellencamp's meaning about "I remember when you could stop a clock" -- but it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to walk up to a hottie and say "You could stop a clock." I did another Google search after reading your post, and it seems that this particular phrase can be used as both an insult and as praise; if you are complimenting a woman's figure, you can say "Her body could stop a clock," but if you say "her face could stop a clock," you are calling her homely. ?!: Now, it may shock you, but you can make someone cry without punching them. You can also make someone cum without having intercourse with them. L.N. Smithee: "Oh, brother. You sound like one of Bill Clinton's lawyers circa 1998." ?!: Ladies and Gentlemen, The evolution of Godwinism. Just throw in "Clinton" when you don't have a response. Nice try. My Clinton reference was completely relevant. Obviously, you weren't paying attention to the news in 1998. Here's the context, from the Articles of Impeachment as recorded at CNN.com: At his grand jury appearance, the President also was asked about his counsel's statement to Judge Wright that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a "sexual relationship" was equivalent to saying "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" with President Clinton. Given the President's interpretation of the term "sexual relationship" to require sexual intercourse, the President was asked how he lawfully could have sat silent while his attorney -- in the President's presence and on his behalf -- made a false statement to a United States District Judge in an effort to forestall further questioning. The President offered several responses. First, the President maintained that he was not paying "much attention" when Mr. Bennett said that there is "absolutely no sex of any kind" between the President and Ms. Lewinsky." The President further stated: "That moment, that whole argument just passed me by. I was a witness." The President's explanation is difficult to reconcile with the videotape of the deposition, which shows that the President was looking in Mr. Bennett's direction when his counsel made this statement. Alternatively, the President contended that when Mr. Bennett said that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind," Mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present tense and thus was making a completely true statement. The President further stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," and that "actually, in the present tense that is an accurate statement." ?!: ...the world doesn't have the same mind set you do. Please remember your "common values" are not all that "common." I hesitate to go off on another tangent regarding the importance of values, knowing what they are, what they should be, and how the well-being of future generations depend on them. I'll just say this: Pop culture doesn't exist in a vacuum, leaving its consumers uneffected. If it can enlighten and uplift, it can degrade as well. And I would like to think that most American parents of young children would be disgusted at the lyrics of the Ying Yang Twins' "Wait (The Whisper Song)," which I linked above as an example of how pornographic pop music has become a quarter-century after "Start Me Up." If the parents who sang "You'd make a dead man cum" are singing "Beat the p---y up, BAM! BAM! BAM!" with their teens, it's only a matter of time before some cultural event more shocking then the Madonna-Britney kiss or another teacher-student hookup will occur that will make everyone reading this post say, "How did we get here?" long after it's too late to do anything about it. At that point, "common values" will be longed for rather than feared. Commander Cody suggested that I would be happier living in the days of Leave It To Beaver. I don't think so -- someone like me wouldn't be allowed to live in the same neighborhood with the Cleavers, and the Ohio National Guard might have been called to get me into Miss Landers' class. If you know your history, you know what I mean by that.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:53 AM on February 13

BlogZilla: Are you actually comparing some of us who don't agree with you to those that didn't agree with the Lord Himself? No. And you know good and well that I'm not doing that. Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are below high school level, and you can't figure out the difference between talking about baggy jeans-wearing delinquents and alleging that everyone who wears baggy jeans are delinquents, much less grasp John chapter 6. But I don't think you're stupid. I think that you're just a liar.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 04:08 AM on February 13

Well, it seems that you are correct about John Mellencamp's meaning about "I remember when you could stop a clock" -- but it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to walk up to a hottie and say "You could stop a clock." I would do it. I was raised in a small town in Michigan and that was a high compliment to a hot girl. Guess maybe only city folk managed to turn it into an insult. Commander Cody suggested that I would be happier living in the days of Leave It To Beaver. I don't think so -- someone like me wouldn't be allowed to live in the same neighborhood with the Cleavers, and the Ohio National Guard might have been called to get me into Miss Landers' class. If you know your history, you know what I mean by that. Oh My God he's black!! AND a "family values" Republican too I'm sure. Voting for Georgie so gays won't marry, while Bush robs you blind at every turn. You guys are rarer then hens teeth! I'll bet you bought right into old Georgie Porgie's "family values" and were happy to get some of his bribes...oh...excuse me "faith based" money. And don't worry about being able to live in the Cleaver neighborhood. Those fine folks with all the "values" always let a few "good" ones live in the area to do the cooking and cleaning. Still want to go back to the good old days?

posted by commander cody at 01:18 PM on February 13

Commander Cody: Oh My God he's black!! AND a "family values" Republican too I'm sure. Voting for Georgie so gays won't marry, while Bush robs you blind at every turn. You guys are rarer then hens teeth! I'll bet you bought right into old Georgie Porgie's "family values" and were happy to get some of his bribes...oh...excuse me "faith based" money. And don't worry about being able to live in the Cleaver neighborhood. Those fine folks with all the "values" always let a few "good" ones live in the area to do the cooking and cleaning. Still want to go back to the good old days? As much as I would like to point-by-point take on your little snide asides, I am tiring of wasting my time on people who either don't want to listen or pretend not to comprehend. I also want to get back to sports, and I don't want to make this conversation political any more than I wanted to make it religious. But there's something that you need to consider about same-sex marriage: on Election Day 2004, more people voted in the United States than ever before. George W. Bush received more votes than any Presidential candidate in history. John Kerry received more votes than any runner-up in history. Also, there were twelve states in which a referendum was on the ballot calling for a ban on same-sex marriage to prevent what happened in Massachusetts from happening in their state. How many states out of twelve voted for the ban? ALL TWELVE. Even "blue" Oregon voted in favor of it, and back in 2000, California, a navy blue state, voted in favor of a ban 61.4% to 38.6% opposing. In fact, in California, the numbers don't really tell the story. Check out the map. Think everyone who votes for "family values" must be a Republican? Think again.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:31 PM on February 13

Think everyone who votes for "family values" must be a Republican? Think again No, actually I think everyone who votes for "family values" is an idiot who doesn't realize that the mega-rich Republican leaders are laughing behind their backs because they can't believe so many people bought into their bullshit. They waved the "spectre" of gay marriage, the threat of taking away of a few guns and a few Holy Holy's into the face of the morons and they flocked to the voting booth in droves, like the good little bird-brained pidgeons they are. They put out the lie that they supported family values and the sheep gathered to be sheared. Now, having been returned to power by the incredibily stupid, they continue their real mission, slashing programs for the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. They wave a prayer book in your face so you don't notice them picking your pockets. And you're stupid enough to even thank them for letting them do it to you! To quote the great Malcom X, you been had! You been hoodwinked! Don't think so? Read Bush's budget. Full of cuts to social and education programs (most of which are directed at blacks and the poor) and a never ending scream to make the richman's tax cuts permenant and cut them even further. They lied to you under the cover of God and America and you bought it hook, line and sinker. They don't give any more of a damn about you or your "values" then the limit they have to tolerate of you both to clean you out. They're con men and you been conned! So in the end you'll end up hungry and broke while they sit in their mansions and laugh at how ignorant you were. Giving up the American dream just because you were terified that one guy might marry another guy and have some real family values of their own. You made a deal with the devil and you got had. Sucker.

posted by commander cody at 04:33 PM on February 13

Since this particular thread never was about sports, but about TV...and that's a part of culture...once more unto the breech. "I did another Google search after reading your post" Good. It helps to learn the facts before you spout off. I, and the hotties I know, both already knew the difference. My Clinton reference was completely relevant. Quoting a long text about the definition of "is" still has nothing to do with what I originally said. I won't go through it again. My point still stands...your attempt to derail notwithstanding. I hesitate to go off on another tangent regarding the importance of values, knowing what they are, what they should be, and how the well-being of future generations depend on them. I understand the importance of values. I know what they are. I know what they should be. And I know how the future depends on them. And I know the future will be a better place if the "common" values are not the ones you have espoused here. If you know your history, you know what I mean by that. It's not mere "history" for me. I was there. I will continue to fight the ignorance of those who believe a people are best served by prejudice and hate. If anyone should understand that you should. I'm done with this. Good luck.

posted by ?! at 09:26 PM on February 13

?!: It helps to learn the facts before you spout off. Don't be dishonest. I had a firm, factual basis for believing what I did regarding Mellencamp's lyrics, which didn't specify whether "Darlin's" face or body "could stop a clock." At least yerfatma, who lashed out at me earlier in the thread, conceded he learned something as an indirect result of my answer to you. Quoting a long text about the definition of "is" still has nothing to do with what I originally said. It wasn't simply about "the definition of 'is'", it was about the verbal gymnastics that Clinton's attorney Bob Bennett employed in order to suggest that nothing sexual had occurred between him and Monica Lewinsky. It also had everything to do with your remark that I "threw in" the name of Clinton because I "didn't have a response," and "Godwinism," whatever in the world that is. "...I know the future will be a better place if the 'common' values are not the ones you have espoused here.'" I wish I could be sure that you have an inkling of what values I am referring to rather than those that I have been falsely accused of promoting by BlogZilla, Texan, and Commander Cody. Hopefully, you aren't among the intellectually lazy who think they know everything about someone else based on their political or religious affiliation. I will continue to fight the ignorance of those who believe a people are best served by prejudice and hate. If anyone should understand that you should. Believe me, I do understand it. I believe every right-of-center black person knows all about prejudice and hate, because they most likely have been victimized from within as well as from without.

posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:14 AM on February 14

"Don't be dishonest. I had a firm, factual basis for believing what I did...." You had experience, which was limited in this case. You believed in that experience and assumed only you could be right. You belittled my explanation before you took the time to check the facts. "Hopefully, you aren't among the intellectually lazy who think they know everything about someone else based on their political or religious affiliation." The mere fact of saying things such as "So much for your ability to deduce metaphors." and "Don't be dishonest." gives me facets of your online character. It's your acts by which I know you. Not all of you, of course. Only a fool believes he can truly know someone here. "I believe every right-of-center black person..." What makes me so sad is that the center has moved so far right since 1968.

posted by ?! at 09:06 AM on February 14

right-of-center black person That's an oxymoron. That's like a black KKK member or a Jewish Nazi. It does however say much about just how confused you really are. The only people who are "right of center" anymore are neo-conservative fascists like Bush and Chaney who would gladly lock you away in a work camp or put you back on a plantation based strictly on the color of your skin or of the truth of you not being smart enough to see through their bullshit. Their only concept of a "good" black man is the old style "house negro". Just like what they tried to do to Colin Powell, until he to wised up and quit. I repeat, you been conned! You been had! They sell you on themselves by saying they'll stop Gays from getting married or poor women from getting an abortion when they themselves don't give a damn about either issue beyond how many votes they will buy them from fools who believe them. Also they never tell you the price. They don't tell you that they'll do everything in their power to shutdown social security, that they're working hard to stop unemployment insurance and to crush unions. They do their best to hide things like the fact that just this week they put up hundreds of thousands of square miles of public land for auction to private buyers. What are you going to tell your grandchildren when they ask where the National Parks went to? Are you going to say "Well at least we stopped gay marriage!" Or "At least it was sold off by God-fearing men!" They started "No Child Left Behind" which taken to it only possibile conclusion leads directly to privatising public schools, where only those who can afford to pay will get to attend. How small a leap it is from that to forbiding certain groups from becoming educated at all! How short a leap it is to making it a crime for blacks to even learn how to read, just like in "the good old days". In Georgia they are starting up the old practice of requiring a government provided ID card in order to vote...for a price of course. The state congressman who sponsered the bill (and got it passed) says that next he wants to require prospective voters to fill out a special form, to prove that they understand the issues, before they're "allowed" to vote! ALLOWED TO VOTE!! Do you want any man deciding if you are "allowed" to vote? Is that alright with you? Is stopping one man from marrying another man or stopping abortion worth the rape of our land or the distruction of our social safety nets? Too many people in my family and others have fought and died for far too long for the freedoms you'd so willingly hand over, just because a rich white man waves a prayer book in your face and lies to you that he represents Gods plan here on earth! Well don't forget, you'll know them not by their words, but by their deeds. And if you take a look at the deeds they are doing, you'll see they're conning you into a devils bargin. They're counting on the fact that so many people have become so comfortable with the freedom we have in America, that no one will believe that the things they want to do, the things that have happened time and time again in the past, could even happen here anymore. Well Wake Up! They ARE happening...Right Here...And Right Now. The truely sad part is that most people probably won't wake up to it until it's too late.

posted by commander cody at 01:04 PM on February 14

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.